There is no current facility for storing nuclear waste in a safe manner in Germany. Most of the high level waste is stored on the surface near the waste production sites.
Let's take a look at the dangers of plutonium-239: If inhaled a minute dose will be enough to increase the cancer risk to 100%. If ingested a minute dose is almost as dangerous because of it's heavy metal toxicity. It's half life is about 24k years. "It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people." (1)
So IMHO it's very irresponsible to create more nuclear waste, as long as we as a society have no way to get rid of it in a safe manner.
100% renewable is achievable and I think we should concentrate on this path since it will be safer and also cheaper in the long run. (2)(3)
Ok, so instead digging up coal mines, Germany could've spent time making a facility for safely storing processed nuclear fuel like many other countries have done. The amount of fear mongering about nuclear power while it's being widely used around the world and having been shown as one of the safest sources of energy is mind boggling. I guess in your opinion what we should do is keep destroying the environment by using fossils while ignoring practical alternatives.
No, my opinion is that we can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not have a long term solution for our nuclear waste. There is no such facility in Germany and a large portion of the waste is currently stored on the surface, partly in heavily populated areas like Philippsburg near Karlsruhe, a city with ~300k inhabitants.
Again, such facilities can be built. It's a choice not to do so. Also, Germany could use alternative fuels like thorium the way China is doing now with their molten salt reactors.
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don't think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It's true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
"All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but 'include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters'."
I'm struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
Google translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
No, you're struggling with the concept of how things come into existence. When a facility doesn't exist, the way to make it exist is by building this. Incredible that you're still unable to wrap your head around this concept.
There was a democratic and scientific process to find such a site for over twenty years. We as a people could not agree on a place and you can not build such a facility against the will of the people. They have to be convinced that's it's safe and this failed miserably.
So there is no such long term storage facility and my argument which I have repeated multiple times, that you fail to respond to is that:
As long as there is no such site we should not produce more nuclear waste.
What is your proposition how to handle the waste as long as we don't have a place to store it in the long term?
It's absolutely adorable that you think your government is implementing the will of the people given what your government has been doing for the past two years. Baerbock literally let the cat out of the bag when she said that she doesn't give a shit what the voters think.
Google translate:
https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
This is exactly what a majority of Germans want, we want it even faster and it's what we want our government to do:
Google translate:
https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The point you missed is that what majority of Germans want is entirely incidental to what the government does in Germany. Current government satisfaction is less than 30% last I looked, and your government seems to be proud of that. If the government pursued nuclear energy with the same zeal it's pursuing destruction of German economy then the problem could've been solved long ago.
This is true for a myriad of topics. But not regarding the energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels. The people of Germany are very much in support of this idea. 78% of Germans want this process to be finished even earlier and criticise our government for not moving fast enough on this topic.
Google translate:
https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Again, the point here is that the government doesn't appear to care one way or another. Public support or lack of thereof for any particular policy appears to play little role.
It does very much play a role. Because of the lack of public support it was not possible to build a long term nuclear storage facility in Germany. There have been multiple tries to establish such a site as early as 1979 in Gorleben. This project has been stopped by a large protest initiative.
I'm sure that if German government actually wanted to build a storage facility they could figure out how to get that done, and barring that they could make a deal with France or other countries who don't appear to have the issues Germany is having. Plenty of countries are using nuclear power in Europe just fine, and nuclear usage is only expanding. Germany is an outlier here.
They have tried for 45 years now and they tried it in Gorleben against the protest of the populace. There have been violent clashes between police and protesters, but in the end the protesters prevailed.
There also have been two storage facilities "Konrad" and "Asse" which have been catastrophic failures. Especially "Asse" was a horrific storage facility, with water leaks and corroded containers.
Google translate
https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
These experiences made it very hard to establish storage sites in Germany.
Exactly I think the German plans for the future of energy production are not produced out of thin air. It rather is the result of a well discussed issue that has been in the making for years. And now it's a feasible way to produce enough energy for the populace without resorting to fossil or nuclear fuel.
Yes I will as long as you are not engaging in a civil discussion, but keep succumbing to logical fallacies. You could try using viable arguments though.
I've stated my arguments for you repeatedly, and they haven't changed. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to convince you of anything nor will you convince me. Therefore, any meaningful discussion ended once the arguments were stated, and I see no point regurgitating the same points over and over. Are you so insecure in your views that you need external validation from strangers, and just can't accept that your points aren't convincing to others?
Me having opinions on a subject is not a personal attack. However, the fact that you see people stating their opinions as personal attacks says a lot about you as a person.
So try to elaborate what kind of opinion your trying to support when you say "Have a gold star".
It's this in support of your opinion or is it to undermine mine?
You're not okay with creating waste that can be contained but you are okay with creating waste that can't be contained.
You're not okay with waste that will harm/kill someone improperly exposed to it, but you are okay with waste that will end civilization and kill billions of people and is currently doing so.
I don't think I said that. I'm sure I did say that it's a huge problem. We have to get rid of coal as well as waste producing fission plants. I think we should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies.
Saying I'm against using nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent.
We've known what to do with the waste for a long time now. Also, when you use fossil fuels you're just directly polluting the environment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDUvCLAp0uU
There is no current facility for storing nuclear waste in a safe manner in Germany. Most of the high level waste is stored on the surface near the waste production sites. Let's take a look at the dangers of plutonium-239: If inhaled a minute dose will be enough to increase the cancer risk to 100%. If ingested a minute dose is almost as dangerous because of it's heavy metal toxicity. It's half life is about 24k years. "It has been estimated that a pound (454 grams) of plutonium inhaled as plutonium oxide dust could give cancer to two million people." (1) So IMHO it's very irresponsible to create more nuclear waste, as long as we as a society have no way to get rid of it in a safe manner. 100% renewable is achievable and I think we should concentrate on this path since it will be safer and also cheaper in the long run. (2)(3)
Sources:
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-239
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Ok, so instead digging up coal mines, Germany could've spent time making a facility for safely storing processed nuclear fuel like many other countries have done. The amount of fear mongering about nuclear power while it's being widely used around the world and having been shown as one of the safest sources of energy is mind boggling. I guess in your opinion what we should do is keep destroying the environment by using fossils while ignoring practical alternatives.
No, my opinion is that we can not use nuclear energy as long as we do not have a long term solution for our nuclear waste. There is no such facility in Germany and a large portion of the waste is currently stored on the surface, partly in heavily populated areas like Philippsburg near Karlsruhe, a city with ~300k inhabitants.
https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/ne/zwischenlager/standorte/standorte_node.html
Again, such facilities can be built. It's a choice not to do so. Also, Germany could use alternative fuels like thorium the way China is doing now with their molten salt reactors.
There is no such facility in Germany. As long as there is no facility for storing the radioactive waste, I don't think we should produce more nuclear waste.
It's true that liquid salt reactors are more fuel efficient than light water reactors and the waste is more short lived, but still it produces high level waste with even more radioactivity in the short term.
"All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives. Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but 'include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters'."
What part of such a facility could be built are you still struggling with?
I'm struggling with there not being such a facility in Germany. If we as a society can not agree on such a site, which is the current situation in Germany, we should not produce more radioactive waste.
This has been a process full of setbacks in Germany. There is an article on the German Wikipedia about it.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland
Google translation: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Endlagersuche_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
No, you're struggling with the concept of how things come into existence. When a facility doesn't exist, the way to make it exist is by building this. Incredible that you're still unable to wrap your head around this concept.
There was a democratic and scientific process to find such a site for over twenty years. We as a people could not agree on a place and you can not build such a facility against the will of the people. They have to be convinced that's it's safe and this failed miserably. So there is no such long term storage facility and my argument which I have repeated multiple times, that you fail to respond to is that:
As long as there is no such site we should not produce more nuclear waste.
What is your proposition how to handle the waste as long as we don't have a place to store it in the long term?
It's absolutely adorable that you think your government is implementing the will of the people given what your government has been doing for the past two years. Baerbock literally let the cat out of the bag when she said that she doesn't give a shit what the voters think.
Please check the page of our government about the "Energiewende" (change in energy production)
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498
Google translate: https://www-bundesregierung-de.translate.goog/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimaschutz/faq-energiewende-2067498?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
This is exactly what a majority of Germans want, we want it even faster and it's what we want our government to do:
https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
The point you missed is that what majority of Germans want is entirely incidental to what the government does in Germany. Current government satisfaction is less than 30% last I looked, and your government seems to be proud of that. If the government pursued nuclear energy with the same zeal it's pursuing destruction of German economy then the problem could've been solved long ago.
This is true for a myriad of topics. But not regarding the energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels. The people of Germany are very much in support of this idea. 78% of Germans want this process to be finished even earlier and criticise our government for not moving fast enough on this topic.
https://www.fr.de/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html
Google translate: https://www-fr-de.translate.goog/wirtschaft/78-prozent-der-deutschen-wollen-eine-schnellere-energiewende-zr-92219363.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Again, the point here is that the government doesn't appear to care one way or another. Public support or lack of thereof for any particular policy appears to play little role.
It does very much play a role. Because of the lack of public support it was not possible to build a long term nuclear storage facility in Germany. There have been multiple tries to establish such a site as early as 1979 in Gorleben. This project has been stopped by a large protest initiative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorleben
I'm sure that if German government actually wanted to build a storage facility they could figure out how to get that done, and barring that they could make a deal with France or other countries who don't appear to have the issues Germany is having. Plenty of countries are using nuclear power in Europe just fine, and nuclear usage is only expanding. Germany is an outlier here.
They have tried for 45 years now and they tried it in Gorleben against the protest of the populace. There have been violent clashes between police and protesters, but in the end the protesters prevailed.
There also have been two storage facilities "Konrad" and "Asse" which have been catastrophic failures. Especially "Asse" was a horrific storage facility, with water leaks and corroded containers.
https://www.ndr.de/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html
Google translate https://www-ndr-de.translate.goog/geschichte/schauplaetze/Marodes-Atommuell-Endlager-Asse-Der-lange-Weg-zur-Raeumung,asse1410.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
These experiences made it very hard to establish storage sites in Germany.
This may shock you to the core, but people don't get their views out of thin air.
Exactly I think the German plans for the future of energy production are not produced out of thin air. It rather is the result of a well discussed issue that has been in the making for years. And now it's a feasible way to produce enough energy for the populace without resorting to fossil or nuclear fuel.
yup that must be it 😂
Not a single argument from you to support your views or to deconstruct mine.
cry ab it
Yes I will as long as you are not engaging in a civil discussion, but keep succumbing to logical fallacies. You could try using viable arguments though.
I've stated my arguments for you repeatedly, and they haven't changed. It's pretty clear that I'm not going to convince you of anything nor will you convince me. Therefore, any meaningful discussion ended once the arguments were stated, and I see no point regurgitating the same points over and over. Are you so insecure in your views that you need external validation from strangers, and just can't accept that your points aren't convincing to others?
This discussion is not just about you and me.
And your point is?
My point is that we should not produce more nuclear waste as long as we do not have adequate storage facilities for the long term.
And I think that point is dumb. That's just like my opinion man.
Yes but still no argument and still just a personal attack.
There was no personal attack.
"I think that your point is dumb". Next time try something like: "I think your point is not valid" and it won't be a personal attack.
Me having opinions on a subject is not a personal attack. However, the fact that you see people stating their opinions as personal attacks says a lot about you as a person.
So calling me "unable to read" and"unable to comprehend" and all of Germany imbeciles is not a personal attack. I beg to differ.
The comment you replied to screeching about personal attacks was:
Yes and I have cited your other comments as well. That's what a credible source is.
And btw calling my point dumb is IMHO a personal attack. Next time try something like: I don't think your point is valid, because...[insert argument]
have a gold star
I don't understand what you are trying to say
that's been clear for a while
So try to elaborate what kind of opinion your trying to support when you say "Have a gold star". It's this in support of your opinion or is it to undermine mine?
it's me telling you that I'm done with the conversation
You maybe but I am not. I will keep asking you for arguments or credible sources to support your opinion or to undermine mine.
I see you don't understand how conversations work
I'm not trying to have a conversation I'm trying to have s civil discussion
and I think you're just perseverating
That's not a helpful argument to support your opinion
You're not okay with creating waste that can be contained but you are okay with creating waste that can't be contained.
You're not okay with waste that will harm/kill someone improperly exposed to it, but you are okay with waste that will end civilization and kill billions of people and is currently doing so.
I don't think I said that. I'm sure I did say that it's a huge problem. We have to get rid of coal as well as waste producing fission plants. I think we should aim for 100% renewables, which is feasible according to current studies. Saying I'm against using nuclear power plants does not make me a coal proponent.