Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[XXSockXX]

Hm, at least regionally Chernobyl had pretty devastating effects. There is a program that brings children from the region to Germany for vacations and a lot of them have cancer.
Also to this day wild boars that are killed in certain regions of Bavaria have to be treated as biohazard, because they eat truffles or other fungi that store radiation and/or toxic substances.

I remember that there was quite a panic here, with children not allowed to play outside and warnings to not eat certain vegetables because of toxic rains. Interestingly France didn't issue such warnings and the GDR even had a surplus of vegetables suddenly, because the toxic clouds somehow "didn't cross" their borders  .

I have to agree though that it's not great that energy companies have stopped updating reactors now that Germany has abandoned nuclear energy. That whole thing was rushed in way to early, green energy isn't sufficient yet and that shows on my electric bill.

[10ebbor10]

Well, it appears the effects on these children is primarily because they, or their mothers drank heavily contaminated water. The nuclear plant was located at a major river (all plants are) which fed one of the largest surface water systems in Europe. It certainly didn't help that the government denied that the water was polluted, and in fact raised the maximum allowed levels of radioiodine tremendously, so that all the water was considered save.

The boars are gravely overstated to. Merely 0.25% of the boars actually had traces of radiation, and none of them had large amounts.

[XXSockXX]

The boars are gravely overstated to. Merely 0.25% of the boars actually had traces of radiation, and none of them had large amounts.

That is certainly possible, it's just something that comes up in the media from time to time.
Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany borders on hysteria sometimes, so you better not contradict anything like this or you will be branded as an ignorant crazy person  . I wonder how long that will last now that electricity becomes more and more expensive while we have to rely on coal (which isn't eco-friendly either) and people are protesting against wind turbines in their neighbourhoods...

[10ebbor10]

Quite long actually. Germany has a fairly sensible environmental policy, and an economy strong enough to pull it off. Won't be the optimal descision anyway.

Belgium would be another story. The majority of our power (60%-80%) comes from nuclear, and the government want's a complete shutdown for 2030(AFAIK, I don't know anymore, they keep changing the dates around). Wind turbines have little place and are placed without any precautions. (Germany has a 2km danger zone, Belgium doesn't.*) We have to rely on offshore if we want to do anything usefull.

*You aren't even informed of the plans if you don't live within 800 meters.

[XXSockXX]

The funny thing is, now that it's done environmentalists are up on each others throats about the alternatives. Some point out that coal is bad because of CO2 emissions, others are against bio fuel because of the consequences for the food supply in South America, and others hate wind turbines because they are noisy, make the landscape look ugly and kill birds.
2030 was the initial plan here too, but after Fukushima public sentiment became overwhelming and the date was rushed to "ASAP", even if there are still lots of problems with the infrastructure to actually use the electricity that wind turbines produces. AFAIK a lot of wind turbines are not even connected to the power networks yet, because of conversion problems.

[LordSlowpoke]

Isn't biofuel currently a joke, what with the usual production material (corn) costing more to produce than the biofuel made out of it? Or are we talking about algae reactors and such at this point?

[10ebbor10]

Biofuel is, at the moment, a negative energy resource. Certainly corn based biofuel. There are others, which are used, but they aren't much better.

Have to make a difference between biofuel and biomass energy. One is car fuel, the other's an actually working alternative. Mainly means that you're burning wood to provide power.

[Sheb]

Actually, Germany is building coal plants right now.

[Mrhappyface]

I guess they gave up on solar then.

[10ebbor10]

Nah, not really.

It's just kinda hard to replace 10% of your energy production at once.

[MonkeyHead]

Germany, home of the green political school. Building Coal plants. Jeez, really? I am dissapoint.

[XXSockXX]

Well, at least as a bridge technology. Germany is not sunny enough for solar to be effective, water is not as big an option as in the Alpes or Norway and wind is still problematic, as I said before, due to infrastructure problems. Biomass energy stuff is being worked on, but it's not quite there yet.
Of course lots of people are against coal plants, but that is what you get when you rush things.

[10ebbor10]

Biomass is actually the most advanced and most simple renewable out there. I mean, it's the same technology as a coal plant, but with biomass instead of coal.

[GlyphGryph]

Biomass is generally just an incredibly inefficient type of solar though, isn't it?

[Nadaka]

Biomass is generally just an incredibly inefficient type of solar though, isn't it?

Yes, one that consumes soil nutrient and drains the aquifers of fresh water.

Granted that solar thermal can consume a lot of fresh water too if you don't slap a condenser on the steam pipe.