|
Kurtofan posted:who won Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Oct 20, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
i can't believe i ever voted greens
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:i can't believe i ever voted greens That's also a common European theme.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's also a common European theme. Except in the Schwabenland where everyone continues voting green, and in Bavaria where nobody has ever voted green.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Man, if Eva Joly got 2% at the last election, what score will Eva Joly's loving press secretary get?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Man, if Eva Joly got 2% at the last election, what score will Eva Joly's loving press secretary get?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Huh, thanks to you I know who I'll be writing in during the second round. Leonarda Dibrani, president-in-exile in Kosovo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Yes, and no. Coal is still a big part regrettably, but renewables are making a very noticeable dent. It would be awesome if you didn't have 17 GW of lignite as baseload tough... Yes, but thats the problem, its still only about a quarter of Germany's overall energy needs. And chances are, it'll never supply more than a third. Germany needs to ditch coal. And fast. And abandoning their nuclear was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Green parties are generally counter-productive fuckwits who engage in fearmongering and sabotage. That kind of thinking pushed germany over the edge to ban Nukes. They're trying the same in Sweden, even though we know and can see the results of such policies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Don't think Germany needed much pushing to go anti-nuclear. They had their Russian connection for that. Have we already forgot what best buds Germany and Russia were before this Ukrainian poo poo happened?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Green parties are generally counter-productive fuckwits who engage in fearmongering and sabotage. What pushed Germany over the edge was not the green boogeyman, but the Fukushima accident and the incompetent fuckwits trying to deal with the situation. Germany has already been extremely sceptical of nuclear energy since '86, when Chernobyl traumatized the population and was closely followed by a scandal where the management of a research pebble-bed reactor conspired to hide a(relatively harmless) accident and tried to blame an increase in radioactivity on Chernobyl. Fukushima was the last straw. If you want someone to blame, blame the shady fuckwits in the Soviet Politburo and in the German and Japanese energy companies. CommieGIR posted:Yes, but thats the problem, its still only about a quarter of Germany's overall energy needs. And chances are, it'll never supply more than a third. Germany already reached 32% back in 2015
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
I'd vote Melenchon if it weren't his unexplainable love of Russia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Germany already reached 32% back in 2015 Seriously though, wasn't that only electricity needs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
The big problem is that the solar expansion in Germany (seriously for anyone that hasn't lived on the German countryside, it's everywhere) has already pushed the upper limit of what the grid can handle. If the EU's energy market wasn't as integrated as it is then I honestly don't know how it would function in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Germany already reached 32% back in 2015 Cool, so it peaked. And remember: There is no storage in large quantities, so all of that is falling within the 6 hour peak window for solar, and the smaller window for wind. And when storage is considered, its incredibly lossy, and then you are halving total load to charge storage. And nuclear still has one of the best safety records, regardless of the scandals and Fukushima and Chernobyl. So that sort of criticism doesn't hold water. Yes, private energy companies are scummy, but yet coal harvesting and burning is still a significant portion of Germanys energy market, so apparently someone is conjuring up a bogeyman. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Freezer posted:Yes, and no. Coal is still a big part regrettably, but renewables are making a very noticeable dent. Yeah, a "noticeable" dent of 11% of consumption. German energy politics is a goddamn ecological disaster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Pinch Me Im Meming posted:I'd vote Melenchon if it weren't his unexplainable love of Russia. he used to be a big Venezuela fan too lol The French Jill Stein
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
I just kinda die inside when a contemporary politician goes america=bad and america hates russia meaning russia=good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:What pushed Germany over the edge was not the green boogeyman, but the Fukushima accident and the incompetent fuckwits trying to deal with the situation. Germany has already been extremely sceptical of nuclear energy since '86, when Chernobyl traumatized the population and was closely followed by a scandal where the management of a research pebble-bed reactor conspired to hide a(relatively harmless) accident and tried to blame an increase in radioactivity on Chernobyl. Fukushima was the last straw. Fukushima was a non-issue, considering they were hit by a stupid huge tsunami. Germany is not even close to the geographical situation Japan is in, and the your politicians fell for the propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Fukushima was an old rear end design that was to be decommissioned in a few years. Furthermore, the accident happened because the Japanese did not tsunami proof their emergency generators for the plant, something that was technically not difficult, despite having been told they were at risk multiple times by STUK. Germany moving to coal from nuclear was an ecological catastrophe far worse than Fukushima. Well done goddamn krauts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Fukushima was what, 10 years beyond it's absolute maximum lifetime? Yeah no, they were loving asking for it. Turns out that you can indeed make reactors blow up if you flagrantly ignore all reason and safety and bribe the inspectors. Whod've thunk
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
in the us we're still running a bunch of that old rear end reactor with a bunch more spent fuel stored in the same vulnerable-rear end way
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Are those in risk of being hit by a tsunami? If not don't worry too much about it. Although, ideally old designs past their planned lifetime should be decommissioned and replaced with new designs.
doverhog fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Fukushima was a non-issue, considering they were hit by a stupid huge tsunami. Germany is not even close to the geographical situation Japan is in, and the your politicians fell for the propaganda. And this is why I'm consistently annoyed with French anti-nuclear activists. No, a plant in Alsace is not going to suffer the same accident as Fukushima simply by virtue of being hundreds of kilometers inland. Edit: Okay, to be fair, concerns about smaller incidents like the release of radioactive poo poo in the environment and so on are valid. Running nuclear power plants with the expectation to make money is stupid as poo poo. Kassad fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:in the us we're still running a bunch of that old rear end reactor with a bunch more spent fuel stored in the same vulnerable-rear end way Man, if only there was a solution that was already actively used by the French to much success...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
well there's earthquakes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
And you'll have no one to blame but your own stupidity when they go into meltdown. I mean, politicians are gonig to blame the technology to shirk their responsibilities of course. It's a bit like leaving a hydro dam to burst and then saying the technology is inherently dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Fukushima's lesson isn't that safety standards must be followed. We already loving knew that. Fukushima's lesson is that standards will inevitably not be followed, given enough time. The real takeaway is not "they hosed up and they shouldn't have", it's just, simply, "they hosed up". I'm not saying this in defence of fossil fuel. There is no true answer to the energy question other than "keep improving renewables, which will take decades if not centuries to replace all energy needs". But pro-nuclear people seem to consistently ignore that, nuclear power plants have the potential for far greater ecological impact when the people running them do a bad job. Again, I'm not saying that this means fossil fuel is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Kassad posted:And this is why I'm consistently annoyed with French anti-nuclear activists. No, a plant in Alsace is not going to suffer the same accident as Fukushima simply by virtue of being hundreds of kilometers inland. Considering the french current success with building nuclear plants, their anti-nuclear activists are probably saving Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'm not saying this in defence of fossil fuel. There is no true answer to the energy question other than "keep improving renewables, which will take decades if not centuries to replace all energy needs". But pro-nuclear people seem to consistently ignore that, nuclear power plants have the potential for far greater ecological impact when the people running them do a bad job. Again, I'm not saying that this means fossil fuel is good. And yet nuclear still has a pretty good record. And the ecological impact of coal and fracking is FAR FAR more destructive at this point in time, so not, its no a very fair comparison ecologically. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Renewables are going to save us from climate change about 30 years after it goes beyond all mitigation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'm not saying this in defence of fossil fuel. There is no true answer to the energy question other than "keep improving renewables, which will take decades if not centuries to replace all energy needs". But pro-nuclear people seem to consistently ignore that, nuclear power plants have the potential for far greater ecological impact when the people running them do a bad job. Again, I'm not saying that this means fossil fuel is good. Coal plants are literally slowly killing the population of Germany, most non-renewable energy options have health consequences. Out of the options given, nuclear is the only alternative which squarely has political issues, all the others have practical issues on top of the political issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Fukushima's lesson isn't that safety standards must be followed. We already loving knew that. Fukushima's lesson is that standards will inevitably not be followed, given enough time. The real takeaway is not "they hosed up and they shouldn't have", it's just, simply, "they hosed up". I find that people who are pro-nuclear power are too focused on theory and what could be done - but it's not the theory I'm worried about, it's the practical application.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Yeah, and renewables people never harp on about the 'potential' of renewables if only we just invested and buitl uit. And in the meantime those good ol' coal plants from the soviet era keep chugging away in east germany. Super solution
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Coal plants are literally slowly killing the population of Germany, most non-renewable energy options have health consequences. Out of the options given, nuclear is the only alternative which squarely has political issues, all the others have practical issues on top of the political issues. A net plus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'm not saying this in defence of fossil fuel. There is no true answer to the energy question other than "keep improving renewables, which will take decades if not centuries to replace all energy needs". But pro-nuclear people seem to consistently ignore that, nuclear power plants have the potential for far greater ecological impact when the people running them do a bad job. Again, I'm not saying that this means fossil fuel is good. Global warming will have 10000X times greater impact than all the nuclear accidents so far. Even if we had a Fukushima every year nuclear would still be better than coal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:Yeah, and renewables people never harp on about the 'potential' of renewables if only we just invested and buitl uit. And in the meantime those good ol' coal plants from the soviet era keep chugging away in east germany. Super solution
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Yeah, people here in Europe try to pretend like if there wasn't an anti-nuclear sentiment, every nuclear plant would be brand new and totally safe - but even if everyone was all for it, we'd still have a bunch of old, semi-disintegrating plants and not a lot of incentives to build new ones. Nuclear plants are expensive and a huge hassle to build. Energy companies tend to follow the path of least resistance and as long as they can keep the old plants running, they will. Here in Belgium, we're supposed to move away from nuclear energy and there was a plan at some point for a nuclear exit. But as it is right now, the plants are all still open, ignoring both the exit and the recommended lifespan of these old-rear end reactors. The reason for this is that green energy can't replace nuclear due to lack of investment... but if both the private companies and the government aren't willing to invest in green energy, why would we assume they'd invest in nuclear if given the chance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Well, obviously if you assume government is completely useless, then there's not much to be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:Yeah, people here in Europe try to pretend like if there wasn't an anti-nuclear sentiment, every nuclear plant would be brand new and totally safe - but even if everyone was all for it, we'd still have a bunch of old, semi-disintegrating plants and not a lot of incentives to build new ones. Nuclear plants are expensive and a huge hassle to build. Energy companies tend to follow the path of least resistance and as long as they can keep the old plants running, they will. Here in Belgium, we're supposed to move away from nuclear energy and there was a plan at some point for a nuclear exit. But as it is right now, the plants are all still open, ignoring both the exit and the recommended lifespan of these old-rear end reactors. The reason for this is that green energy can't replace nuclear due to lack of investment... but if both the private companies and the government aren't willing to invest in green energy, why would we assume they'd invest in nuclear if given the chance? Even if the increased the investment to green energy by 1000x the current amount, it doesn't change the fact that using renewables for most of our energy needs is impossible with the technology we have. I guess we could just shove money into science and hope for a breakthrough that magically changes everything but that's not exactly realistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:55
|
|
