Slashdot Mirror
Siemens To Exit Nuclear Power Business
jones_supa wrote in with a link about the future of nuclear power in Germany. The story reads: "German industrial giant Siemens is turning the page on nuclear energy, the group's CEO Peter Löscher told the weekly Der Spiegel in an interview published on Sunday. The group's decision to withdraw from the nuclear industry reflects 'the very clear stance taken by Germany's society and political leadership.' Along with abandoning nuclear power, Germany wants to boost the share of the country's power needs generated by renewable energies to 35% by 2020 from 17% at present."
Thats OK, The Germans can rely on their good friends in Russia for a cheap reliable supply of natural gas to fire their power stations for the next century or so while they work on alternatives. What could go wrong?
If they were making money hand over fist, they would not be exiting nuclear power. Because they decided to exit nuclear power, they take the opportunity to make it look like they're concerned about society.
This is not much different than companies saying "we're going green" and getting rid of postal-mail bills. They're "going green" because it saves them money. If it it was more expensive to send email than paper, you can be certain they would still be sending paper.
Advice: on VPS providers
Such posts will get 5 Insightful just because they support the nuclear industry. It has been a peculiar experience to see just how slanted the community is, especially since I was directly impacted by the Fukushima accident.
Unfortunate, though. Slashdot is usually a great place to find opinions from those with first hand experience. However, when it comes to nuclear power, it might as well be a site for the nuclear lobby. Those with first hand experience are either too intimidated to post or accused of being liars when they do.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
I didnt realize these plants generated power through human sacrifce. How does that work? I suppose that if you carve out someones heart and then Quetzaqual grants you a few gigajoules.
Problem is that it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the panel takes in over its lifetime.
BULLSHIT
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/794/
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Siemens always left me with a bad taste in my mouth
Riiight. You DO realize that everything he said is actually true, yes? That at our current rate of growth the ONLY choices are nuke, coal, and oil, yes? Because the only other choice is to lock ourselves into a level being used currently and refuse to add capacity. Then we can enjoy rolling black outs, perhaps weeks at a time with no power at all as the strain blows out parts of the grid, or maybe you'd prefer tossing our PCs and ACs and going back to ice boxes and a big fan to cool the whole house?
Like it or not folks renewables simply don't scale up to the levels we are talking about, not without MASSIVE losses of land which with a growing population isn't really doable. Think the government is in your business now? How about if your wife has to piss in a cup monthly to make sure she is taking her pill as we put a Chinese style one child per couple rule in place?
Solar? Uses massive amounts of land and the best ones, which cost a ton of money BTW, are looking at more fossil fuels to make them than you get back out in energy and are tops 20% efficient. Wind? doesn't blow all the time and certainly won't ramp up between 3PM-7PM when everyone gets home and turns their devices on. Geothermal? earthquakes. Wave tech? See wind.
Its not like we have a choice here folks, and if the NIMBYs would quit acting like asses, which BTW I propose any NIMBY that blocks power creation? should be forced to be self sustaining. No power plant? Then no power FOR YOU. I bet that would make them STFU real quick. On the flip side i propose the owner of the plant has to live within 4 miles of the plant WITH his/her family, give them a reason not to skimp on safety huh? But with the new designs nuke can be a hell of a lot safer, cleaner than coal and oil, and can ramp up with need. Hell with the thorium design we could even get rid of transfer losses by building a mini reactor in each city above a certain size instead of running juice halfway across the countryside!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'll add my voice to the chorus of people supporting nuclear power as the only currently viable solution to meet the growing energy needs of the future. It's just madness at this stage to suggest that any other technology can be:
A) As environmentally friendly. B) As cheap. C) As reliable. D) As adaptable (goes anywhere in the world).
Nuclear power is ridiculously reliable, cheap, and environmentally friendly... in principle.
In practice, nuclear power plants are built by large groups of humans who are laboring in the presence of perverse incentives. Therefore, a nuclear power plant built by humans will cost about as much as the nearest competitor (natural gas), will be reliable for the time period that the relevant VPs expect to remain at their current post, and will be environmentally friendly in the sense that uranium mining, refining, and disposal are all hand-waved away.
Don't get me wrong, I am a pro-nuke zealot, and I want nuke plants built no matter what the risk. I am just pointing out that when it comes to this subject, you have forgotten your usual justified level of cynicism about humans.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE