Because it can run out [fossil fuels]. Fossil fuels are also very efficient and powerful. Best to save them for the long run, when needed.
I saw a reportage about a group that was able to produce oil-like fuel out of algae. That might be interesting to follow.
What is your primary reason as to why you're against it?
Because of the damage that radioactive particles can do, and especially because of their (often too) long half-life, which leads in accumulation in the food chain. Have you seen the recent reportage on the wildlife in today tchernobyl contaminated zone? Plants and animals prosper, and yet bones of dead animal make the Geiger counter go crazy. Worst thing are the wastes. You said they sometimes are being disposed of semi-eriously, that's already a progress. But all this nuclear technology thing is a typical human thing: it gets us big advantages, so let's do it excessively, even though we don't know anything about consequences or disposal. We know more nowadays, and maybe technologies in the future will be safe enough that I trust them, and maybe it will be in better hands than in those of lobbyists. But until now I am still very distrustful about this whole nuclear energy thing.
Easy solution: invade part of the Sahara desert, put up a bunch of solar panels, and bam! Germany would have enough energy, and even more with only solar energy.
But the countries there are very unstable. The chance that some terrorist would attack would be very high. So no, it's not really a good idea.
Didn't read the article, but why did they do it? Afraid of meltdowns like Japan had? Nuclear waste? Or other reasons?
Europe is on a green wave. Since the accident in Japan everyone is talking about nuclear energy etc. Same goes with Switzerland: The government decided to turn off nuclear power plants till 2030.
wow how stupid, man, grimml you dont put wikipedia as a trusted source
Well if you looked at the sources you would have seen this. It's German but I can assure you that it is reliable.
[Just a question... why can't we blast them into space? :S]
You can't blast em off into space because, like indie55 said, rocket fuel is expensive, but also radioactive waste is still deadly. Any terrorist in his right mind wouldn't let an opportunity like this to go to waste, so they might sabotage the mission and destroy the surrounding area due to the radioactivity. Even if terrorists don't tamper with it, the space shuttle still may not be able to get off the ground, because mistakes can happen, like what had happened to the Challenger.
Easy solution: invade part of the Sahara desert, put up a bunch of solar panels, and bam! Germany would have enough energy, and even more with only solar energy.
Another reason this can't be done is that it is impractical. To transport the energy made from the Sahara to Germany would require a lot of resources that are more than Germany would gain in benefits from having those solar panels. Nuclear energy is a much wiser choice.
Indie55, The graph just says coal efficiency. That is taking in account all grades of coal. And although Tidal power is effective, it's not everywhere. Coal is [and where it isn't, it is transportable]
Besides being expensive it could end up spreading the waste across of the globe if the rocket was to fail.
Yeah I forgot about gravity for a second dumb question
Though I don't hate nuclear energy, I guess the green wave is a nice thing over all. Hopefully it spreads into our environmentally evil USA
Well I'm hoping that this is because they are turning to greener sources not that they are just getting rid of it because of Fukushima. Because then they'd have no power and be screwed.
Well I'm hoping that this is because they are turning to greener sources not that they are just getting rid of it because of Fukushima.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'greener sources' considering nuclear power is very green. I'm also sure, at least I hope, that Germany is smart enough to be able to keep up with their energy needs. If not, I'm not sure if they would have to import energy from other countries.
Indie55, The graph just says coal efficiency. That is taking in account all grades of coal. And although Tidal power is effective, it's not everywhere. Coal is [and where it isn't, it is transportable]
Yes, there are different types of coal with different efficiencies but coal is still very dirty no matter how 'clean' it is. It also just happens to be one of the most readily available resources. If we could find better ways of transmitting power then other sources might prevail.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'greener sources' considering nuclear power is very green. I'm also sure, at least I hope, that Germany is smart enough to be able to keep up with their energy needs. If not, I'm not sure if they would have to import energy from other countries.
I meant like renewable power sources.
And I heard somewhere that it is still safe if you use thorium in a nuclear power plant.
And I heard somewhere that it is still safe if you use thorium in a nuclear power plant.
You mean "safe". Did you also get why that is so? Maybe the halflife of thorium is short? Also, you can use whatever you want, if for example the cooling system fails, you get a problem.
