German utilities closing fossil fuel power plants - can't compete with renewables

[Katzndogz]

Fossil fuels don't get the influx of government money that renewables do right now.

Just wait until all that tax payer money stops rolling in and see what happens to the price.

I hope the German utilities are aware of that. Perhaps you should warn them.

They are!

Renewable energy sources are only affordable because of massive government subsidies. They are betting that future technology brings the cost down before it bankrupts them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fossil fuels don't get the influx of government money that renewables do right now.

Just wait until all that tax payer money stops rolling in and see what happens to the price.

I hope the German utilities are aware of that. Perhaps you should warn them.

They are!

Renewable energy sources are only affordable because of massive government subsidies. They are betting that future technology brings the cost down before it bankrupts them.

And people think buying stocks is gambling but when the government gambles with their money it's OK.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You dumb ass. If the pool goes critical, quite literally, millions of people will be in danger of dying. Not only in Japan, but there will be fallout here on the West Coast. This is an extroidinery situation, one frought with danger for everyone on this planet.

But people like you would have said that nothing like this was possible prior to this situation. Not only that, we have cooling pools here in the US that have three times the number of rods in them that they were designed for. A New Madrid type quake could very well test our ability to contain a nuclear accident of this very type.

SNIFFFFF AHHHH

I love the smell of ignorance in the evening.

Tell me; How many nuclear accidents have occurred in the US?


hint; if you get too one finger, you're already wrong




but

FEAR is your only ally!!!!

I do not oppose Nuke power, but I do object to BULLSHIT so...

According to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage). The most serious of these was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.[1] Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2]

Who among us does NOT remember (or at least know of) THREE MILE ISLAND

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do some math

seriously, DO THE MATH

3 mile wasn't an accident, it wasn't even close to melting down, at any time. all the engineering worked

but don't get tired of your own bullshit

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Navy had a steam explosion at a prototype reactor in Idaho many years ago. There were casualties.

And I would like to emphasize my Thanks to poster Editec. Taking down bullshit should be our highest calling (on this board anyway).

If the steam explosion was not in the radiated wate loop, then it is nothing more than a standard industrial accident.

The explosion was in the core.

link

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Navy had a steam explosion at a prototype reactor in Idaho many years ago. There were three casualties.

And I would like to emphasize my Thanks to poster Editec. Taking down bullshit should be our highest calling (on this board anyway).

And just to keep things open: I am in favor of nuclear power.

found it

On January 3, 1961, the first fatal nuclear accident in the world (related to nuclear power) happened at the NRTS when the Stationary Low Power Reactor No. 1 (SL-I) experienced a power excursion resulting in a steam explosion that killed three technicians. This accident marks the only nuclear-related fatalities ever to occur in the U.S. nuclear industry. To this day, these are the only nuclear power-related deaths to occur in the U.S. nuclear industry.


in other words

check mate

nuclear is the best and safest

 

[Abraham3]

The Navy had a steam explosion at a prototype reactor in Idaho many years ago. There were three casualties.

And I would like to emphasize my Thanks to poster Editec. Taking down bullshit should be our highest calling (on this board anyway).

And just to keep things open: I am in favor of nuclear power.

found it

On January 3, 1961, the first fatal nuclear accident in the world (related to nuclear power) happened at the NRTS when the Stationary Low Power Reactor No. 1 (SL-I) experienced a power excursion resulting in a steam explosion that killed three technicians. This accident marks the only nuclear-related fatalities ever to occur in the U.S. nuclear industry. To this day, these are the only nuclear power-related deaths to occur in the U.S. nuclear industry.


in other words

check mate

nuclear is the best and safest

I agree. But you claimed zero casualties. That was incorrect and you should admit it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Navy had a steam explosion at a prototype reactor in Idaho many years ago. There were three casualties.

And I would like to emphasize my Thanks to poster Editec. Taking down bullshit should be our highest calling (on this board anyway).

And just to keep things open: I am in favor of nuclear power.

found it

On January 3, 1961, the first fatal nuclear accident in the world (related to nuclear power) happened at the NRTS when the Stationary Low Power Reactor No. 1 (SL-I) experienced a power excursion resulting in a steam explosion that killed three technicians. This accident marks the only nuclear-related fatalities ever to occur in the U.S. nuclear industry. To this day, these are the only nuclear power-related deaths to occur in the U.S. nuclear industry.


in other words

check mate

nuclear is the best and safest

I agree. But you claimed zero casualties. That was incorrect and you should admit it.

That is correct. when I reread my post I noticed my mistake. I wanted to say something along the lines of meltdowns or serious accidents.

What got listed could happen in any industrial site, so my claim is still accurate. considering the decades.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Actually, the Germans are probably very wise to discontinue using the old style nuclear plants that they have been using. Possibly someday some new safe, cheap and non-polluting form of nuclear power plant will be developed that might aid in the very necessary process of eliminating CO2 emitting power sources, but until then, current nuclear power generation is very dangerous and problematical, as the Fukushima disaster demonstrates.

Fukushima: a Looming Nuclear Disaster
Guardian Express
by James Turnage
August 18, 2013
(excerpts)
Fallout researcher Christina Consolo told RT that the removal of 1,300 fuel rods from the disabled Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, could result in a disaster. The situation poses a monumental challenge to TEPCO, the Tokyo company contracted to do the clean-up. There are 400 tons of the rods stored in a pool inside of reactor number 4. They must be removed manually from the top of the reactor which has an environment filled with high radioactivity. Consolo says that the slightest mishap with a single rod could cause an above ground meltdown with disastrous results and no way to control it. The end result could be millions of deaths. But she points out that maintaining the status quo could have the same results. “Although fuel rod removal happens on a daily basis at the 430+ nuclear sites around the world, it is a very delicate procedure even under the best of circumstances. What makes fuel removal at Fukushima so dangerous and complex is that it will be attempted on a fuel pool whose integrity has been severely compromised. However, it must be attempted as Reactor 4 has the most significant problems structurally, and this pool is on the top floor of the building,” said Consolo.

Other problems have increased the difficulty of the process. The racks which hold the rods were damaged in the explosion. There is no way to know how damaged the walls of the pool may be, or to what extent the rods may be corroded until they are removed. In addition, the cranes formerly used to lift the rods were destroyed when the plant exploded after the tsunami. Each rod must be removed individually by a team of humans, who will be working in an extremely dangerous environment. Mishandling of a single rod could cause a chain reaction between all 1,300, creating a nuclear accident that could not be stopped. Reactor number 4 is sinking. There have been attempts to remove the ground water inside the structure which in itself is radioactive and is contaminating the ocean and the shoreline. When Consolo was asked what the most serious complication could be, she said: “The most serious complication would be anything that leads to a nuclear chain reaction. And as outlined above, there are many different ways this could occur. In a fuel pool containing damaged rods and racks, it could potentially start up on its own at anytime. TEPCO has been incredibly lucky that this hasn’t happened so far.”

What no one wants to talk about is that there is an identical reactor sitting on the NJ shore that was right in the path of Hurricane Sandy. They keep on renewing the license even though it is well past it's "Use by" date.

You know why no one talks about it?

b/c nothing happened

If they did talk about it, liberals and fools would be faced with undeniable facts that they are WRONG again.

The problem with nuclear plants isn't the power itself. It is always the storage of the spent fuel rods. They remain toxic for generations. We don't have a safe and effective storage facility for the existing spent rods. Until we can come up with a safe secure means of storing them nuclear power will always be under the cloud of a potential disaster.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What no one wants to talk about is that there is an identical reactor sitting on the NJ shore that was right in the path of Hurricane Sandy. They keep on renewing the license even though it is well past it's "Use by" date.

You know why no one talks about it?

b/c nothing happened

If they did talk about it, liberals and fools would be faced with undeniable facts that they are WRONG again.

The problem with nuclear plants isn't the power itself. It is always the storage of the spent fuel rods. They remain toxic for generations. We don't have a safe and effective storage facility for the existing spent rods. Until we can come up with a safe secure means of storing them nuclear power will always be under the cloud of a potential disaster.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

 

[NLT]

OP is Pure BFS.
I am a consultant in the power industry, our company provides smart cleaning solutions for coal fired power plants and all power operations that use alternative fuels to power boilers.

Coal is the cheapest fuel and the most abundent. If we shut down all coal fired power plants in the US tomorrrow and replaced them with solar, wind or natural gas powered plants we would lose 90% all electrical power generation in the US. You tree huggin hippie green ***** would be crying that you cant watch TV, plug in your electric car, cool your house, use you computer, charge your smartphone ect, ect ect.

 

[Abraham3]

The waste is potential fuel for newer designs.

I saw a line in the posted article that I don't think I buy. "Consolo says that the slightest mishap with a single rod could cause an above ground meltdown with disastrous results and no way to control it."

A rod is a stack of pellets. To get a meltdown out of it, you'd have to take them out of their cooling pond, take them all out of the long metal tube they're in and then somehow compress them into a solid ball. I just don't think that's a high risk scenario.

 

[Abraham3]

OP is Pure BFS.
I am a consultant in the power industry, our company provides smart cleaning solutions for coal fired power plants and all power operations that use alternative fuels to power boilers.

Coal is the cheapest fuel and the most abundent. If we shut down all coal fired power plants in the US tomorrrow and replaced them with solar, wind or natural gas powered plants we would lose 90% all electrical power generation in the US. You tree huggin hippie green ***** would be crying that you cant watch TV, plug in your electric car, cool your house, use you computer, charge your smartphone ect, ect ect.

For a consultant, you don't seem to have a good grasp of details.

Your statement is equivalent to "if we shut down half the power plants, half the light will go out." Big whoop.

If we shut down all coal fired plants and replaced them with alternative sources of equivalent capacity, we would lose no electrical power generation.

ps: I'm pro-Obama whether it's cool or not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You know why no one talks about it?

b/c nothing happened

If they did talk about it, liberals and fools would be faced with undeniable facts that they are WRONG again.

The problem with nuclear plants isn't the power itself. It is always the storage of the spent fuel rods. They remain toxic for generations. We don't have a safe and effective storage facility for the existing spent rods. Until we can come up with a safe secure means of storing them nuclear power will always be under the cloud of a potential disaster.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

France on edge after accident at nuclear site - Europe - World - The Independent

 

[Derideo_Te]

A jammed control rod suddenly sprang free causing the reactor to go supercritical with insufficient cooling. The core exploded. Contamination of the immediate area was severe.

Is this the one from the 1960's? If so, how does that relate to more modern full scale reactors, which is the crux of the accident discussion?

There are reactors from the 1960's still in service.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

OP is Pure BFS.
I am a consultant in the power industry, our company provides smart cleaning solutions for coal fired power plants and all power operations that use alternative fuels to power boilers.

Coal is the cheapest fuel and the most abundent. If we shut down all coal fired power plants in the US tomorrrow and replaced them with solar, wind or natural gas powered plants we would lose 90% all electrical power generation in the US. You tree huggin hippie green ***** would be crying that you cant watch TV, plug in your electric car, cool your house, use you computer, charge your smartphone ect, ect ect.

For a consultant, you don't seem to have a good grasp of details.

Your statement is equivalent to "if we shut down half the power plants, half the light will go out." Big whoop.

If we shut down all coal fired plants and replaced them with alternative sources of equivalent capacity, we would lose no electrical power generation.

ps: I'm pro-Obama whether it's cool or not.

Except we have no alternate source to replace the coal plants unless we go nuclear which Obama is against also. He is pricing coal out of existence with no back up in sight. Anyone stuck with coal fired electricity will see a HUGE spike in prices.

As for this article it is a straight up lie. Germany is replacing their Nuclear plants with COAL fired plants not green ones. I linked to two of the stories.

 

[Derideo_Te]

OP is Pure BFS.
I am a consultant in the power industry, our company provides smart cleaning solutions for coal fired power plants and all power operations that use alternative fuels to power boilers.

Coal is the cheapest fuel and the most abundent. If we shut down all coal fired power plants in the US tomorrrow and replaced them with solar, wind or natural gas powered plants we would lose 90% all electrical power generation in the US. You tree huggin hippie green ***** would be crying that you cant watch TV, plug in your electric car, cool your house, use you computer, charge your smartphone ect, ect ect.

For a consultant, you don't seem to have a good grasp of details.

Your statement is equivalent to "if we shut down half the power plants, half the light will go out." Big whoop.

If we shut down all coal fired plants and replaced them with alternative sources of equivalent capacity, we would lose no electrical power generation.

ps: I'm pro-Obama whether it's cool or not.

Except we have no alternate source to replace the coal plants unless we go nuclear which Obama is against also. He is pricing coal out of existence with no back up in sight. Anyone stuck with coal fired electricity will see a HUGE spike in prices.

As for this article it is a straight up lie. Germany is replacing their Nuclear plants with COAL fired plants not green ones. I linked to two of the stories.

Those new coal plants are replacing EXISTING less efficient COAL plants. They are effectively reducing coal emissions by 20%. They are not replacing the old nuclear plants. Those are being replaced by wind and solar power instead.

 

[NLT]

OP is Pure BFS.
I am a consultant in the power industry, our company provides smart cleaning solutions for coal fired power plants and all power operations that use alternative fuels to power boilers.

Coal is the cheapest fuel and the most abundent. If we shut down all coal fired power plants in the US tomorrrow and replaced them with solar, wind or natural gas powered plants we would lose 90% all electrical power generation in the US. You tree huggin hippie green ***** would be crying that you cant watch TV, plug in your electric car, cool your house, use you computer, charge your smartphone ect, ect ect.

For a consultant, you don't seem to have a good grasp of details.

Your statement is equivalent to "if we shut down half the power plants, half the light will go out." Big whoop.

If we shut down all coal fired plants and replaced them with alternative sources of equivalent capacity, we would lose no electrical power generation.

ps: I'm pro-Obama whether it's cool or not.

equivalent capacity...dumbass...wind & solar dont have it.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For a consultant, you don't seem to have a good grasp of details.

Your statement is equivalent to "if we shut down half the power plants, half the light will go out." Big whoop.

If we shut down all coal fired plants and replaced them with alternative sources of equivalent capacity, we would lose no electrical power generation.

ps: I'm pro-Obama whether it's cool or not.

Except we have no alternate source to replace the coal plants unless we go nuclear which Obama is against also. He is pricing coal out of existence with no back up in sight. Anyone stuck with coal fired electricity will see a HUGE spike in prices.

As for this article it is a straight up lie. Germany is replacing their Nuclear plants with COAL fired plants not green ones. I linked to two of the stories.

Those new coal plants are replacing EXISTING less efficient COAL plants. They are effectively reducing coal emissions by 20%. They are not replacing the old nuclear plants. Those are being replaced by wind and solar power instead.

Wrong, as usual. They are phasing out nuclear by 2022. The replacement is the coal plants. Hell they are building them in cities with green energy sources already, read the article. The problem is that in the winter solar is nearly useless. Germany is overcast most days in the winter I lived there in my youth. No solar generation in the winter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The problem with nuclear plants isn't the power itself. It is always the storage of the spent fuel rods. They remain toxic for generations. We don't have a safe and effective storage facility for the existing spent rods. Until we can come up with a safe secure means of storing them nuclear power will always be under the cloud of a potential disaster.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

France on edge after accident at nuclear site - Europe - World - The Independent

People die in accidents all the time.

I'll bet that people have died while putting up large windmills so what's your point?

As far as deaths go there have been far less deaths associated with any aspect of nuclear power than any other large scale power generation operations.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com

France on edge after accident at nuclear site - Europe - World - The Independent

People die in accidents all the time.

I'll bet that people have died while putting up large windmills so what's your point?

As far as deaths go there have been far less deaths associated with any aspect of nuclear power than any other large scale power generation operations.

So you don't count those who died from Chernobyl (and still are dying) or the probable deaths from Fukishima (still to be determined) as being "associated with any aspect of nuclear power"?

The point being that nuclear waste is toxic and still kills people long after the power is no longer flowing. The same is not true for solar and wind power. So the question becomes how many innocent people must be needlessly sacrificed on the high alter of nuclear power?