Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110530/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_germany_nuclear_power

Germany taking down its nuke reactors due to the japan incident. nuclear power is deemed "unsafe" because an 8.8 earthquake followed by a tsunami occured.

knee jerk reaction? or are hydro and wind-energy power plants reliable, viable, and powerful enough to be the way to go into the future?

That means they looked over the safety measures and realized they're fucked. Japan's reactor was cracked with just an earthquake. The tsunami didn't matter.

The tsunami took out the generators that were supposed to provide back-up power for the pumps needed to keep the plant(s) from going critical. That's a pretty big deal.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

People familiar with German politics know that this was pretty much Merkel's doing - and it's a characteristic, lowest-common-denominator gesture on her part.

It probably won't come to pass because there simply isn't enough capacity available from other viable sources of power.



1. No, this decision was purely political
2. No, what made the situation so bad was that the tsunami wiped out a lot of safety systems, compromising water pumps and the power grid, so they couldn't arrest the meltdown once it started.
3. It wasn't "just an earthquake", it was a 9.0 which makes this quake one of the biggest in history. Such an earthquake isn't even possible in many areas that are in principle susceptible to earthquakes.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I feel like everyone who hates on nuclear power should find out how much power they get from nuclear power(according to that article, germany and the US are about 25% from nuclear power) and then reduce their electricity usage by that %, then they can complain.

going back to say, coal, is much worse. nuclear power should suit germany just fine until they have an alternative energy source(wind, surf, solar, whatever) built up with enough infrastructure to carry the burden the nuke reactors bear, then they can switch over and shut down the nukes.

Not that i fucking beileve for an instant that any nuke reactors in germany are in danger of a 9.0 then a tsunami

if you want to count that as a must-have safety feature, you might as well demand skyscrapers are built in such a way that jetliners can gracefully land in their upper decks.

The plant itself went into chaos with the quake. No quake, no tsunami. Some diesel generators were disabled due to the flooding, not all. But none of that matters about why nuclear power plants were built on the ocean in an area that has always been a tsunami/quake/volcanic prone area.



4. Your perception is still myopic at best, like the people who proposed and agreed to build those systems, and just like your limited concept of history. You're about to see a lot worse weather and geological patterns, but political reasoning will fit your slant anyway.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/27/2909384/wolf-creek-nuke-plant-faulted.html

Oh, and USD, the twin towers were designed to withstand an impact from a smaller plane, lost in fog, which was spurred from the empire state building having the same thing occur to it. Of course, you could park your blimp at the empire state building if you wanted.

You want "cheap", there's a price to pay. You may not have to pay it, but those people who can't return home certainly are.

And now, Aestu and Jubber will play off this pseudo-intellectual keyboard cowboy thread, as usual.

Presumably they won't actually shut the plants down until they can replace them with alternate sources. Here in Ontario our coal plants were supposed to be shut down in 2007 (only one was actually closed then), then 2009, and now 2014. The latter date may work, as there is a lot of wind power coming online now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's pushed back yet again. I don't know how much lead time is needed to decide whether to refurbish nuclear reactors, but I would assume that between now and 2022 a future government could decide to keep at least some of the plants going.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

if by a smaller plane, you mean a single engine prop plane sure, not an international passenger plane going 200+ and loaded with fuel.

I'm pretty sure they designed the buildings to be sturdy. but shit like that no one can plan for and its not cost efficient to build it to withstand say, a giant wind mill being hurled by a giant in the front door, because there's a very low chance of that happening.

Actually, no you can't. Metropolitan areas are restricted flight zones, and standing policy is to shoot down rogue planes.



Coal definitely has a lower upfront cost than nuclear and I think the marginal cost is cheaper too. As Usd pointed out, the appeal of nuclear is that it produces a ton of power without emissions or huge volumes of fossil fuel.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

A Boeing 707 would be smaller than a 777.

Of course, this is where someone will say "but they planned for what they had back then" while ignoring that earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanoes and twisters have always been around.



Actually, yes you could, until the Hindenburg killed off blimp transport.

I imagine air planes killed off blimp transportation.

Fringe

first thing i thought of too. hi5

i don't watch tv

The other universe still uses blimps