Castor, Radioactivity, Green Energy, Kraftwerk

[Peter Korsten]

Op 9-11-2010 19:01, K9 Kai Niggemann schreef:

> I disagree. And so do many researchers. Nuclear might sound like a good idea until you start thinking of the waste. The only reason, in fact why nuclear can even compete with other forms of energy is because the costs (monetary as well as carbon-dioxide) of getting rid (ie hiding it in a salt mine) of the waste isn't even factored into the equation.

Nuclear may not be a good idea, but it's a better idea than fossil 
fuels, and yes, a better idea than renewables. The problem with 
renewables is that they're unreliable, or better put, inconsistent. 
There's no sunlight at night, there's usually also less wind, and 
getting energy from moving bodies of water won't work everywhere. Heck, 
lots of places don't even *have* enough water.

For all its faults, nuclear is very reliable and consistent.

> We must get out of nuclear as fast as we can. Oil, coal (and gas, btw) must go just as fast. We need renewable energies everywhere. And we can only achieve this by greatly reducing our energy consumption.

I agree on the need to reduce energy consumption, but it's not going to 
happen. Everybody now wants a mobile device (low power, innit?), but 
tends to forget the energy required for the massive mobile networks, 
massive data centres, all these things we've come to depend on.

Would you be happy to get rid of all your soft synths, your big screen, 
your mobile devices, your fast broadband connection used to broadcast 
your shows all over the world? How much energy goes into that?

We need to reduce our use of electricity with at least 50%, for 
starters, but it's not going to happen any time soon, 'soon' being the 
next 50 or so years.

> Also, it seems we will need an intelligent powergrid and electric cars -- their batteries will serve as a huge, efficient and distributed storage for the power that is created but not used during those 22 hours a day that most cars are parked...

I've come to the conclusion that electric cars would be the worst thing 
that could happen to the environment. Mind, I'd love to drive a Tesla 
Roadster, but for batteries you need rare earth metals that can be found 
basically in China and somewhere in the Andes. China is already curbing 
the export of these. The monopoly is even bigger than that of oil and gas.

> If you want green, you should go solar. get a provider that guarantees green energy. I am sure they exist in the Netherlands.

Solar is Spielerei for now. Too expensive, too inefficient, too 
unreliable in those areas where most electricity is used. Lots of 
sunlight tends to arrive in countries that are, shall we say, less 
politically stable. Worse off than with the Middle East and its oil.

> But what do you suggest we do about nuclear waste? I think the cost should be factored into the cost of kWh (kilowatt hours, that's the unit we use in .de, I don't know about other countries, probably the US uses kWinches ;) like the costs of maintenance are factored into every other form of energy.

I'm pretty certain that the cost of storing nuclear waste for a couple 
of years in Gorleben is significantly lower than the cost of having to 
deal with the activists.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for saving energy and using renewables. But 
it's naive to think that we can get rid of fossil fuels (and mark my 
words, black coal will make a comeback) any time soon, let alone nuclear.

Not unless we cut down on all those things that we find essential, like 
personal transport, ever more technology, or the ability to travel 
anywhere you like.

And face it, nobody likes to make sacrifices.

- Peter