What I can't understand is how, at this late date, after it's perpetual failures, there are still people who do not understand the true nature of socialism and the state, like Ryan.
It's because you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the propaganda of the Free Market Utopia [tm] a.k.a. the United States of America.
LOL. Of all detractions, this is the most laughable. FYI, the system is currently in use in Austria and producing energy as we speak. Preliminary studies show that it's not a hazard for fishes (to preempt another unfounded criticism).
There are plenty (and really plenty) of alternatives. It's just that they are either not a replacement (solar, wind) or not mature enough or not applicable on a global scale (geothermal energy).
From my perspective, the problem is that the status quo (big coal and nuclear plants) is immensely profitable for some entrenched industries who will fight tooth and nail any change in energy policy. Green alternatives are mature and viable RIGHT NOW. All that's needed is political will and investments.
Organic farming can feed the population of the world and more with no land increase. It turns out that undeveloped countries benefit stronger from organic farming methods than developed countries. Source: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm
Given the hyperbole in your second paragraph and your disdain for "politics" (read: the very real concerns of a lot of people) I find your arguments not very convincing.
More people have died and had more chronic health issues due to fossil fuel plants than any nuclear plant event we've had, but no one is calling for those to be shut down or for governments to refuse permits for them.
Actually, we do, and sometimes successfully. Citizens in Berlin have successfully lobbied Vattenfall against building another coal plant. Unfortunately, they failed in Hamburg.
And let's not forget, most nuclear plants have no exposure to tsunamis at all, and much less exposure to earthquakes, let alone Ring of Fire-style 8.5+ quakes.
Yes, we hear that argument often here in Germany. But many of our power plants are built near rivers (for emergency cooling) which are susceptible to flooding.
What you're saying is true, but I don't think it makes the situation around Chernobyl any better. For once, we have actual wildlife reserves and natural parks where we leave nature (mostly) alone. They have the benefit that we can enjoy the scenery.
I also assume that not all animals reacted favorably to the radiation around Chernobyl. After all, humans can't be the only species that dies of radiation sickness.
The argument boils down to the fact that more people got killed (and more stuff destroyed) by the tsunami than the nuclear accident.
The GP overlooks that the nuclear accident has made the response to the tsunami crisis so much harder. (E.g. people panic-buying bottled water in Tokyo because of radiation fears when these resources could have gone to tsunami-affected areas.) It also ignores, that while the tsunami is an act of nature/God, the nuclear accident is completely man-made and avoidable. Finally, it brushes aside the fact that the Fukushima exclusion zone is likely to be uninhabitable for quite some time. The tsunami, for all the damage it caused, did not achieve that.
The replacement for coal and oil are wind, solar, geothermal and hydro, but not nuclear.
The Fukushima exclusion zone has just been extended. I wonder what nuclear apologists will say when the nuke in their neighborhood fails to cool its fuel and starts to melt down. (Most likely b/c the utility skipped on maintenance and safety procedures [see Tepco] and/or extended the lifetime past its design.)
PS: Also, hydro can be made environmentally friendly.
The underlying data is completely skewed. For instance, it counts deaths during steel and concrete manufacturing against wind power and rooftop accidents against solar. But Chernobyl only caused 50 deaths or so.
I can only conclude that steel and concrete are not used in nuclear power plants. And who needs roofs? I like having a clear view of the sky in my living room.
And then there's the "statistic" that wind only generates 1% of world wide energy demand. I doubt that figure very strongly, but I'm too lazy to research. Anyway, the low percentage is not because of low potential, but because the status quo is fossil fuels and nuclear. But Germany has pushed renewables since the 90s and now they produce 17% of our energy demand. Compare that to nuclear at about a quarter. But we don't need that nuclear energy, because Germany produces 35% more electricity than it consumes (see my previous comments for a source).
The problem is that you can't post and mod. That alone encourages downmodding, because you can't upmod a post in one thread and then reply with your criticism in another. Stupid.
Oh, I forgot: Overrated and Underrated. Their meaning is completely ambiguous and Underrated is basically a stand-in for "I don't like what you said."
The only category I really care about is "funny", because those I subtract 6 from.
That's interesting, because I mainly read the Slashdot discussions for comic relief. To each his own, I guess.
Look at sites like Reddit, where anybody can thumbs up or down on any comment. It's completely groupthink, and you don't get well stated, insightful, differing opinions both being modded up. There's also the problem of sockpuppet accounts and rigging to the voting.
I don't know about Reddit, but I find the top comments on Youtube are usually worth it. They also use thumbs up/down. And I don't care about sockpuppets or vote-rigging in that context.
They could have... copied the rating system of Slashdot.
Are you serious? Slashdot has the worst rating system ever devised on the internet. The "word" choices are extremely limited. Good mod options outweigh the bad mod options. You can only rate when Slashcode allows you to. You cannot rate and comment in the same article. You cannot rate a comment if it's already maxed out.
Did I miss anything?
Anyway, if you strip away the stupid descriptions, the upmods are reduced to a simple "+1".
Germany has been getting rid of nuclear power for some time now, but guess what? They don't have anything to replace it, and so they buy it instead from France - which generates it using *drumroll* nuclear power plants. Talk about NIMBY.
Germany is an electricity exporter. We generate 35% more power than we consume.
The German state can still apply his laws if web sites outside its jurisdiction e.g. engage in mail-order services of propaganda to German citizens. Other than that, Germany realizes the limited global reach of these laws.
Germany on the whole produces 17% of its electricity from renewables. That is up from 0% in 1986. The trailblazer in Germany is Schleswig-Holstein which produces 92%. Contrast that with 5% in Baden-Württemberg, a state with 4 nuclear power plants. These are currently offline, yet the lights are still on in that state. (Which is not surprising, because Germany is a electricity exporter.)
My whole point is that as long as we don't push for alternatives, there won't be any. Countries that have embraced renewable energy are further along that countries that haven't. One would think that this is obvious.
If you live close to Fukushima you should have left by now.
I suggest a more appropriate emotion than panic might be anger, hopefully resulting in a determination to never let such a kind of catastrophe happen again.
You're failing to take into a account the pollution caused by your "solution."
Other than that, I like the idea of blasting stuff into the sun. Although I think it's extremely boring in real life compared to our imagination. Something like: "Fire!"... 10 years later... *plop*.
If the world had learned their lesson after Chernobyl, then we would be much further on the way to renewable energies then we are today. But that accident was blamed on "communism." Sadly, you sound like someone who still hasn't learned his lesson, even after Fukushima. I suppose you blame a "lack of maintenance." I don't know what it will take for you to come around, but I'd bet that when a nuclear power plant ruins your backyard for generations to come, you'll think differently.
Fortunately, it seems that the Germans have finally learned their lesson (the Greens just won their first state governorship ever -- in a largely conservative part of the country) and I expect that after all is said and done in Fukushima, the Japanese will rethink nuclear energy as well.
What if France or Germany wants a censorship application to block Nazi stuff? Is that so different from Iran wanting to block other content for political reasons?
Speaking for Germany, there is at least one difference: The vast majority of Germans agrees with the policy of censoring some Nazi symbols in a very limited context. Given their history, I assume that the French think similarly. Whether this view makes the policy legitimate is up to you to decide.
As for censoring Nazi symbols online I believe most Germans would favor a policy similar to child pornography: take it down completely and root out the networks behind it, don't just prevent access to it.
It is true that Germany has comparatively good laws and a rather strong social conscience regarding data protection. I also believe that abuses are less frequent than in other states. But that's no reason to trust the operators. For example, Deutsche Telekom (who collected the data in the original article) has publicly admitted to spying on their own employees and journalists.
Incidentally, I'd love to have this kind of data about me, just out of interest. The visualization is pretty cool. But my old cell phone has no GPS. There is no reason that the cell operator should store that kind of location information for any amount of time. If the police want to track somebody they can get a court order and then the operator can flip a switch. But it shouldn't happen as a default for everybody (the status quo).
Slashdot Mirror
What I can't understand is how, at this late date, after it's perpetual failures, there are still people who do not understand the true nature of socialism and the state, like Ryan.
It's because you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the propaganda of the Free Market Utopia [tm] a.k.a. the United States of America.
Let's build more nukes!
Which probably means it's not quite mature yet.
LOL. Of all detractions, this is the most laughable. FYI, the system is currently in use in Austria and producing energy as we speak. Preliminary studies show that it's not a hazard for fishes (to preempt another unfounded criticism).
There are plenty (and really plenty) of alternatives. It's just that they are either not a replacement (solar, wind) or not mature enough or not applicable on a global scale (geothermal energy).
From my perspective, the problem is that the status quo (big coal and nuclear plants) is immensely profitable for some entrenched industries who will fight tooth and nail any change in energy policy. Green alternatives are mature and viable RIGHT NOW. All that's needed is political will and investments.
Organic farming can feed the population of the world and more with no land increase. It turns out that undeveloped countries benefit stronger from organic farming methods than developed countries. Source: http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2007/july/19783.htm
Given the hyperbole in your second paragraph and your disdain for "politics" (read: the very real concerns of a lot of people) I find your arguments not very convincing.
And only 392 MW?
Gee, they should build some nukes there, and use the space more efficiently.
You can use hydro power without a dam. Unfortunately I only have German links:
- http://www.aqualibre.at/
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom-Boje
More people have died and had more chronic health issues due to fossil fuel plants than any nuclear plant event we've had, but no one is calling for those to be shut down or for governments to refuse permits for them.
Actually, we do, and sometimes successfully. Citizens in Berlin have successfully lobbied Vattenfall against building another coal plant. Unfortunately, they failed in Hamburg.
And let's not forget, most nuclear plants have no exposure to tsunamis at all, and much less exposure to earthquakes, let alone Ring of Fire-style 8.5+ quakes.
Yes, we hear that argument often here in Germany. But many of our power plants are built near rivers (for emergency cooling) which are susceptible to flooding.
What you're saying is true, but I don't think it makes the situation around Chernobyl any better. For once, we have actual wildlife reserves and natural parks where we leave nature (mostly) alone. They have the benefit that we can enjoy the scenery.
I also assume that not all animals reacted favorably to the radiation around Chernobyl. After all, humans can't be the only species that dies of radiation sickness.
The argument boils down to the fact that more people got killed (and more stuff destroyed) by the tsunami than the nuclear accident.
The GP overlooks that the nuclear accident has made the response to the tsunami crisis so much harder. (E.g. people panic-buying bottled water in Tokyo because of radiation fears when these resources could have gone to tsunami-affected areas.) It also ignores, that while the tsunami is an act of nature/God, the nuclear accident is completely man-made and avoidable. Finally, it brushes aside the fact that the Fukushima exclusion zone is likely to be uninhabitable for quite some time. The tsunami, for all the damage it caused, did not achieve that.
The replacement for coal and oil are wind, solar, geothermal and hydro, but not nuclear.
The Fukushima exclusion zone has just been extended. I wonder what nuclear apologists will say when the nuke in their neighborhood fails to cool its fuel and starts to melt down. (Most likely b/c the utility skipped on maintenance and safety procedures [see Tepco] and/or extended the lifetime past its design.)
PS: Also, hydro can be made environmentally friendly.
Read the FAQ.
The underlying data is completely skewed. For instance, it counts deaths during steel and concrete manufacturing against wind power and rooftop accidents against solar. But Chernobyl only caused 50 deaths or so.
I can only conclude that steel and concrete are not used in nuclear power plants. And who needs roofs? I like having a clear view of the sky in my living room.
And then there's the "statistic" that wind only generates 1% of world wide energy demand. I doubt that figure very strongly, but I'm too lazy to research. Anyway, the low percentage is not because of low potential, but because the status quo is fossil fuels and nuclear. But Germany has pushed renewables since the 90s and now they produce 17% of our energy demand. Compare that to nuclear at about a quarter. But we don't need that nuclear energy, because Germany produces 35% more electricity than it consumes (see my previous comments for a source).
Yes, wind, solar and geothermal are just like coal when compared to nuclear energy.
Nobody wants to replace one fossil fuel with another. Except nuclear energy apologists.
The problem is that you can't post and mod. That alone encourages downmodding, because you can't upmod a post in one thread and then reply with your criticism in another. Stupid.
Oh, I forgot: Overrated and Underrated. Their meaning is completely ambiguous and Underrated is basically a stand-in for "I don't like what you said."
The only category I really care about is "funny", because those I subtract 6 from.
That's interesting, because I mainly read the Slashdot discussions for comic relief. To each his own, I guess.
Look at sites like Reddit, where anybody can thumbs up or down on any comment. It's completely groupthink, and you don't get well stated, insightful, differing opinions both being modded up. There's also the problem of sockpuppet accounts and rigging to the voting.
I don't know about Reddit, but I find the top comments on Youtube are usually worth it. They also use thumbs up/down. And I don't care about sockpuppets or vote-rigging in that context.
They could have ... copied the rating system of Slashdot.
Are you serious? Slashdot has the worst rating system ever devised on the internet. The "word" choices are extremely limited. Good mod options outweigh the bad mod options. You can only rate when Slashcode allows you to. You cannot rate and comment in the same article. You cannot rate a comment if it's already maxed out.
Did I miss anything?
Anyway, if you strip away the stupid descriptions, the upmods are reduced to a simple "+1".
Germany has been getting rid of nuclear power for some time now, but guess what? They don't have anything to replace it, and so they buy it instead from France - which generates it using *drumroll* nuclear power plants. Talk about NIMBY.
Germany is an electricity exporter. We generate 35% more power than we consume.
http://rwecom.online-report.eu/factbook/en/marketdata/electricity/grid/germanyimportandexportofelectricity.html
The German state can still apply his laws if web sites outside its jurisdiction e.g. engage in mail-order services of propaganda to German citizens. Other than that, Germany realizes the limited global reach of these laws.
Whatever.
Germany on the whole produces 17% of its electricity from renewables. That is up from 0% in 1986. The trailblazer in Germany is Schleswig-Holstein which produces 92%. Contrast that with 5% in Baden-Württemberg, a state with 4 nuclear power plants. These are currently offline, yet the lights are still on in that state. (Which is not surprising, because Germany is a electricity exporter.)
My whole point is that as long as we don't push for alternatives, there won't be any. Countries that have embraced renewable energy are further along that countries that haven't. One would think that this is obvious.
If you live close to Fukushima you should have left by now.
I suggest a more appropriate emotion than panic might be anger, hopefully resulting in a determination to never let such a kind of catastrophe happen again.
You're failing to take into a account the pollution caused by your "solution."
Other than that, I like the idea of blasting stuff into the sun. Although I think it's extremely boring in real life compared to our imagination. Something like: "Fire!" ... 10 years later ... *plop*.
If the world had learned their lesson after Chernobyl, then we would be much further on the way to renewable energies then we are today. But that accident was blamed on "communism." Sadly, you sound like someone who still hasn't learned his lesson, even after Fukushima. I suppose you blame a "lack of maintenance." I don't know what it will take for you to come around, but I'd bet that when a nuclear power plant ruins your backyard for generations to come, you'll think differently.
Fortunately, it seems that the Germans have finally learned their lesson (the Greens just won their first state governorship ever -- in a largely conservative part of the country) and I expect that after all is said and done in Fukushima, the Japanese will rethink nuclear energy as well.
What if France or Germany wants a censorship application to block Nazi stuff? Is that so different from Iran wanting to block other content for political reasons?
Speaking for Germany, there is at least one difference: The vast majority of Germans agrees with the policy of censoring some Nazi symbols in a very limited context. Given their history, I assume that the French think similarly. Whether this view makes the policy legitimate is up to you to decide.
As for censoring Nazi symbols online I believe most Germans would favor a policy similar to child pornography: take it down completely and root out the networks behind it, don't just prevent access to it.
Amen, but how 'ya gonna keep 'em down on the Engineering farm after they've seen Wall Street?
By publicly shaming them at every opportunity. (Best in a non-threatening, friendly or even humorous way.)
It is true that Germany has comparatively good laws and a rather strong social conscience regarding data protection. I also believe that abuses are less frequent than in other states. But that's no reason to trust the operators. For example, Deutsche Telekom (who collected the data in the original article) has publicly admitted to spying on their own employees and journalists.
Incidentally, I'd love to have this kind of data about me, just out of interest. The visualization is pretty cool. But my old cell phone has no GPS. There is no reason that the cell operator should store that kind of location information for any amount of time. If the police want to track somebody they can get a court order and then the operator can flip a switch. But it shouldn't happen as a default for everybody (the status quo).