Untrue. In most cases, for moderate (net) incomes and moderate housing (renting) prices, it's about 50% (1/2) if you're single, and thus about 25% as a couple if both work.
If you're really on minimumwage, it's about 2/3 of your income - but of course, you'll get subsidies then (in most EU-countries).
Otherwise, if you earn an average of 1500 euro (net), according to your theory, you'd only pay 150 euro a month? I don't know where you live, but that sure doesn't cut it in France, Germany, nor the Benelux. 150 euro wouldn't even get you the smallest of apartments. Maybe in Poland you could rent for that amount, but then again, your income there wouldn't be 1500 euro neither.
The current Chinese 'communism' is only communism in name, let's face it. At its heart, it's just capitalism that pays lip-service to it's communistic past.
I'll largely agree with it, if we're not talking about ultra-capitalism like was rampant in the 19th century.
But it's true. Look at how China fared under Mao (communism), and how it fares now. Sure, there are a lot of excesses, and a small clique of vastly wealthy millionaires and a lot of poor people... but all in all, the living standards of the general population *has* improved, and the welfare for for the populace at large has been growing, far more than under any communist ideology.
I wouldn't say capitalism is perfect, but it sure as hell is better than communism. A moderate capitalism coupled with democracy is probably one of the better systems we have.
Being 'greedy' as as much part of the human condition as being 'altruistic'. It's in our nature (both are).
So as long as humans are humans, it will never cease, and thus it will *always* continue. Now, I know you're making a moral judgement here, but purely based on objectivity, what you are saying amounts to: it will never change. And I'm not even sure if one would actually want to, because ultimately, it's based on certain contemporary cultural values which places a higher value on one than the other. I mean... if someone would say 'altruism' had to disappear, would one nod so enthusiastically about it?
Anyway, this is also why communism - which on itself was a wonderful theory - never worked and never could work: it goes against the very nature of people themselves. I think the major error in this is trying to get a 'perfect' system. There is no such thing. It's better to have a 'good enough' system which actually considers the various, different behaviours and character of the human condition, including altruism and greed. In this respect, moderate capitalism doesn't fair too badly.
Only partially true, I would say, unless you use the 'intelligence' as a strict functional definition like; 'it's what is measured on an IQ-test.'
For the more common usage of the term, I would venture that intelligence is based on knowledge. If you develop a system (not a very bright thing to do on itself;-)) where the knowledge decreases (or, more correctly, the *learning* of knowledge gets worse), you invariably will end up with less intelligence.
If not, this would mean that, even if you would teach or learn NO knowledge of ANYTHING whatsoever (including reading and writing, calculus, language, etc.) you would still have intelligent people? Maybe with the first definition - if they would know how to take such a test by then, which is doubtful - but certainly it would not suffice to have a modern society.
So let's say everyone would be raised by wolves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child), would you say that people would be still as intelligent as we are now? I very much doubt that premise.
I therefore think there is a strong link between education and intelligence, and you can't really have the latter without the first. The more your upbringing and education fails, the more stupid you get, indeed.
None of those links substantiate, let alone prove, anything you said. If you think otherwise, please refer me to the relevant parts where they talk about whether it's stochastic or not, or whether windmills need gas-fired plants as backup or not...
You *DO* realise I meant 'links that are relevant to your claims', right? Otherwise you could as well link to a site of teddy-bears and claim you 'gave the links weeks ago'.
But, rest assured; contrary to you, I won't make arbitrary claims and objections of it being 'old data' or because 'I don't like it and thus I don't read it'.
I'll repeat: "Who says we need any electricity *from wind*, for that matter?"
Even when agreeing that 'needing electricity' would be a given, nothing says it should be derived from wind. So your answer isn't really relevant to the question.
Again; everything that could destroy such a nuclear plant would already cause much more damage of it's own.
Also, as said, let's not go into hyperbole. The amount of quakes and tsunamis have not risen spectacularly, if you look at it statistically for a long period of time. There is also no way to foresee whether or not they would suddenly be more numerous for some odd reason in the far future. So you're basically speculating, without anything substantiating your claims.
As said, a 4gen reactor can't have a meltdown anymore. So even if it would get destroyed, the consequences would be fairly limited, certainly compared tot he disaster that would have been needed to destroy it in the first place.
Even if the plant was utterly destroyed and the whole core was exposed, it would just solidify into a salt, and thus starkly reduce the impact the radioactivity could have on it's surroundings.
Means: in that area that got affected bu the tsunami. Japan does have a few 3gen nuclear plants elsewhere. And those never suffered any major breakdown. And no country has a 4th gen reactor, though China is working on some demo versions.
Point is, your argument doesn't make any sense. Or you do not comprehend what 'my statement' is.
Look at it this way: the tsunami made 19000 deaths. Fukushima... none. That's what I'm saying: even with all the panic and hyperbole about it - and yes, it wasn't very pleasant, to be sure - NO deaths were caused by the nuclear plant going down, yet 19000 people were killed by the direct result of the tsunami. This puts things in perspective. And it's based on facts and reality and, as you said 'current standards'.
That's why your example as an argument is equally nonsensical: if there truly was an eruption of a volcano and at the same time an earthquake of magnitude 9...then, yes, even a 3gen reactor could get destroyed. But the death-toll caused by that reactor would be only a fraction of that which would have been caused by the volcano and earthquake in the first place! Just as the tsunami caused far more devastation then the nuclear plant in Fukishima.
So, you're really barking up the wrong tree, here. Any event that is catastrophic enough to cause damage to a 3gen nuclear reactor, is catastrophic enough to cause far more deaths on its own, than that 3gen reactor will cause.
How does Japan shows how foolish it is to replace 2gen nuclear plants with 3 and 4gen nuclear plants? It HAS NO 3th or 4th gen plants! (partly, like elsewhere in the world, because of paranoia for anything with the term 'nuclear').
My contention is exactly that those plants wouldn't have suffered the breakdown of Fukishima. Saying that 'Japan shows how foolish my statement is' makes no sense at all, since Japan did nothing of the case.
Based on the standards in use, we can objectively state - as I have pointed out to you - that nuclear has caused less deaths than any other energy source. And that's with *old* nuclear plants. Replace those with 3gen, which are approximately 2000 times safer, and then 4gen, which are 10000 times safer, and your safety record is unparalleled, and thus the risk is managed.
You're not getting what I'm saying. If there was a volcano and factor 9 quake combined, then you have something already much bigger to worry about than the destruction of a nuclear plant. The death toll would be caused by that volcano and quake, then, by more than a factor of 1000, not by the destruction of the 4gen nuclear plant.
In the real world, we deal with risk-assessments, not hyperbole.
Let's base our decisions on rational facts, not emotional guesses. It's very simple: nuclear has the LOWEST amount of deaths per Kw/h. Of ALL the energy sources, alternatives included.
The newest 3gen and 4gen nuclear plants have inherent safety-features (aka; even if all electricity, handling and control is lost, the safeties still get in place, because they're based on physical laws (such as gravity)). Many new concepts, like those of the thorium based LFTR, *can not* have a meltdown anymore, even.
Ergo, replace the 2gen reactors of today with these new ones, and you have a stable and safe energy source for the next 10000 years. Even with quakes and tsunamis. There is no sense in invoking quakes and tsunamis as a reason to not go for it, when those very same quakes and tsunamis will make far more deaths than anything that happened because of those to a 4th gen nuclear plant.
I can agree with you to some extend. Yes, if it's economically viable to use geothermal, that's an option too. But as you rightfully point out: not all countries have that option. The same with hydro (if you mean a dam).
It's VERY doubtful a newer 2gen type of nuclear plant would have gone the way Fukushima did. And most of the newest 3gen and certainly 4gen reactors have *inherent* built in safeties, which means that, even if all electricity and all handling gets lost, it will still keep everything contained (because the safety-mechanisms work on physics (like gravity) and don't require any active input anymore, as they do now). I find it a huge shame that the lefties and greens have made such a paranoia-impact on society in this regard. It has actually kept people and organisations from making far safer nuclear plants far sooner. And that's just because if the word 'nuclear' falls, one is cringing (politicians included, of course, since they're relying on the masses).
Even you, though you show you can reason rationally, say 'I doubt they can be made any safer.'. Of course they can. One of the concepts with the most promise for future nuclear plants is the Thorium-based LFTR. I sincerely recommend reading up on it (wikipedia is a good start), and you'll note that nuclear plants can be made much, much more safe, and even eliminate the possibility of a melt-down altogether.
One could argue that, when it's not necessary, it's not necessary (for instance, if one has excellent geothermal options). But in a lot of places, thazt won't be the case, and what I *do not* find logical, is to go for the lowest-power-dense, most intermittent and ill-suited energysource for a stable energy delivery for a country, like with windmills. It's not that I don't have anything against windmills on themselves. It's just they don't make any sense to use as part (and certainly not as the main) provider for your electricity. It's just not rational. I don't understand how people can not see this, if they objectively analyse it, instead of living in ideologically-coloured clouds.
I mean: I would go for nuclear, period - certainly for the LFTR-type. But, rationally, I can accept geothermal may be a viable option in some countries too. Etc.
Many greens are incapable of nuancing, however, and certainly not when the term 'nuclear' is dropped.
Yes, we've discussed this already, and I remember you refusing to read any links (one of which was to a scientific paper clearly indicating the weather was a stochastic system), or to ignore any links with some arbitrary reason ('ah, but it's old data'), while at the same time not providing anything to substantiate your claim.
Your last flame-bait-sentence just shows the stupidity and recalcitrance (to info that doesn't occur with your biased views) you showed last time was no accident, so I think I'm going to ignore your ramblings, until you decide to have a decent discussion where you substantiate your claims.
That could be, but not in the time-span you are claiming. Contrary to a home-battery which can last a couple of hours for a very limited amount of energy, you'd need to be able to store huge amounts of power for approximately 2-3 weeks, if you want to be sure the intermittency doesn't affect your stable power-output anymore. It would mean *huge* batteries of technological design that is simply impossible to achieve in 5 years.
In the best of cases, in the presumption there are unforeseen breakthroughs, this would still be 20-30 years away, and even then the cost of a windmill with such a system would cost a tenfold of what it costs now without it. And it would still depend on how long it can run without having to be changed (no battery lasts eternally).
And highly efficient gas turbines still emit co2, and still need gas - which often needs to be important by a lot of countries, so one is still depended on other countries. (And one can ask Germany how that went with it's Russian delivery...).
The point I'm making is, that, even if you could do all this in the far future with massive windmill-parks spanning your entire coastlines (at least for small countries), all equipped with expensive and huge batteries, and which would cost huge amounts of subsidies and other costs, to create a system that is based on an intermittent and low-energy-density source which is not at all suited to provide stable energy...why would you want to? There are far better options for that, so I still don't see why you would take the least efficient source.
Of course it's their theoretical maximum power. The point I was making is that *de facto* the vast majority only delivers 30% of it. Which means, in comparisons with other installations, such as gas or nuclear, 100 windmills of 8 MW do NOT equal one nuclear plant of 800 MW. Contrary to windmills, a nuclear plant CAN *effectively* deliver 800 MW, almost all of the time.
But fine, if that's the 'capacity factor' so be it, as long as the basic point comes across.
And I and a lot of people do not forget that the demand varies also, but that comes *on top* of the variability of the intermittent nature of the wind, and thus windturbines (an the energy they produce). No power source is 100% reliable, but that doesn't mean one has huge differences between the reliability of a constant power-output. Nuclear power in this area is hugely reliable (between 93-98%), while windmills are nefariously unreliable in this respect. As for the peaks and valleys of demand; for that you need loadbalancing, mostly done with gas/coal/oil-plants. Wind is incapable doing this either. Though it must be said, classical nuclear plants are not too good at this neither - though LFTR-type nuclear plants could provide loadbalancing, which is an added benefit.
Nothing of the above changes the fact that windmills are a very unreliable and intermittent source which always will need huge amounts of backup. They can't keep a base load as nuclear plants do, and they can't do loadbalancing effectively like gas-fired plants can. It's hugely expensive, and ineffictive and doesn't contribute to a stable energy-supply.
I understand it's politically expedient these days to have an air of being 'progressive' and climate/nature-friendly and all that, and of course, grand projects like this flatter the political ego (and sometimes spices the pockets) as they've always done, but I would say one shouldn't let more then 10-15% of your total electricity be delivered by windmills, IF you really are set on doing this. (And I would claim it's not really necessary and unfruitful to begin with). More than that will give you major problems in the long run, not only technically, but also economically. There is simply no way you can depend on windmills 100% of the time, smart grid or not. There is also no way it can compete with other, more reliable sources, if you actually look at the *de facto* deliverance of electricity/power - unless with huge subsidies (as is the case now, and has been for the last 30 years).
I never understood why some people are so enthusiastic about something that is, in essence, a very unreliable and poor power-delivery system. Of all the options one has, one would think one would choose the best, not one of the worst. Alas, I fear it's going the way of the betamax vs. VHS; it's not about the best one winning, it's just that the one which gets most hyped and gains popularity with the masses, that's going to win - EVEN though everybody knows, deep down, other alternatives are better.
Of course, China has no such delusions. Sure, they're putting up some windmills too, but in essence they are hugely expanding their coal/oil/gas plants, and even more so their nuclear plants. AND, of course, they're about the only ones effectively working on building an,d LFTR too. We in the West have become blind and become softies without any political backbone or long-term vision. We're decaying and have passed our peak, but we don't even realise it ourselves. We're going the route of the Roman Empire before us: slowly decaying because of the combination of internal ineptitude and external invasion of barbari. Until we've crumbled to dust.
Which is a bit outside the scope of what we're discussing, but nevertheless, the failure of providing oneself with a proper, stable, long-term powersource for the (increasing) energy-needs, is a sign as well.
I'm always amazed that wind and solar get all that starry-eyed looking fans every time it pops up in the news. It never seems to dawn on those people that wind and solar are *inherently stochastic*, and thus, can NEVER replace more stable forms of energy-delivery. Some little know facts: when the power of a windturbine is mentioned, it does NOT mean that it actually delivers that power. For instance, if it says "This is a 8MW windmill that can support 100000 households...that is simply a lie, in a de facto way. The vast majority only deliver ONE THIRD of their pretended maximum power (a lot even less). Thus, you need *3 times* as many just to provide the same power of an actual coal/gas/nuclear plant of 8 MW. It would be reasonable to compare the costs with the ACTUAL power being delivered, thus... but you *never* see that happen on any pro-green website or fancamp.
Apart from that, stochastic systems are inherently bad for giving you a stable energy source. That's why - another little detail most of the pro-camp seem to forget - is that for every windmill park, there NEEDS to be a classical plant (on gas, oil or coal) to provide backup, for all those times the demand and what's been asked for is not in accordance with eachother. (aka, to level out the peaks and valleys of energy-demand and delivery). THIS in turn means, such plants need to be always on (since wind and solar are inherently stochastic) with all the consequences of CO2 pollution, since those plants pollute. Even worse: they pollute *more* than they usually do, because they're running inefficiently most of the time: they always have to keep 'running', because they need to be able to shift gears and provide energy on short notice, but at times when the wind is giving enough, they're just running idle, which gives very bad combustion/burning up, and thus their CO2 emissions are far worse than when they're burning at full power. That's also why research has demonstrated the actual gains of reducing CO2 thanks to windmills is *far* less than what is claimed, if one looks at reality, instead of theoretical computations that act as if these backups aren't there. And they never seem to be there in any calculation of claim I've seen on a green site.
Now, it's not that I have inherently something against 'green solutions', but only if they're viable and make economical sense, and DO give us stable energy which is needed for a modern society. You can't well say to companies in your country: "ah, sorry, wind is a bit down today, so no electricity". And yes, I know the theory the greens always come up with, aka the super-smart all-encompassing grid, where every windmill is connected to everything else, and electricity flows from one end of the continent to the other. But frankly, that's just a pipedream. And it also makes no economic sense, since it would mean that, if, say, a major part of Europe needed energy but the wind wasn't blowing strong enough, it would need to get the electricity from the other half of the EU where is *was* blowing. However, that would mean you'd need DOUBLE as much windmills, since you always need to be able to safeguard energy delivery for the other part of the EU, then. But most of the time, that would mean you have a HUGE surplus (when the wind is blowing hard enough in about the whole of the EU). So that means half of your windmill park would have to stand by idle (or at least, electricity would have to be sold very, very cheap) most of the time. That's economic suicide.
All those things, you never see mentioned anywhere in the pro-camp, and that's what I find the most annoying. It's not a realistic picture one portrays, but an ideologically coloured one, where reality has to step aside for dogmatic reasoning. I find it highly annoying. How can one make an informed decision, if one actually hides, ignores or outright lies about all these aspects?
The truth is, if one REALLY wants to get a stable alternative, one is better off with geothermal and water(dam) and maybe tidal-wave derived energy sources. At least t
You are truly an idiot, who apparently can't even read comprehensively. Are you really THAT daft? Or are you wilfully obtuse?
Do you NOT comprehend they are shutting those down because it makes no ECONOMIC sense for those companies, and that the German state is now considering giving subsidies to those gas-fired plants BECAUSE they are needed!? I've EXPLICITLY said so in my last post, exactly to exclude the possibility you would - again - (mis)interpret it for your own sake. apparently, to no avail, because you still didn't comprehend it. READ MY LAST PARAGRAPH, slacker, and you would have known that I read that last paragraph AND then you wouldn't have made an even bigger fool of yourself. Instead, now your claiming I didn't read it, while I repeated it almost verbatim. FAIL. The bigger irony now being, that you just proved you re the brain dead idiot who doesn't even read or can't comprehend what is written and just comes up with the first thing that pops up in his mind and spouting it around.
And once again, I note you didn't provide even one relevant single link to substantiate YOUR claims, once again, while, again, deriding mine. Yes, sure, because no substantiation and just saying it as a know-all proves the argument so much better, no doubt.
You're so stupid it hurts my eyes. You're making an 'argument' that now bites you back in the ass, but worse, you have clearly not understood what they're saying here - at all. You think that because they close those plants because they're not economical viable anymore, that this means they are not needed anymore. So much for your vaunted 'logic'. Delicious irony indeed.
I'll take even your own example of a unicorn. IF I had only claimed 'a unicorn exists because I say so, but I can't be bothered to provide proof' - much like you do with your arguments - then one would have a point. However, if I link to a scientific paper stating unicorns do exist and why, then, when you still claim it's not true, it's for you to demonstrate the earlier conclusion is false - with counterarguments that are also verifiable. Saying you can't be bothered to read it, or that it's 'old data' doesn't cut it.
So the matter is not your preconceived idea about whether unicorns do or do not exist - which was what you were implying with the use of such an analogy - but whether it can be demonstrated by falsification whether it exists or not.
In the case of the stochastic nature of the weather, I already gave you the definition of stochastic - so no semantic discussion can arise -, I logically argued why the weather conforms to that definition, and I even gave you a link to a scientific paper which confirmed it.
your only answer basically is, that it isn't because you say so. and you can't link to any proof of what you say, because it isn't. that's a tautology. Since the paper claims differently, one can reasonably assume other papers would contradict it, if it were true, as you so vehemently keep insisting that it isn't. Well, then: I merely ask that you provide a link to sites or papers that show the opposite, and confirm your claim. Idem for the 'no need' for backup of gas/coal/oil plants.
And, here, I'll give you some more links that demonstrate the fact that renewables need backup of classical plants, ALSO in Denmark and Germany:
"Prices in 2023 may therefore be 10 to 20 percent higher than those in 2013. (See Exhibit 8.) Note that this calculation includes all applicable taxes and levies, including a “security of supply component” (hidden today in grid use fees) used to finance the development of sufficient backup capacity to cover peak demand hours that lack sufficient feed-in from renewables."
Note that, while it deals with prices, it mentions the fact that part of it is due to develop sufficient backup capacity. Ergo - let's use logic here - if there WAS NO NEED for backup, they wouldn't need to develop it, nor augment to prices for it. Hence, backup is needed.
"Essentially, Germany needs to have a dispatchable installed capacity at the level of its peak demand for the year, which is currently around 80 gigawatts and occurs on winter evenings – when the sun does not shine. A large part of that 80 gigawatts therefore needs to be built as dispatchable gas turbines."
Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are needed as backup. Once again, the conclusion can only be that renewables ARE de facto, in need of backup. And they will always be, until one has developed storage-capacities that can cover long time-spans (several weeks at least). And I hve also already indicated in my first post
Slashdot Mirror
Untrue. In most cases, for moderate (net) incomes and moderate housing (renting) prices, it's about 50% (1/2) if you're single, and thus about 25% as a couple if both work.
If you're really on minimumwage, it's about 2/3 of your income - but of course, you'll get subsidies then (in most EU-countries).
Otherwise, if you earn an average of 1500 euro (net), according to your theory, you'd only pay 150 euro a month? I don't know where you live, but that sure doesn't cut it in France, Germany, nor the Benelux. 150 euro wouldn't even get you the smallest of apartments. Maybe in Poland you could rent for that amount, but then again, your income there wouldn't be 1500 euro neither.
That means capitalism works just fine.
The current Chinese 'communism' is only communism in name, let's face it. At its heart, it's just capitalism that pays lip-service to it's communistic past.
I'll largely agree with it, if we're not talking about ultra-capitalism like was rampant in the 19th century.
But it's true. Look at how China fared under Mao (communism), and how it fares now. Sure, there are a lot of excesses, and a small clique of vastly wealthy millionaires and a lot of poor people... but all in all, the living standards of the general population *has* improved, and the welfare for for the populace at large has been growing, far more than under any communist ideology.
I wouldn't say capitalism is perfect, but it sure as hell is better than communism. A moderate capitalism coupled with democracy is probably one of the better systems we have.
I'm always a bit puzzled about this.
Being 'greedy' as as much part of the human condition as being 'altruistic'. It's in our nature (both are).
So as long as humans are humans, it will never cease, and thus it will *always* continue. Now, I know you're making a moral judgement here, but purely based on objectivity, what you are saying amounts to: it will never change. And I'm not even sure if one would actually want to, because ultimately, it's based on certain contemporary cultural values which places a higher value on one than the other. I mean... if someone would say 'altruism' had to disappear, would one nod so enthusiastically about it?
Anyway, this is also why communism - which on itself was a wonderful theory - never worked and never could work: it goes against the very nature of people themselves. I think the major error in this is trying to get a 'perfect' system. There is no such thing. It's better to have a 'good enough' system which actually considers the various, different behaviours and character of the human condition, including altruism and greed. In this respect, moderate capitalism doesn't fair too badly.
Only partially true, I would say, unless you use the 'intelligence' as a strict functional definition like; 'it's what is measured on an IQ-test.'
For the more common usage of the term, I would venture that intelligence is based on knowledge. If you develop a system (not a very bright thing to do on itself ;-)) where the knowledge decreases (or, more correctly, the *learning* of knowledge gets worse), you invariably will end up with less intelligence.
If not, this would mean that, even if you would teach or learn NO knowledge of ANYTHING whatsoever (including reading and writing, calculus, language, etc.) you would still have intelligent people? Maybe with the first definition - if they would know how to take such a test by then, which is doubtful - but certainly it would not suffice to have a modern society.
So let's say everyone would be raised by wolves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child), would you say that people would be still as intelligent as we are now? I very much doubt that premise.
I therefore think there is a strong link between education and intelligence, and you can't really have the latter without the first. The more your upbringing and education fails, the more stupid you get, indeed.
I'll take that as a "No, I don't have links that substantiate what I say, I only have links say nothing about the subject", then.
None of those links substantiate, let alone prove, anything you said. If you think otherwise, please refer me to the relevant parts where they talk about whether it's stochastic or not, or whether windmills need gas-fired plants as backup or not...
You *DO* realise I meant 'links that are relevant to your claims', right? Otherwise you could as well link to a site of teddy-bears and claim you 'gave the links weeks ago'.
But, rest assured; contrary to you, I won't make arbitrary claims and objections of it being 'old data' or because 'I don't like it and thus I don't read it'.
But that doesn't answer the question at all.
I'll repeat: "Who says we need any electricity *from wind*, for that matter?"
Even when agreeing that 'needing electricity' would be a given, nothing says it should be derived from wind. So your answer isn't really relevant to the question.
Again; everything that could destroy such a nuclear plant would already cause much more damage of it's own.
Also, as said, let's not go into hyperbole. The amount of quakes and tsunamis have not risen spectacularly, if you look at it statistically for a long period of time. There is also no way to foresee whether or not they would suddenly be more numerous for some odd reason in the far future. So you're basically speculating, without anything substantiating your claims.
As said, a 4gen reactor can't have a meltdown anymore. So even if it would get destroyed, the consequences would be fairly limited, certainly compared tot he disaster that would have been needed to destroy it in the first place.
I think you don't quite grasp how different some of these concepts are. Let me give you a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Even if the plant was utterly destroyed and the whole core was exposed, it would just solidify into a salt, and thus starkly reduce the impact the radioactivity could have on it's surroundings.
TO be clear: " It HAS NO 3th or 4th gen plants":
Means: in that area that got affected bu the tsunami. Japan does have a few 3gen nuclear plants elsewhere. And those never suffered any major breakdown. And no country has a 4th gen reactor, though China is working on some demo versions.
Point is, your argument doesn't make any sense. Or you do not comprehend what 'my statement' is.
Look at it this way: the tsunami made 19000 deaths. Fukushima... none. That's what I'm saying: even with all the panic and hyperbole about it - and yes, it wasn't very pleasant, to be sure - NO deaths were caused by the nuclear plant going down, yet 19000 people were killed by the direct result of the tsunami. This puts things in perspective. And it's based on facts and reality and, as you said 'current standards'.
That's why your example as an argument is equally nonsensical: if there truly was an eruption of a volcano and at the same time an earthquake of magnitude 9...then, yes, even a 3gen reactor could get destroyed. But the death-toll caused by that reactor would be only a fraction of that which would have been caused by the volcano and earthquake in the first place! Just as the tsunami caused far more devastation then the nuclear plant in Fukishima.
So, you're really barking up the wrong tree, here. Any event that is catastrophic enough to cause damage to a 3gen nuclear reactor, is catastrophic enough to cause far more deaths on its own, than that 3gen reactor will cause.
How does Japan shows how foolish it is to replace 2gen nuclear plants with 3 and 4gen nuclear plants? It HAS NO 3th or 4th gen plants! (partly, like elsewhere in the world, because of paranoia for anything with the term 'nuclear').
My contention is exactly that those plants wouldn't have suffered the breakdown of Fukishima. Saying that 'Japan shows how foolish my statement is' makes no sense at all, since Japan did nothing of the case.
Based on the standards in use, we can objectively state - as I have pointed out to you - that nuclear has caused less deaths than any other energy source. And that's with *old* nuclear plants. Replace those with 3gen, which are approximately 2000 times safer, and then 4gen, which are 10000 times safer, and your safety record is unparalleled, and thus the risk is managed.
You're not getting what I'm saying. If there was a volcano and factor 9 quake combined, then you have something already much bigger to worry about than the destruction of a nuclear plant. The death toll would be caused by that volcano and quake, then, by more than a factor of 1000, not by the destruction of the 4gen nuclear plant.
In the real world, we deal with risk-assessments, not hyperbole.
Let's base our decisions on rational facts, not emotional guesses. It's very simple: nuclear has the LOWEST amount of deaths per Kw/h. Of ALL the energy sources, alternatives included.
The newest 3gen and 4gen nuclear plants have inherent safety-features (aka; even if all electricity, handling and control is lost, the safeties still get in place, because they're based on physical laws (such as gravity)). Many new concepts, like those of the thorium based LFTR, *can not* have a meltdown anymore, even.
Ergo, replace the 2gen reactors of today with these new ones, and you have a stable and safe energy source for the next 10000 years. Even with quakes and tsunamis. There is no sense in invoking quakes and tsunamis as a reason to not go for it, when those very same quakes and tsunamis will make far more deaths than anything that happened because of those to a 4th gen nuclear plant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Look at the comparison between the the different energy-sources compared to the death-toll, at the end.
I can agree with you to some extend. Yes, if it's economically viable to use geothermal, that's an option too. But as you rightfully point out: not all countries have that option. The same with hydro (if you mean a dam).
It's VERY doubtful a newer 2gen type of nuclear plant would have gone the way Fukushima did. And most of the newest 3gen and certainly 4gen reactors have *inherent* built in safeties, which means that, even if all electricity and all handling gets lost, it will still keep everything contained (because the safety-mechanisms work on physics (like gravity) and don't require any active input anymore, as they do now). I find it a huge shame that the lefties and greens have made such a paranoia-impact on society in this regard. It has actually kept people and organisations from making far safer nuclear plants far sooner. And that's just because if the word 'nuclear' falls, one is cringing (politicians included, of course, since they're relying on the masses).
Even you, though you show you can reason rationally, say 'I doubt they can be made any safer.'. Of course they can. One of the concepts with the most promise for future nuclear plants is the Thorium-based LFTR. I sincerely recommend reading up on it (wikipedia is a good start), and you'll note that nuclear plants can be made much, much more safe, and even eliminate the possibility of a melt-down altogether.
One could argue that, when it's not necessary, it's not necessary (for instance, if one has excellent geothermal options). But in a lot of places, thazt won't be the case, and what I *do not* find logical, is to go for the lowest-power-dense, most intermittent and ill-suited energysource for a stable energy delivery for a country, like with windmills. It's not that I don't have anything against windmills on themselves. It's just they don't make any sense to use as part (and certainly not as the main) provider for your electricity. It's just not rational. I don't understand how people can not see this, if they objectively analyse it, instead of living in ideologically-coloured clouds.
I mean: I would go for nuclear, period - certainly for the LFTR-type. But, rationally, I can accept geothermal may be a viable option in some countries too. Etc.
Many greens are incapable of nuancing, however, and certainly not when the term 'nuclear' is dropped.
Who says we need any electricity from wind, for that matter?
Actually, LFTR's could do load-balancing...
Actually, if we used LFTR's as 4th gen nuclear plants, we could get rid of all the radioactive waste of the second and third generation plants.
No, no, wait: do you agree to provide links and references this time to substantiate your claims? Otherwise this will go nowhere, just like last time.
Yes, we've discussed this already, and I remember you refusing to read any links (one of which was to a scientific paper clearly indicating the weather was a stochastic system), or to ignore any links with some arbitrary reason ('ah, but it's old data'), while at the same time not providing anything to substantiate your claim.
Your last flame-bait-sentence just shows the stupidity and recalcitrance (to info that doesn't occur with your biased views) you showed last time was no accident, so I think I'm going to ignore your ramblings, until you decide to have a decent discussion where you substantiate your claims.
That could be, but not in the time-span you are claiming. Contrary to a home-battery which can last a couple of hours for a very limited amount of energy, you'd need to be able to store huge amounts of power for approximately 2-3 weeks, if you want to be sure the intermittency doesn't affect your stable power-output anymore. It would mean *huge* batteries of technological design that is simply impossible to achieve in 5 years.
In the best of cases, in the presumption there are unforeseen breakthroughs, this would still be 20-30 years away, and even then the cost of a windmill with such a system would cost a tenfold of what it costs now without it. And it would still depend on how long it can run without having to be changed (no battery lasts eternally).
And highly efficient gas turbines still emit co2, and still need gas - which often needs to be important by a lot of countries, so one is still depended on other countries. (And one can ask Germany how that went with it's Russian delivery...).
The point I'm making is, that, even if you could do all this in the far future with massive windmill-parks spanning your entire coastlines (at least for small countries), all equipped with expensive and huge batteries, and which would cost huge amounts of subsidies and other costs, to create a system that is based on an intermittent and low-energy-density source which is not at all suited to provide stable energy...why would you want to? There are far better options for that, so I still don't see why you would take the least efficient source.
Of course it's their theoretical maximum power. The point I was making is that *de facto* the vast majority only delivers 30% of it. Which means, in comparisons with other installations, such as gas or nuclear, 100 windmills of 8 MW do NOT equal one nuclear plant of 800 MW. Contrary to windmills, a nuclear plant CAN *effectively* deliver 800 MW, almost all of the time.
But fine, if that's the 'capacity factor' so be it, as long as the basic point comes across.
And I and a lot of people do not forget that the demand varies also, but that comes *on top* of the variability of the intermittent nature of the wind, and thus windturbines (an the energy they produce). No power source is 100% reliable, but that doesn't mean one has huge differences between the reliability of a constant power-output. Nuclear power in this area is hugely reliable (between 93-98%), while windmills are nefariously unreliable in this respect. As for the peaks and valleys of demand; for that you need loadbalancing, mostly done with gas/coal/oil-plants. Wind is incapable doing this either. Though it must be said, classical nuclear plants are not too good at this neither - though LFTR-type nuclear plants could provide loadbalancing, which is an added benefit.
Nothing of the above changes the fact that windmills are a very unreliable and intermittent source which always will need huge amounts of backup. They can't keep a base load as nuclear plants do, and they can't do loadbalancing effectively like gas-fired plants can. It's hugely expensive, and ineffictive and doesn't contribute to a stable energy-supply.
I understand it's politically expedient these days to have an air of being 'progressive' and climate/nature-friendly and all that, and of course, grand projects like this flatter the political ego (and sometimes spices the pockets) as they've always done, but I would say one shouldn't let more then 10-15% of your total electricity be delivered by windmills, IF you really are set on doing this. (And I would claim it's not really necessary and unfruitful to begin with). More than that will give you major problems in the long run, not only technically, but also economically. There is simply no way you can depend on windmills 100% of the time, smart grid or not. There is also no way it can compete with other, more reliable sources, if you actually look at the *de facto* deliverance of electricity/power - unless with huge subsidies (as is the case now, and has been for the last 30 years).
I never understood why some people are so enthusiastic about something that is, in essence, a very unreliable and poor power-delivery system. Of all the options one has, one would think one would choose the best, not one of the worst. Alas, I fear it's going the way of the betamax vs. VHS; it's not about the best one winning, it's just that the one which gets most hyped and gains popularity with the masses, that's going to win - EVEN though everybody knows, deep down, other alternatives are better.
Of course, China has no such delusions. Sure, they're putting up some windmills too, but in essence they are hugely expanding their coal/oil/gas plants, and even more so their nuclear plants. AND, of course, they're about the only ones effectively working on building an,d LFTR too. We in the West have become blind and become softies without any political backbone or long-term vision. We're decaying and have passed our peak, but we don't even realise it ourselves. We're going the route of the Roman Empire before us: slowly decaying because of the combination of internal ineptitude and external invasion of barbari. Until we've crumbled to dust.
Which is a bit outside the scope of what we're discussing, but nevertheless, the failure of providing oneself with a proper, stable, long-term powersource for the (increasing) energy-needs, is a sign as well.
I'm always amazed that wind and solar get all that starry-eyed looking fans every time it pops up in the news. It never seems to dawn on those people that wind and solar are *inherently stochastic*, and thus, can NEVER replace more stable forms of energy-delivery. Some little know facts: when the power of a windturbine is mentioned, it does NOT mean that it actually delivers that power. For instance, if it says "This is a 8MW windmill that can support 100000 households...that is simply a lie, in a de facto way. The vast majority only deliver ONE THIRD of their pretended maximum power (a lot even less). Thus, you need *3 times* as many just to provide the same power of an actual coal/gas/nuclear plant of 8 MW. It would be reasonable to compare the costs with the ACTUAL power being delivered, thus... but you *never* see that happen on any pro-green website or fancamp.
Apart from that, stochastic systems are inherently bad for giving you a stable energy source. That's why - another little detail most of the pro-camp seem to forget - is that for every windmill park, there NEEDS to be a classical plant (on gas, oil or coal) to provide backup, for all those times the demand and what's been asked for is not in accordance with eachother. (aka, to level out the peaks and valleys of energy-demand and delivery). THIS in turn means, such plants need to be always on (since wind and solar are inherently stochastic) with all the consequences of CO2 pollution, since those plants pollute. Even worse: they pollute *more* than they usually do, because they're running inefficiently most of the time: they always have to keep 'running', because they need to be able to shift gears and provide energy on short notice, but at times when the wind is giving enough, they're just running idle, which gives very bad combustion/burning up, and thus their CO2 emissions are far worse than when they're burning at full power. That's also why research has demonstrated the actual gains of reducing CO2 thanks to windmills is *far* less than what is claimed, if one looks at reality, instead of theoretical computations that act as if these backups aren't there. And they never seem to be there in any calculation of claim I've seen on a green site.
Now, it's not that I have inherently something against 'green solutions', but only if they're viable and make economical sense, and DO give us stable energy which is needed for a modern society. You can't well say to companies in your country: "ah, sorry, wind is a bit down today, so no electricity". And yes, I know the theory the greens always come up with, aka the super-smart all-encompassing grid, where every windmill is connected to everything else, and electricity flows from one end of the continent to the other. But frankly, that's just a pipedream. And it also makes no economic sense, since it would mean that, if, say, a major part of Europe needed energy but the wind wasn't blowing strong enough, it would need to get the electricity from the other half of the EU where is *was* blowing. However, that would mean you'd need DOUBLE as much windmills, since you always need to be able to safeguard energy delivery for the other part of the EU, then. But most of the time, that would mean you have a HUGE surplus (when the wind is blowing hard enough in about the whole of the EU). So that means half of your windmill park would have to stand by idle (or at least, electricity would have to be sold very, very cheap) most of the time. That's economic suicide.
All those things, you never see mentioned anywhere in the pro-camp, and that's what I find the most annoying. It's not a realistic picture one portrays, but an ideologically coloured one, where reality has to step aside for dogmatic reasoning. I find it highly annoying. How can one make an informed decision, if one actually hides, ignores or outright lies about all these aspects?
The truth is, if one REALLY wants to get a stable alternative, one is better off with geothermal and water(dam) and maybe tidal-wave derived energy sources. At least t
You are truly an idiot, who apparently can't even read comprehensively. Are you really THAT daft? Or are you wilfully obtuse?
Do you NOT comprehend they are shutting those down because it makes no ECONOMIC sense for those companies, and that the German state is now considering giving subsidies to those gas-fired plants BECAUSE they are needed!? I've EXPLICITLY said so in my last post, exactly to exclude the possibility you would - again - (mis)interpret it for your own sake. apparently, to no avail, because you still didn't comprehend it. READ MY LAST PARAGRAPH, slacker, and you would have known that I read that last paragraph AND then you wouldn't have made an even bigger fool of yourself. Instead, now your claiming I didn't read it, while I repeated it almost verbatim. FAIL. The bigger irony now being, that you just proved you re the brain dead idiot who doesn't even read or can't comprehend what is written and just comes up with the first thing that pops up in his mind and spouting it around.
And once again, I note you didn't provide even one relevant single link to substantiate YOUR claims, once again, while, again, deriding mine. Yes, sure, because no substantiation and just saying it as a know-all proves the argument so much better, no doubt.
You're so stupid it hurts my eyes. You're making an 'argument' that now bites you back in the ass, but worse, you have clearly not understood what they're saying here - at all. You think that because they close those plants because they're not economical viable anymore, that this means they are not needed anymore. So much for your vaunted 'logic'. Delicious irony indeed.
No.
I'll take even your own example of a unicorn. IF I had only claimed 'a unicorn exists because I say so, but I can't be bothered to provide proof' - much like you do with your arguments - then one would have a point. However, if I link to a scientific paper stating unicorns do exist and why, then, when you still claim it's not true, it's for you to demonstrate the earlier conclusion is false - with counterarguments that are also verifiable. Saying you can't be bothered to read it, or that it's 'old data' doesn't cut it.
So the matter is not your preconceived idea about whether unicorns do or do not exist - which was what you were implying with the use of such an analogy - but whether it can be demonstrated by falsification whether it exists or not.
In the case of the stochastic nature of the weather, I already gave you the definition of stochastic - so no semantic discussion can arise -, I logically argued why the weather conforms to that definition, and I even gave you a link to a scientific paper which confirmed it.
your only answer basically is, that it isn't because you say so. and you can't link to any proof of what you say, because it isn't. that's a tautology. Since the paper claims differently, one can reasonably assume other papers would contradict it, if it were true, as you so vehemently keep insisting that it isn't. Well, then: I merely ask that you provide a link to sites or papers that show the opposite, and confirm your claim. Idem for the 'no need' for backup of gas/coal/oil plants.
And, here, I'll give you some more links that demonstrate the fact that renewables need backup of classical plants, ALSO in Denmark and Germany:
The 'hidden' coal plants are not hidden at all - if you bother to do some basic research before claiming something, that is. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). And of course they also have gas-fired power stations too. For the necessity of Denmark to rely on gasturbines/plants as backup: https://carboncounter.wordpres...
and for Germany: https://www.dissentmagazine.or... and https://www.bcgperspectives.co...
I'll even give the quote:
"Prices in 2023 may therefore be 10 to 20 percent higher than those in 2013. (See Exhibit 8.) Note that this calculation includes all applicable taxes and levies, including a “security of supply component” (hidden today in grid use fees) used to finance the development of sufficient backup capacity to cover peak demand hours that lack sufficient feed-in from renewables."
Note that, while it deals with prices, it mentions the fact that part of it is due to develop sufficient backup capacity. Ergo - let's use logic here - if there WAS NO NEED for backup, they wouldn't need to develop it, nor augment to prices for it. Hence, backup is needed.
And if you're still not convinced: http://energytransition.de/201...
I'll give you the relevant quote yet again:
"Essentially, Germany needs to have a dispatchable installed capacity at the level of its peak demand for the year, which is currently around 80 gigawatts and occurs on winter evenings – when the sun does not shine. A large part of that 80 gigawatts therefore needs to be built as dispatchable gas turbines."
Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are needed as backup. Once again, the conclusion can only be that renewables ARE de facto, in need of backup. And they will always be, until one has developed storage-capacities that can cover long time-spans (several weeks at least). And I hve also already indicated in my first post