|
You're forgetting the trains have been nothing but a private Enterprise for well over a hundred years
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
coyo7e posted:Not really, it's been shown in repeated studies that kids that age exhibit a very tenuous grasp between reality and Imagination. A very tenuous grasp of reality would be a considerable step up for Trump's base.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Those cities probably didn't build their economy and freeways that handle hundreds of cars every hour immediately on top of and around that train route. The main route from Virginia to Idaho goes through plenty of major population centers. Turns out westward expansion tended to build out along rail lines first then highways. Vegas just needs to suck it up. I'm sure tankers and boxcars of all sorts of nasty chemicals pass trough there every hour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Also the dichotomy of the nuclear scare is mposible to deal with. On one hand you have groups in the Oliver camp who try to use the public illogical fear of radiation to convince them that this is a danger we need to address now. This is true because we do need to solve the nuclear waste problem now. But the irrational fear causes paralysis and the 70s hosed us over immensely, maybe irrecoverably. If we were decommissioning old plants and constructing modern Gen.IV reactors we'd be in good shape for long term power generation. And if we had followed through on breeder/burner research reactors to build commercial plans we'd be shrinking nuclear waste by a large amount inside them. The other side of the dichotomy is me trying to convince people nuclear energy is no more dangerous than coal, gas, etc. Coal harms more people per capita than nuclear, even if you only take the time slice where accidents were happening. This tends to be bad because you get the response of A) 'then we don't have to worry about the waste' or B) 'if that was true we'd have solved this decades ago'. Instead fear and lobbying crippled the US nuclear construction industry. We are incapable of building a new plant now. Source: I've hugged half a dozen nuclear reactors and teabagged one. Fuel in casks is far less a risk then current medical isotope waste and much much much less a problem then ancient weapons production waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I think the elephant in the room with regards to new American nuclear power plants is that if the *Japanese*, who are notoriously anal retentive about standards and practices can manage to gently caress up nuclear power, how can American construction firms be trusted to construct safe nuclear power plants in the land of the lowest bidder, under an administration that's headed by a guy who wears fake glasses to make himself look smarter? I'd bet that not even our own politicians, on either side of the aisle, aren't willing to bet/trust that every corner possible wouldn't be cut in the construction of Gen 4+ reactor power plants. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Don't trust stereotypes; Fukushima and Japan's nuclear bodies in general were a safety disaster for decades. Japan didn't even have basic standards in place. That said, all the solutions I can think of are doe-eyed dreams that would immediately fall to regulatory capture. Nuclear power done right would be great, but the world is simply too corrupt for it. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Aug 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
I also feel that people to pointing to Fukushima as a sign that nuclear power is inherently dangerous are kind of missing the point that it took a tsunami and earthquake COMBINED to actually cause the problem. People think nuclear waste is scary because it lasts for such a long time, but so does plastic and we're chucking enough of that poo poo out that there's an island of it forming in the Pacific. People also grossly overestimate the reach of radioactive materials because they've been trained by all the worst case scenarios from pop culture (or worse they just assume that anything nuclear = nuclear bomb level explosion). Radiation is only really dangerous if you're either right next to the radioactive material, or it's leeched into the water supply somehow and you're ingesting it over long periods of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Also when he was describing the total amount of nuclear waste in terms of a single football field, was I supposed to think that it was a lot? Like, decades of waste could fit in a 20 foot deep football field sized hole?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:Also when he was describing the total amount of nuclear waste in terms of a single football field, was I supposed to think that it was a lot? Like, decades of waste could fit in a 20 foot deep football field sized hole? Yeah. You get a lot of power from nuclear material. Spent fuel is extremely compact. (Up to) Multiple TWht produced per spent canister worth generated. The issue is more the wet slurry that got made in the early era of weapons production when things like pollution and contamination hadn't entered military lingo. That's he stuff that tends to have been stored in rusting drums and tanks near bodies of water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I also feel that people to pointing to Fukushima as a sign that nuclear power is inherently dangerous are kind of missing the point that it took a tsunami and earthquake COMBINED to actually cause the problem. This is wrong as the earthquake happened offshore far away from the power plant in question and did gently caress all to it _except_ causing a tsunami which then hosed up the power plant by starting a series of interlinked accidents. What thoroughly plowed the place was amongst other things mostly an explosion of pockets of built-up hydrogen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
dogboy posted:This is wrong as the earthquake happened offshore far away from the power plant in question and did gently caress all to it _except_ causing a tsunami which then hosed up the power plant by starting a series of interlinked accidents. Plus, of course, the tsunami killed around 16,000 people. The nuclear meltdown has killed maybe one guy, although I understand that may rise to a dozen or so in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Plus, of course, the tsunami killed around 16,000 people. The nuclear meltdown has killed maybe one guy, although I understand that may rise to a dozen or so in the future. I am from Europe so I have no firsthand experience/information about that incident, but from the info I got (and those are from serious environmental protection groups/government agencies) the amount of (radio)active heavy metals, their isotopes and other substances released during the incident and still beeing released because they stopped having capacities to store the poo poo they pump out of the reactor carcass, is alread so high that they started to give out warnings in the nort-west usa about shellfish and other food sources that tend to accumulate said waste/accident products. But don't worry, they're probably about to have a robot that does not immediately die in a puff of electronic white noise once it goes near one of the most likely still melting down cores. Or maybe not, but I am sure the best and brightest will keep working on the problem of finding out what the gently caress is even going on in there!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
dogboy posted:I am from Europe so I have no firsthand experience/information about that incident, but from the info I got (and those are from serious environmental protection groups/government agencies) the amount of (radio)active heavy metals, their isotopes and other substances released during the incident and still beeing released because they stopped having capacities to store the poo poo they pump out of the reactor carcass, is alread so high that they started to give out warnings in the nort-west usa about shellfish and other food sources that tend to accumulate said waste/accident products. Has anything changed significantly since March last year? Serious question, I don't know what you've read and I haven't seen anything recently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Nuclear power done right would be great, but the world is simply too corrupt for it. This is pretty much where I'm at. This forum was full of "nuclear power has no mathematical risk of failure" people before Fukushima, who failed to note Japan having poor safety standards, as they'll have failed to note the risks behind wherever else a problem next pops up. I also have little faith in official figures of radiation death tolls/cancer incident rates from Fukushima, from a combination of not having faith that officials will give accurate estimates to not having faith that they have the ability to. "But it took an earthquake for this to happen" is not a sufficient safety buffer. I would love to be more chipper about nuclear power--because gently caress coal, for example--but extremely low chance of incident is not very re-assuring when an incident can be catastrophic in ways that can't be accurately measured. For example, from the link above: quote:Every additional source of radioactivity carries some additional health risk, but these risks vary with many factors, including the dose (how much a person is exposed to and for how long) and which isotopes you are exposed to, as well as individual sensitivities—there is a higher concern in children, for example. Fukushima will likely have the most significant long-term health impacts on those who had the highest exposures, so those living closest to the plant or in areas with higher fallout. This is because the further the radioactive material travels, the more dispersed (and the less harmful) it becomes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Has anything changed significantly since March last year? Serious question, I don't know what you've read and I haven't seen anything recently. Some english stuff I googled with a few keywords I knew would give juicy results: a) A robot is finally able to take a peek into one of the three problemtic reactor carcasses - keep in mind the incident happend around 6 years ago https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/06/15/national/toshiba-unveils-submersible-video-robot-probe-reactor-3-fukushima-no-1-plant/ http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/24/asia/fukushima-robot-nuclear-fuel-detected/index.html http://www.fukushimawatch.com/2017-...rs-or-more.html While the threat of a nuclear chain reaction is certainly legitimate, Tokyo Electric is still working tirelessly to reach the cores of the nuclear reactors. The problem they are having, however, is getting past a lethal wave of radiation that has the ability to kill a human in less than one minute. In order to get around this, Tokyo Electric pumps 400 tons of water nonstop each day through the reactors in order to cool melted fuel that is too radioactive to move. The water passes through into storage tanks, which Tokyo Electric has to continuously build as the amount of stored water accumulates. Currently, a total of 1,000 tanks hold a total of 920,000 tons of contaminated water. A new problem may soon be appearing over the horizon, however, as the workers are quickly running out of room to build new storage tanks. b) Groundwater, the "ice wall" & friends (this is where the really nasty stuff gets into the pacific ocean) 2016: Something is fucky http://www.fukushimawatch.com/2016-01-13-groundwater-radiation-levels-at-fukushima-power-plant-increase-despite-clean-up-efforts.html 2017: Welp, plan A didn't work guys https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/20/national/first-tepco-admits-ice-wall-cant-stop-fukushima-no-1-groundwater/ 2017: Ok guys tanks are full, lets just dump this poo poo or whatever http://www.fukushimawatch.com/2017-05-08-japan-to-drop-tanks-full-of-fukushima-nuclear-waste-directly-into-the-ocean.html and so on I mean the Japanese government is now basically in "no news means no problems" mode as the whole site is an unsolved literally smoking ruin with most likely some active fission reactions. c) More info This is a good read from 1997 on why radionuclides are bad: https://www.amazon.com/Health-Impacts-Large-Releases-Radionuclides/dp/0471965103 Accumulation and foodchain are the 2 keywords that sum up the long term problems with active radionuclides. Also keep in mind that "half-life of 30 years" does not mean "its harmless after 30 years".
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
 Ahahahaha no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Maybe radiation and the pandemic scourge that is gluten will cancel each other out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:
From a quick look at that site it seems to have a heavy anti-nuclear bias leaning towards conspiracy-theory and cover-up territory. Not sure if it's the best source.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:From a quick look at that site it seems to have a heavy anti-nuclear bias leaning towards conspiracy-theory and cover-up territory. Not sure if it's the best source. It certainly isn't but it was (amongst the other sources) what came out of a low effort search for english language material on the ongoing challenges the Japanese face at Fukushima. The articles from that specific site linked in my post line up with other information sources and articles I read, so I am fine with them. Of course you can and should research and look into information and sources you trust to see if the narratives line up or not by yourself! This should be done with any important topics in media anyways. (I tried to pad those links with a few more reputable sources, too, but I am not fooled into thinking most questions and interest itt were serious anyways, so excuse my lack of  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
May I remind people that coal has released more radiation than every nuclear bomb or incident combined. I am so sick about people crying about atomz because of the absurd lack of perspective. If people would stop making GBS threads themselves a lot of problems couple be solved. If people cared as much about UV radiation skin cancer deaths would fall off a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
The level of contamination in the Fukushima water is insignificant. By the rules of radiological controls any fluid that touches radioactive material or is uncontrolled (flowing/stagger whatever, just outside an approved container) in a radioactive area is now considered contaminated water. Then it has to be handled as radioactive even if it isn't. So it's labeled as radioactive and shipped to an approved processing site. There most of the low level stuff is passed through some water filtration and reverse osmosis, surveyed, and released, and the filtration media is now considered your radioactive material (even if it isn't much more radioactive than a smoke detector. Much like all the disposable yellow and white contamination suits they wear there all harmless, but bagged up, put in a trash compactor, and buried as "radioactive waste" There are people who deliberately (or ignorantly) state scary figures without qualifying evidence. And even with qualifying evidence most people just go nuclear=scary and won't even accept harmless reality. I don't actually have any Fukushima data on hand so I can't back this up from work right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:May I remind people that coal has released more radiation than every nuclear bomb or incident combined. Yeah a lot of anti-nuclear sentiment seems to be fueled by ignorance of just how bad coal and oil are for the environment, both in terms of emissions and the amount of toxic byproducts created/released just by extracting them. To put things in perspective: a nuclear accident creates a localized mess that is difficult to clean up. Fossil fuels, when working correctly, are causing global warming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
IRQ posted:A very tenuous grasp of reality would be a considerable step up for Trump's base.  you got the analogy
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
It should be noted that although Japan has plenty of experts in robotics and technology and so on, their view of anything nuclear based can be defined as an awkwardly glancing away, sucking air through closed mouth, and then asking "why would anybody want to do that?" They made the situation worse than it was by basically trusting the (apparently very corrupt) local utility and treating it like an internal problem instead of considering it an international crisis and asking for foreign help immediately. Even though there's no easy solutions, the first few days and weeks are critical to keeping it from becoming an even bigger calamity, and they went "no don't worry world we got this" and then realized they didn't. There are lots of countries that do nuclear power well. France has invested more into it than nearly anybody, obviously they don't have as many plants as we do but they are much more modern plants that produce far less waste and how often do you hear about them having problems?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Nuclear power fears are insanely unjustified and NIMBY sentiments are indefensible. This is just an essential truth. I would rather have nuclear power plants over bird eating and hideous wind farms. Next gen nuclear for large grids and solar for more remote areas should be the way forward. Coal and natural gas need to go the gently caress away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:Nuclear power fears are insanely unjustified and NIMBY sentiments are indefensible. This is just an essential truth. I would rather have nuclear power plants over bird eating and hideous wind farms. Next gen nuclear for large grids and solar for more remote areas should be the way forward. Coal and natural gas need to go the gently caress away. Coal *is* going away, but so long as
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:It should be noted that although Japan has plenty of experts in robotics and technology and so on, their view of anything nuclear based can be defined as an awkwardly glancing away, sucking air through closed mouth, and then asking "why would anybody want to do that?" Yeah mismanagement is really the biggest risk when it comes to nuclear power - Chernobyl happened because they were ignoring basically every safety precaution while also using outdated equipment. Compare to Three-Mile Island, where the evacuation worked exactly as planned, and everybody was fine. They're still using the other reactor there! And that was a meltdown which is basically the worst-case scenario, accident-wise. I mean I guess that logic could be applied to pretty much every human endeavor, but the lesson should be that cutting corners is bad, not that nuclear power is bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
dogboy posted:I am from Europe so I have no firsthand experience/information about that incident, but from the info I got (and those are from serious environmental protection groups/government agencies) the amount of (radio)active heavy metals, their isotopes and other substances released during the incident and still beeing released because they stopped having capacities to store the poo poo they pump out of the reactor carcass, is alread so high that they started to give out warnings in the nort-west usa about shellfish and other food sources that tend to accumulate said waste/accident products. I live in the Pacific Northwest and have not heard any such warnings about radioisotope accumulation in seafood. Hell, the local turbo-hippie public radio station started doing daily "rad-casts" after Fukushima where they'd report radiation counter readings from around the region, and even they got bored and stopped doing it a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I live in the Pacific Northwest and have not heard any such warnings about radioisotope accumulation in seafood. I saw one in a survival TV show, where a participant gave an offhand comment that they were told not to eat shellfish on vancouver island during preparation. The FDA said 2012 that they found some Caesium that shouldn't be there but levels are low enough so that its still safe to eat seafood - since then I haven't seen any new releases though and that might hint at problems on the horizon - or not. IIRC I also saw a newspaper article from Seattle advising not to eat too much local fish, but I can't find it anymore. Also accumulation in food chains takes time and shouldn't be disregarded easily. We still have regions in Europe where you can still find high levels of heavy metal radionuclides and because of that it is recommended not to eat mushrooms and wild animals due to Chernobyl from 29 years ago, also some areas where the rain downed a large portion of the fallout cloud may not even export said foods. As for incidents at nuclear power plants: its safe to say that all nuclear power plants have several incidents every year, but their severity usually falls under a certain threshold where it does not make the news. Regulations vary a bit from country to country but most of the time some digging brings up the whole picture and organistaions like Greenpeace et al do a good job at this. There are publicly available and very clear scientific studies that cancer and radionuclide related illnesses have a higher percentage around nuclear power plants and that is for a lack of better explanations attributed to those smaller incidents which usually are pressure problems and venting of those. A good exercise is finding out how often the nuclear power plants around your place have INES level 2 or higher incidents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale The Japanese I know and talk to at least have a very good and clear understanding of how much a major nuclear incident be it plant or "just" waste could and would gently caress up their country. They, like Germans, live in a small-ish country with densly populated areas and IMHO simply that already makes you re-evaluate the dangers of nuclear waste and such - as opposed to American citizens who are used to throwing their trash whereever and solve problems by simply making a wide berth around it. And until the John Oliver show from this week I actually was under the impression that this was even an okay-ish state of mind because if you got huge deserts with some mountains and without eartquakes getting rid of nuclear waste should actually be no problem at all. When I watched the show I could only think "wow how dumb, that waste handling will bite them in the rear end somewhere in the future" but on the other hand this is not my battle to fight so I'll watch that shitshow from afar. As for the french nuclear power plants: don't get me started on these. With cracks in their reactors, plants lacking cooling hot summers and places like La Hague this would take a lifetime to sum up and write down all incidents and complaints. But all that aside I am happy and content that I live in a place (Germany) where we have already settled the question if nuclear waste is bad and dangerous and have acted accordingly. I fought in THAT battle and we won that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
And some extra wall of text about the Fukushima situation: There is no real info about what is actually going on as the three hot reactor blocks are still black boxes mostly. Last month in July they finally were able to get a few pictures with the Toshiba robot but anything they sent in there went dead. - Plant goes boom, plan is to freeze the ground around it to cut it off from surrounding ground water and the pacific ocean. - And as opposed to some poster above they flew in ALL the experts and took all the advice. Of course they weren't that forthcoming in the media but I'd consider that their governments typical style. - Somethings still active inside so further plans are made and it is decided to cool it until it becomes handleable, the cooling water is collected. (Also re: to the poster above who claimed this water is not really much contaminated and safe blabla: you can assume that this water ran through a life fission reaction and is full of very bad and deadly poo poo you never want to get in contact with, ever. No need going home and checking your data there.) - Once the worst is over, put a concrete arcopharg around it, Chernobyl style, and be done with it. [Fast forward 6 years] - 2017: No more space for water containers, nothing has cooled down a bit and still noone really knows what the situation is in all 3 reactor cores. - There are now a few pics from the fringes of one of the cores and _from what I got_ they assume an ongoing live fission.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah mismanagement is really the biggest risk when it comes to nuclear power - Chernobyl happened because they were ignoring basically every safety precaution while also using outdated equipment. Compare to Three-Mile Island, where the evacuation worked exactly as planned, and everybody was fine. They're still using the other reactor there! And that was a meltdown which is basically the worst-case scenario, accident-wise. And of course Fukushima was screwed up in so many ways on management and safety. Even after the crisis began they weren't reacting with enough concern - meltdown would've been prevented if the company had gone to seawater cooling earlier, but they didn't want to do it and ruin the reactors because $$$ and it didn't happen until the government eventually intervened to order it a day later. My favourite irony is: four days before the tsunami, TEPCO released a report saying that there was a chance that a tsunami could reach 10 metres high and jeopardise the plant because their walls were only designed for 5 metres. The report had been sitting there for 3 years but they didn't think it was something they needed to bother with so they kept it to themselves. dogboy posted:- And as opposed to some poster above they flew in ALL the experts and took all the advice. Of course they weren't that forthcoming in the media but I'd consider that their governments typical style. Also eventually. They initially classified and responded to it as level 4 (local) nuclear incident despite all international atomic agencies and experts saying it was higher. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 11:31 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
dogboy posted:But all that aside I am happy and content that I live in a place (Germany) where we have already settled the question if nuclear waste is bad and dangerous and have acted accordingly. I fought in THAT battle and we won that one. You sure did, burning all that coal and natural gas instead. Thanks for selling us fake environmentally friendly diesel cars by the way and obstructing any efforts to replace them! Sincerely, the rest of Europe. EDIT: Also maybe, just maybe, don't get your food safety advice from reality television. Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:You sure did, burning all that coal and natural gas instead.  I showed you mine, now show me yours! MiddleOne posted:Thanks for selling us fake environmentally friendly diesel cars by the way and obstructing any efforts to replace them! Sincerely, the rest of Europe. I am not VW and VW does not build power plants or uses nuclear fuel. So what exactly is your point? MiddleOne posted:EDIT: Also maybe, just maybe, don't get your food safety advice from reality television. Jesus christ. Maybe turn on your monitor? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
I don't speak German so I don't know what half of these are, but some of them I can guess and the word "windkraft" for wind power is just adorable to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
it seems to me to be: Hydro Garbage burning compost-but-burning? Wind Solar Natural Gas Nuclear Whatever stone/rock coal is (e: Which makes this regular coal/Coal Classic?) whatever brown coal is (e: basically peat, but earth-processed. AKA Lignite) Oil byproducts (oil, diesel, gas, etc I assume) misc Watermelon Daiquiri fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I don't speak German so I don't know what half of these are, but some of them I can guess and the word "windkraft" for wind power is just adorable to me. From top to bottom: Water power (tidal, artifical lakes) Trash from households Bio mass (cow and pig poo poo basically, those have become quite popular as it is a great business model) Wind Solar power Gas Nuclear energy Stone coal Brown coal Oil (all sorts of) Others Also a part that isn't mentioned here is steel mills spezialised in producing when renewable energies (wind, solar) peak and the price of energy becomes negative for them. Which I consider a pretty awesome thing. dogboy fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:37
|
|
Actually yeah, they need to just burn off those giant loving lakes of pig poo poo they have here that are a big issue. pipe that poo poo in, literally 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Fossil fuel usage would be alot lower if you didn't spaz out and decommissioned the plants so early. It's textbook cutting off the nose to spite the face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Fossil fuel usage would be alot lower if you didn't spaz out and decommissioned the plants so early. It's textbook cutting off the nose to spite the face. Like how could anyone look at those charts and conclude "closing down nuclear was a prudent thing to do". It's extremely clear that the gains in renewable that could have gone towards actually decreasing usage of fossil fuels is instead replacing nuclear power. Not to mention how those are percentages instead of KWH which means it completely ignores that the base energy demand of Germany has been going up since the 1990's. Not to mention natural gas going up as share simultaneously as nuclear decreases, I wonder how that could be?? I swear, Germans. 
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:15 |
|
|
We should start calling it windkraft here and it'll jus take off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:42
|
|