Green hypocrisy in Germany

[Siekmanski]

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx

France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
The country has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and especially fuel products and services have been a significant export.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.

Facts vs ideology 

[Gunther]

The point about nuclear energy is this: What do we do with the radioactive waste that will continue to radiate for tens of thousands of years? The legislation is very different in the countries.
In Germany, a final repository for nuclear waste must be able to exist for 1 million years without outside human help.

Can anyone show me an artificial man-made building that is older than 5000 years? That's just a question that's going through my mind.

[caballero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w

[Greenhorn]

> The point about nuclear energy is this: What do we do with the radioactive waste that will continue to radiate for tens of thousands of years? The legislation is very different in the countries.

[sarcasm]
The USA found a solution in Iraq and Syria ...
[/sarcasm]

[Gunther]

Caballero,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w

Be careful that you don't fall for the climate swindle. Even Climate Greta, one of the favorites of our GDI, now suddenly favors nuclear energy. That should make you think.

Just a hint from me, no offense.

> The point about nuclear energy is this: What do we do with the radioactive waste that will continue to radiate for tens of thousands of years? The legislation is very different in the countries.

Greenhorn,

[sarcasm]
The USA found a solution in Iraq and Syria ...
[/sarcasm]

this is really no fun. The so-called atomic semiotics has produced outstanding stylistic bloomers. They tried to answer questions such as: How can we guarantee that future generations will not carry out archaeological
excavations in final nuclear repositories? In what language should we warn future generations of the dangers?

Human languages change fundamentally every 800 to 1000 years. Today I am no longer able to read Martin Luther in the original, although that was just 500 years ago. With nuclear waste we are talking about
hundreds of thousands to millions of years. This is not an exaggeration: Plutonium has a half-life of approximately 24 000 years.

So what were the solutions proposed by a commission appointed by Reagan? Here are just two examples:

• A special caste of nuclear preachers must transmit the knowledge from generation to generation.
• Special cats must be bred to indicate radioactive danger (atomic cats).

Honestly, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I first read such nonsense many years ago.

Whoever favors nuclear energy for solving whatever problems should first have answers to these questions and serious answers at that (no priests, nuclear cats etc.)

[nidud]

deleted

[caballero]

I'm ready to change my mind in almost every field in this life, just need good reasons.

I'm not a fan of Mrs Greta Thunberg at all, which doesn't mean that none of what she likes is not a good thing for me. Let see it first.

If we need destroy a wonderful forest to install wind turbines, I think that we are doing something wrong.

It is true, I would not like to have a nuclear power plant next to my house, but that does not mean that they are not necessary. Renewable energies have their great shortcomings and they need to burn natural gas to solve them, including coal, I think it is being burned in Germany. All to avoid nuclear power plants.

Perhaps, even if nuclear energy is not predominant, we may still need it. I have heard of fourth generation nuclear power plants that use even recycled nuclear material as fuel.

I am not an expert on this, but I would say that considering something religiously good is not a good idea. Let's see where the deficiencies are and how we can correct them in the best possible way.

[Gunther]

Caballero,

once again, do not fall into this trap.

If we need destroy a wonderful forest to install wind turbines, I think that we are doing something wrong.

That is absolutely right and I am with you on that.

It is true, I would not like to have a nuclear power plant next to my house, but that does not mean that they are not necessary.

Really? Please do not forget that there is always a military component behind the nuclear energy. The high proportion in France is mainly for maintaining the force de frappe. To be honest, reactors such as Cattenom are not exactly brilliant.
Fortunately, the crap reactor Fessenheim went off the grid in 2020. This may have saved us a lot of trouble.

Renewable energies have their great shortcomings ...

Yes, but only in the brain damaged form in which they are now applied. You can't get out of nuclear power - like Germany - and shut down conventional thermal power plants at the same time.
Wind energy is not baseload capable. But it's good to use for peak load. Right now, operators of existing wind turbines cannot feed into the grid when they could offer energy. The wheels then
rotate freely. Solar panel operators face similar problems. Electrical energy is difficult to store.

But how about this? Suppose you have an old abandoned mine. There is a height difference of several hundred meters (or yards, if you prefer that). If the wind is blowing properly or the sun is
shining and it is not possible to feed into the grid, you can pump water from the bottom to the top with this energy (at zero cost). You can then allow to flow off that water, if it is urgently required
and use it to operate a water turbine. This is how a pumped storage plant works. Completely without emissions and radioactive waste. But this requires political will and a well thought-out concept.

I calculated the generator for the Markersbach pumped storage plant at that time. It has been working reliably since 1979.
How many closed mines do you think there are in Germany? Sometimes it's good to think a little.

I hope that my arguments have made you think. Unlike others, I am not ideologically blinded and can already see the problems realistically.

[hutch--]

I have seen a couple of variants on that, very big flywheels is one, and a very heavy weight down a deep hole that you wind up in the day time and let its mass slowly descend driving a generator at night.

[Gunther]

Steve,

I have seen a couple of variants on that, very big flywheels is one, and a very heavy weight down a deep hole that you wind up in the day time and let its mass slowly descend driving a generator at night.

that is correct. One can think of various technical solutions to the problem. The particularities of the individual countries and regions must be taken into account.
In Germany alone, there are hundreds - if not more - abandoned mines: Silver mines, hard coal mines, uranium mines etc. The situation is similar in France and Poland.

[HSE]

I calculated the generator for the Markersbach pumped storage plant at that time. It has been working reliably since 1979.

That look interesting. Which are conversion efficiencies?

[Gunther]

That look interesting. Which are conversion efficiencies?

This is a question you should ask the operator of the power plant (Vattenfall).

When the power plant was started in 1979, water was pumped from the lower basin to the upper basin using cheap night electricity. This is the classic operation of a pumped storage plant.
If you read carefully, you will notice that in my post from here I started from different premises. The Francis turbine or the Ossberger turbine does not care how the water gets from
the lower basin to the upper basin. It'll drive the generator in any case. Even if the water is pumped up from below with wind or solar energy at zero cost. That is precisely the trick: the intermediate
storage of electrical energy in mechanical energy.

By assigning this task to existing wind turbines, which often idle and cannot feed directly into the grid, the efficiency balance (in an economic sense) would be quite positive.

Was that the meaning of your question? But don't worry, there are quite other concepts related to electrolysis, photosynthesis (very important for our life!). Unfortunately, I am not allowed to write further about this at the moment.
That's the topic of a project funded by the EU. I have pretty deep insight there and don't talk from my gut.

[Gunther]

Nidud,

The Finns solved this by storing it in a safe location 300m under ground. If you expand and make room for the power plant as well I think you have a workable solution.

If anything goes wrong you just dump some cement down the shaft and seal it off.

Oh yes, the Finns. I know the documentary about the world's first "end repository" for radioactive waste.

The situation in Finland is fundamentally different. There the radioactive garbage must lie only 100 000 years (1 000 000 years in Germany!). But check the half-life of uranium or thorium. In this context are 100 000 years simply ridiculous.

But the fundamental question is: An end repository must function without human intervention. Should your beton (cement is a powder and must be mixed with water and sand to make beton) automatically run in when something happens? Even if you could somehow solve this technically (very difficult): Will your beton also last for tens of thousands of years?

[Greenhorn]

> ..., photosynthesis (very important for our life!).

Years ago I read an article about that topic. It said that photosynthesis still isn't fully understood, but if it could be unraveled, one can develope the most efficient solar panels because photosynthesis is the most efficient way of solar energy production.
Nature/Life has always the most efficient solutions for all occuring problems.

[Gunther]

Greenhorn,

Years ago I read an article about that topic. It said that photosynthesis still isn't fully understood, but if it could be unraveled, one can develope the most efficient solar panels because photosynthesis is the most efficient way of solar energy production.
Nature/Life has always the most efficient solutions for all occuring problems.

That is correct. Reasonable biologists say that photosynthesis is a very important basis of life. In the process, plants convert CO2 (my God, this climate killer!) into oxygen, which, as we know, we urgently need for breathing.
But let's wait and see what our GDI has to say about it.