German police battle with 1000s blocking nuke train

Lots of radical hippies in Germany too. Phew! I thought it was just in the U.S.

What a waste of human braincells.

Hippies argue that the cost of processing of spent nuclear fuel is too high, and therefore nuclear power should be abandoned.

While actively sabotaging attempts to deal with spent nuclear fuel, increasing the cost of said operations.

Unbelieveable stupidity.

The whole issue is ridiculous. Germany opted out of nuclear power ( by 2020 or something like that ) and yet here it is taking French nuclear waste ( garbage ) for processing. It does not make sense. Germans have the right to oppose transfer of nuclear waste for treatment in their country. Of course if you think that Germans are stupid, you can always take the French waste and process it in the US.

It says there it's german waste, processed in France, sent back to Germany. The trains shouldn't have stopped. No police, no anything, just keep the train going. That'll teach them to sit on a railroad track.

Hippies argue that the cost of processing of spent nuclear fuel is too high, and therefore nuclear power should be abandoned.

While actively sabotaging attempts to deal with spent nuclear fuel, increasing the cost of said operations.

Unbelieveable stupidity.

Hmm, the mirror image of "the government doesn't work so elect me and I'll prove it!"

Also I think this:

It says there it's german waste, processed in France, sent back to Germany. The trains shouldn't have stopped. No police, no anything, just keep the train going. That'll teach them to sit on a railroad track.

is more deserving of the descriptor "unbelievable stupidity" than the actual protestors. I'm guessing he's assuming the train wouldn't derail, not that that's not the point.

Lots of radical hippies in Germany too.

Go to these protests. You'd be surprised how few 'hippies' there are. I've been there in past years. You'll find anything there: farmers, bankers, lawyers, students, ...anything.

While actively sabotaging attempts to deal with spent nuclear fuel, increasing the cost of said operations.

No. That's the whole point of these protests - to drive up the cost of these transports even more, so that the whole nuclear energy scheme becomes even moer uneconomical than it already is.

The protesters know that they will not stop these trains. But binding thousands of police (who don't want to be there, either) and the media coverage of police having to remove people they actually agree with is worth its weight in gold.

The whole issue is ridiculous. Germany opted out of nuclear power ( by 2020 or something like that ) and yet here it is taking French nuclear waste ( garbage ) for processing.

There are treaties to be honored. Abandoning nuclear does not mean that germany will simply break any and all contracts on a whim. It just means that no new nuclear installations will be built, and the licenses of the old ones will not be renewed.
Reprocessing of nuclear materials will stop shortly thereafter.

It does not make sense..

It indeed does make sense, if you realize, this activity is the subject of long term contracts.

While actively sabotaging attempts to deal with spent nuclear fuel, increasing the cost of said operations.

Wow, raising operational costs of the nuclear ecoterrorist industry. What will the hippies try next? Safe drinking water?

Adolf abandoned nuclear, in preference to conventional.

Pity about that - we could have had racially pure christian theocracies instead - and everyone would have loved nuclear - because Addy said so.

While actively sabotaging attempts to deal with spent nuclear fuel, increasing the cost of said operations.

Wow, raising operational costs of the nuclear ecoterrorist industry. What will the hippies try next? Safe drinking water?

The point is that the spent fuel must be processed anyways, so they're really just harming their own cause and the society. They're trying to make it more difficult to deal with the waste that already exists.

What would they have you do with it? Leave it in the reactors and abandon them until they start to leak?

Kill the beaver, save the tree..

Sadly, the only thing credible about their actions is the fact, that they actually honestly believe they are saving the world..

YEA! Lets build more coal plants!!
..and burn more fossil fuels!!!

!!! STOP NUCLEAR !!! NO MORE NUKE PEST !!!
(*chains him/herself to the nearest pair of rails*)

NOT!

So many of them don't see farther than the tips of their noses, it's sad.. Not just regarding nuclear..

Thumbs down :-(

Fear and emotional thinking are powerful. Fundamentalists can't be educated because they only believe what makes them feel good.

YEA! Lets build more coal plants!!
..and burn more fossil fuels!!!

I think you will not find one protester who wants that.

For germany the numbers look like this:

With (to date) nearly 200bn Euros in subsidies for nuclear about 22% of electricity is generated from nuclear power.
Another 200bn in subsidies went to coal which supplies 43% of electricity.
17% of electricity is supplied by alternative energy sources. That has cost a measly 28bn Euros in subsidies to date.

So you tell me which is the most cost-effective?

Dumping nuclear does not necessarily mean 'more coal/oil'. The increase in alternative energy has been so rapid in the past few years that even the most optimistic goals by the green party has been exceeded (they were hoping for 15% by 2012)

The whole issue is ridiculous. Germany opted out of nuclear power ( by 2020 or something like that ) and yet here it is taking French nuclear waste ( garbage ) for processing. It does not make sense. Germans have the right to oppose transfer of nuclear waste for treatment in their country. Of course if you think that Germans are stupid, you can always take the French waste and process it in the US.

LOL. OK hippie dude. You might want to reread a few posts until the words sink in through your drug-addled mind.

No one said anything about German intelligence, one way or the other.

HIPPIES, on the other hand, by whatever name (e.g., OWS protesters) are the braindead refuse of society.

In summary, shame on you for equating a few hundred people with the great German nation.

Lots of radical hippies in Germany too.

Go to these protests. You'd be surprised how few 'hippies' there are. I've been there in past years. You'll find anything there: farmers, bankers, lawyers, students, ...anything.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Smelly hippies can come from any socioeconomic background.

The protesters know that they will not stop these trains. But binding thousands of police (who don't want to be there, either) and the media coverage of police having to remove people they actually agree with is worth its weight in gold.

Naw, it's just smelly hippies. Idiots sitting on train tracks never get anything done. It's the least-intelligent method of democratic maneuvering. Meanwhile, the grownups will go behind closed doors and keep the German economy functioning properly, as always.

Go to these protests.

Oh, and btw, the whole point is: 99% of us can't because we have jobs, family responsibilities, etc.

Naw, it's just smelly hippies. Idiots sitting on train tracks never get anything done.

Well, they have driven up costs to the point where the current train is the last one. So I say those 'smelly hippies' have actually succeeded.
But you should really try and go to some protests once in a while to get a more realistic picture of who the protesters actually are.

Oh, and btw, the whole point is: 99% of us can't because we have jobs, family responsibilities, etc.

I have a job, too. And I have been to these protests. It's quite simple: Go on weekends or take a day off. Even in the US the workers should be allowed to have a few days off a year, no?
No one has THAT little time on their hands not to be able to afford a few hours to do something they feel passionate about (or they're doing something seriously wrong in their lives).

Not resisting injustice because "I have no time" is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard.

17% of electricity is supplied by alternative energy sources. That has cost a measly 28bn Euros in subsidies to date.

So you tell me which is the most cost-effective?

The actual majority of those subsidies are spent in solar power which produces just 2% of the energy, and a lesser amount in wind power which produces about 7% to a total of 9%

The rest of the 17% comes from things like burning agricultural waste for district heat, and it doesn't need subsidies because it's already profitable.

So you tell me which is the most cost-effective?

Nuclear and coal, because the cost of alternative energy skyrockets as you try to integrate more of it in the grid. There's just so much biomass to burn, and increasing random energy (wind and solar) destabilizes the grid and causes energy lossses elsewhere like in running peaking powerplants to match the variation.

With (to date) nearly 200bn Euros in subsidies for nuclear about 22% of electricity is generated from nuclear power. Another 200bn in subsidies went to coal which supplies 43% of electricity. 17% of electricity is supplied by alternative energy sources. That has cost a measly 28bn Euros in subsidies to date.
So you tell me which is the most cost-effective?

So the pollution of our very Earth is at stake, and you talk about cost? Really? Way to go, Mr. Environmentalist? :-)

I never questioned alternate and less pollutant ways of energy generation, however [wind,water,solar,geothermal] alone (combined) simply can't meet todays ever-increasing demand for energy (for various reasons), and until a cleaner energy source is available (fusion,etc.), nuclear is by FAR the cleanest choice to fill that gap..

Dumping nuclear does not necessarily mean 'more coal/oil'.

But, quite sadly, that is exactly what it does, in current situation. And that's also the major reason why I object

[q9Nuclear and coal, because the cost of alternative energy skyrockets as you try to integrate more of it in the grid. There's just so much biomass to burn
Biomass is just 5.6 percent (you forgot hydro).

Even if they'd spend 5 times the money on subsidies and only got about half of the increase they have had in the past years then that still would be vastly superior to nuclear and coal (even omitting all ancillary costs that accrue with coal and nuclear).

and increasing random energy (wind and solar) destabilizes the grid

Since we're in a European grid that problem isn't as big as it's made out to be (yes: the grid must be restructured, but that is already under way and the cost for that is already planned). If we'd take 400bn we could restructure the grid 10 times over.

There will have to be some emergency powerplants to be ready on short notice. Gas power plants are the best option at present.

I never questioned alternate and less pollutant ways of energy generation, however [wind,water,solar,geothermal] alone (combined) simply can't meet todays ever-increasing demand for energy

Tell that to the countries that are already doing so:

Sweden is at 40% (vowing to get rid of oil dependence by 2020), Iceland is at 70%, Brazil is at 84.5% and New Zealand gets 73% of their electricity from renewables.
They seem to be doing quite well covering that 'ever increasing demand' and even increasing that percentage. No blackouts or impasse problems with the grid so far in those countries. No 'skyrocketing' grid costs, either.

So the pollution of our very Earth is at stake, and you talk about cost? Really?

Someone has to pay for this stuff. It's nonsensical to talk about solutions that no one can afford (like space based solar)

Well, they have driven up costs to the point where the current train is the last one. So I say those 'smelly hippies' have actually succeeded.

Mass hysteria (Fukushima) and political populism alone, are the major causes for that.

And of course the activists are the self-proclaimed winners now. Or how would you feel, if you had to realize that all your actions were futile or had little to no effect, after being chain-tied to a rail for several days/weeks? ;-D

Again - I'm all for "green", but exchanging nuclear for some chemical burning process is NOT really the "greenest of ways" how to do it.

The point beeing, that the activists might wish for wind/solar instead of nuclear, they might honestly do, but with currently available technology, that is just simply not feasible (for various reasons). So with blocking/ditching the nuclear power, they are actually causing more harm to the environment, than good. And they don't even get it.. they are just normal people.

Or how would you feel, if you had to realize that all your actions were futile or had little to no effect, after being chain-tied to a rail for several days/weeks?

Funny you should ask. Just yesterday - after more than a year of weekly protest marches against a major railway reconstruction project in Stuttgart, Germany - a referendum was held.

The result was that a majority of people (59%) want the project to go ahead (though judging from media reports of the past year one would have the opposite impression).

All participants and organizations (and the ruling green party in that part of Germany) have immediately declared to abide by that outcome. It is the will of the people. And if the majority are not opposed then those 'smelly hippies' will peacefully disband.

Again - I'm all for "green", but exchanging nuclear for some chemical burning process

Lucky then that that is not the plan.

The point beeing, that the activists might wish for wind/solar instead of nuclear, they might honestly do, but with currently available technology, that is just simply not feasible

As noted: Various countries are already proving you wrong.

The DESERTEC initiative is geared to get 15% of EU electricity from north African solar (for a measly 400bn investment - though if past projects are anything to go by that number will likely be exceeded. Still pretty cost effective, even if it will cost 10 times as much).

This stuff is doable. And it won't even cost more than continuing to sink subsidies into the conventional types of powerplants (and paying all the cleanup costs). So if we can exchange our power infrastructure without much of an additional cost (and gain something for the environment along the way) - why not do it?

Sweden is at 40% (vowing to get rid of oil dependence by 2020), Iceland is at 70%, Brazil is at 84.5% and New Zealand gets 73% of their electricity from renewables.

Sweeden - hydro, nuclear
Iceland - hydro, geothermal
New Zealand - hydro, geothermal
Brazil - hydro

Brazil has the largest capacity for water storage in the world, being highly dependent on hydroelectricity generation capacity, which meets over 80% of its electricity demand.

Do you honestly believe the whole world can do the same as those few nitpicked special-case countries?

Time to put those pink googles down.. There's a reason why hippies like to wear them. Apart from several abuse of certain plant combustion byproducts :)

and until a cleaner energy source is available (fusion,etc.), nuclear is by FAR the cleanest choice to fill that gap..

I am surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of this obvious alternative?

"The planned phase-out means that Berlin needs to find an alternative source for a little less than a quarter of its electricity generation - the amount nuclear power currently contributes. Berlin is aiming for greater efficiency and reliance on renewable energy, but it is clear that in the short term - by which we mean within this decade - it will turn to Russian natural gas."

NG burns clean and there is SO much of it around, more than enough to power euro industry. Further, a strong Russian economy is a good way of resisting Islamist incursion. It makes sense economically, ecologically, and strategically. Which is no doubt the main reason that public sentiment is being turned against oil and nuclear.

I am surprised that nobody here seems to be aware of this obvious alternative?

Natural gas burns clean and there is SO much of it around, more than enough to power euro industry. ... It makes sense economically, ecologically, and strategically. Which is no doubt the main reason that public sentiment is being turned against oil and nuclear.

Then there is the CO2 issue.. Although you are right that NG is by far the "cleanest" form of fossil fuel energy, it is still far from "clean". Nuclear, if done right(!), is still lots "green-er" in comparison.

And about how much reason do you think there really is when it comes to "public sentiment turning against nuclear"?

The very wast majority doesn't even understand what happens when they burn wood in their backyards, so how much insight can be expected when it comes to nuclear? All they know comes mostly from pub-talk and mass-media, which is often subject to severe opinion bias, and very seldom based on hard facts..

The very wast majority doesn't even understand what happens when they burn wood in their backyards, so how much insight can be expected when it comes to nuclear? All they know comes mostly from pub-talk and mass-media, which is often subject to severe opinion bias, and very seldom based on hard facts..

Correct. And so it doesn't take much PR to sway them. Fukushima was designed and constructed in ways that made it particularly susceptible to the sort of disaster which destroyed it. Earthquakes and tsunamis of this magnitudes have been predicted for decades.

Chernobyl happened in germanys backyard and yet euro nuclear programs proceeded unabated. Meltdowns occur on the other side of the globe and suddenly it is time for change? Strategically it is no longer necessary to pour trillions into middle eastern treasuries. Strategically this money is now better applied elsewhere. And so we are discovering vast oil reserves elsewhere, and finding how useful NG can be. Big surprise.

"Fuel Cells - Natural gas fuel cell technologies are in development for the generation of electricity. Fuel cells are sophisticated devices that use hydrogen to generate electricity, much like a battery. No emissions are involved in the generation of electricity from fuel cells, and natural gas, being a hydrogen rich source of fuel, can be used. Although still under development, widespread use of fuel cells could in the future significantly reduce the emissions associated with the generation of electricity."

Bloom box
"On 24 February 2010, Sridhar told Todd Woody of The New York Times that his devices are making electricity for 810 cents/kWh using natural gas, which is cheaper than today's electricity prices in some parts of the United States, such as California. Twenty percent of the Bloom Energy Server cost savings depend upon avoiding transfer losses that result from energy grid use."

-A tech in it's infancy. Wait until GE starts making them.

Kill the beaver, save the tree..

Sadly, the only thing credible about their actions is the fact, that they actually honestly believe they are saving the world..

Please do not "kill the beaver". I do love it so.

HIPPIES, on the other hand, by whatever name (e.g., OWS protesters) are the braindead refuse of society.

Cartman? Eric Cartman? is that really you??

Not resisting injustice because "I have no time" is the most ludicrous argument I've ever heard.

You seemed to have missed the point. On purpose I would surmise. Time isn't the problem. It would be my disdain for bleeding heart, whiney-ass liberals who waste their time and mine by protesting. Either here in the U.S. or elsewhere. It's the same type of jerkoff either way. And, not only have I been to more than one protest, but we all know in this day and age that there's 24/7 news coverage every time a protester takes a crap or wipes their nose.

Exactly! Why go out and stand for what you believe in, when you can sit behind you laptop and potato chips and whine on and on in some obscure internet blog!

would be my disdain for bleeding heart, whiney-ass liberals who waste their time and mine by protesting.

If you had ever been at a protest in your life you would realize that it's not the whiney-ass liberals who go there.

Certainly you have not been in accord with everything that has ever been done by government. But instead of making your voice heard you disparage those who don't take things lying down. Democracy does NOT mean only going out for a vote every few years.

Do you honestly believe the whole world can do the same as those few nitpicked special-case countries?

Yes, because every country has some potential. Wind, solar, wave, hydro, geothermal, biomass - the mix just depends on what you have.
E.g. the US would have ample opportunity for any of those. Hydro/wind off its coasts. Solar in the entire south and midwest to fuel the country 100 times over. Biomass everywhere (corn stalks)...

@Nerdyguy Time isn't the problem.

Indeed you have plenty of time for bankster bootlicking and austerity pogroms.

You imaginary friend Jesus was also a smelly hippie.

Chernobyl happened in germanys backyard and yet euro nuclear programs proceeded unabated.

No. Post 1986 there was a german consensus to stop nuclear. All further plans were put on hold. The plants in construction at the time were completed and the last one went on line in 1989 (building had started in 1982). Due to the large investment companies were given a guarantee on how long they could run their reactors. But even then the end had already been decided.

It was only the current government (Merkel and her conservatives) that overturned that (mere months before Fukushima happened). They wanted to extend the leases (effectively letting the reactors run indefinitely). This move was widely unpopular and the protests against it had already been ongoing when Fukushima happened.

@Eikka There's just so much biomass to burn, and increasing random energy (wind and solar) destabilizes the grid and causes energy lossses elsewhere like in running peaking powerplants to match the variation.

What is "random" energy? Did you know that electric cars have batteries, and they can store energy to balance the grid load? Did you know that California and Denmark have already though through these issues? That Denmark already is more than half powered by renewables? That California is setting that same target by 2050? You would if you actually read this site or bothered to have an informed opinion.

Exactly! Why go out and stand for what you believe in, when you can sit behind you laptop and potato chips and whine on and on in some obscure internet blog!

Ironic that you would use this scenario. I suppose you thought you were being clever. But, I've got some news you might want to read. It's very, very likely that none of the protesters of various causes around the world have gotten anywhere near as much done as people working behind the scenes, either in politics, journalism, business, charitable organizations, etc.

I suspect you're probably young and idealistic, and have some notion that protests really accomplish something. And, occasionally they do. But, those are few and far in between. In reality, the real work behind global change DOES come largely by people doing things like typing on computers.

would be my disdain for bleeding heart, whiney-ass liberals who waste their time and mine by protesting.

If you had ever been at a protest in your life you would realize that it's not the whiney-ass liberals who go there.

Are you kidding me? I've stood next to the OWS protesters and laughed my ass off at all the smelly hippies. Oh, sure, there's a nun or two, some guys in suits, a few decent-looking middle aged types. But, 95% of them are dirty, smelly hippies banging on drums. This isn't news. Everybody knows this.

would be my disdain for bleeding heart, whiney-ass liberals who waste their time and mine by protesting.

If you had ever been at a protest in your life you would realize that it's not the whiney-ass liberals who go there.

Are you kidding me? I've stood next to the OWS protesters and laughed my ass off at all the smelly hippies. Oh, sure, there's a nun or two, some guys in suits, a few decent-looking middle aged types. But, 95% of them are dirty, smelly hippies banging on drums. This isn't news. Everybody knows this.

So why don't you give them some soap? Isn't that what Jesus would do? Or do you model yourself more along the lines of Nazi Pope?

@Nerdyguy Time isn't the problem.

Indeed you have plenty of time for bankster bootlicking and austerity pogroms.

You imaginary friend Jesus was also a smelly hippie.

lol dude, it always makes my day to read your silly posts. Best entertainment around!

BTW, Jesus wasn't imaginary. His existence as a historical figure is well documented.

Curious though why you would think he is my friend. lmao, but you do make up good stuff.

HIPPIES, on the other hand, by whatever name (e.g., OWS protesters) are the braindead refuse of society.

Cartman? Eric Cartman? is that really you??

lol, had to look this name up.

would be my disdain for bleeding heart, whiney-ass liberals who waste their time and mine by protesting.

If you had ever been at a protest in your life you would realize that it's not the whiney-ass liberals who go there.

Are you kidding me? I've stood next to the OWS protesters and laughed my ass off at all the smelly hippies. Oh, sure, there's a nun or two, some guys in suits, a few decent-looking middle aged types. But, 95% of them are dirty, smelly hippies banging on drums. This isn't news. Everybody knows this.

So why don't you give them some soap? Isn't that what Jesus would do? Or do you model yourself more along the lines of Nazi Pope?

Would Jesus and the Nazi Pope (whatever that may mean) be the only choices? Just checking.

Would Jesus and the Nazi Pope (whatever that may mean) be the only choices? Just checking.

Daring to ask that heretical question means you're going to burn in eternal hellfire. Because god loves you.

No. Post 1986 there was a german consensus to stop nuclear. All further plans were put on hold. The plants in construction at the time were completed and the last one went on line in 1989 (building had started in 1982). Due to the large investment companies were given a guarantee on how long they could run their reactors. But even then the end had already been decided.

But nuclear plants continued to supply 23% of germanys power until this year. In other words, unabated. Nicht wahr?

The US stopped building after 3 mile island. Quotas were reached in both countries.

If you had ever been at a protest in your life you would realize that it's not the whiney-ass liberals who go there.

Oh you mean like this guy?
http://www.dailym...ter_news

But nuclear plants continued to supply 23% of germanys power until this year. In other words, unabated.

They have a lease on how much power they still may produce. The power companies can decide how to produce that power (e.g. let all plants run at the same time and shut them down at the same time or shut down some plants now and have others run longer).
Again it's a matter of honoring treaties.
The only thing that was added to this treaty after Fukushima is that the last plant must be shut down in 2022 at the latest.

If we continue to expand alternative energies at the rate we have for the past few years then by 2022 those 23% will be replaced entirely by those typs of powerplants.

Right you are EP

"The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 20 percent in the first half of 2011. In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germanys renewable energies sector."
http://en.wikiped..._Germany

-However I wonder how long this can remain competitive?

"using photovoltaics in emission reduction is 53 times more expensive than the European Union Emission Trading Scheme's market price, while wind power is 4 times more expensive, thereby discouraging other industries from finding more cost-effective methods of reducing emissions;
although renewable energy subsidies increase retail electricity rates by 3%, they reduce the profits of German electrical utilities by an average of 8%, making them less competitive with other European utilities;
despite lavish subsidies, Germany's photovoltaic industry is losing its market share to other countries, particularly China and Japan;
it stifles renewable energy innovation by arbitrarily awarding subsidies to different technologies, instead of according to their cost-effectiveness."

-And how soon market conditions will force it to import energy and/or buy Russian NG-

-This investment certainly was useful in providing cash thruput when it was most needed. But how self-sustaining will it prove to be?

OOp you are AP not EP. I wonder how many more wind and solar farms can be built in Germany without Lebensraum?

I wonder how many more wind and solar farms can be built in Germany without Lebensraum?

Since the majority of wind farms projected to be built are going to be off shore that's not much of an issue.

However I wonder how long this can remain competitive?

You mean just getting 28 bn in subsidies when coal and nuclear have been getting more than 400bn? Yeah...how can they ever hope of remaining competitive with those 'lavish' subsidies. (/sarcasm)

Cut those 400bn (and the 28bn) and see who remains competitive. It certainly isn't coal and nuclear.

And how soon market conditions will force it to import energy and/or buy Russian

Assuming germany just shuts down nuclear reactors and does NOTHING to replace that capacity until 2022. This is not the case.

So stop making arguments based on ludicous assumptions.

(and we are already buying Russian gas. Why not? Is that somehow 'bad'?)

Assuming germany just shuts down nuclear reactors and does NOTHING to replace that capacity until 2022. This is not the case.

So stop making arguments based on ludicous assumptions.

I guess you missed this thing here I posted previously?

"The planned phase-out means that Berlin needs to find an alternative source for a little less than a quarter of its electricity generation - the amount nuclear power currently contributes. Berlin is aiming for greater efficiency and reliance on renewable energy, but it is clear that in the short term - by which we mean within this decade - it will turn to Russian natural gas."

So stop making arguments based on ludicous assumptions.

If you thought what I said was ludikraus, you will find these guys entertaining as well:

"STEPHEN BEARD: Germany is bowing to the inevitable, claims Dieter Helm, an energy expert at Oxford University. He says if the Germans do abandon nuclear power, they will have to build more fossil fuel plants. Ironic, he says, that this follows pressure from German environmentalists.

DIETER HELM: What they have succeeded now in doing is pushing Germany to a fossil fuel-dominated system. And theyve committed Germany to making a bigger contribution to increasing global warming."

-Seems your numbers dont add up.
http://bravenewcl...any-gee/

I love GOOGLE. It always makes me look so GOOD.

Fear and emotional thinking are powerful. Fundamentalists can't be educated because they only believe what makes them feel good.

The nuclear industry is dirty and useless at the time of cold fusion. Not to say, it's opportunity for terrorists in many ways.

Fear and emotional thinking are powerful. Fundamentalists can't be educated because they only believe what makes them feel good.

The nuclear industry is dirty and useless at the time of cold fusion. Not to say, it's opportunity for terrorists in many ways.

I wonder what terrorists with portable cold fusion-powered lasers would do to military air dominance and the commercial airline industry?

e says if the Germans do abandon nuclear power, they will have to build more fossil fuel plants. Ironic, he says, that this follows pressure from German environmentalists.

Which is just BS. This simply assumes that germany would not continue to build up its alternative energy capabilities. Every trend says it will do so.

If you check out the past development you may notice that it has FAR exceeded every forecast
http://www.unendl...ten.html

By 2020 (2 years before the last nuclear plant goes offline) the official estimate is that we'll have 38.6% of electricity from alterantive sources. That's just 1.4% short of the deficit incurred by shutting down nuclear - and well within reserve capacity. Given that germany currently exports 40% more electricity than it imports we'll still be a net exporter then.

It's very, very likely that none of the protesters of various causes around the world have gotten anywhere near as much done as people working behind the scenes, either in politics, journalism, business, charitable organizations, etc.

I notice writing half-baked, ill-informed opinions in the comments section of obsure blogs didn't make your list.

I suspect you're probably young and idealistic, and have some notion that protests really accomplish something.

When I was young and idealistic, we input data into computers using punch-cards.

In reality, the real work behind global change DOES come largely by people doing things like typing on computers.

So that's what happened with Womens Suffrage, Ghandi, Mandella, and US independance. Thanks for the info.

n reality, the real work behind global change DOES come largely by people doing things like typing on computers.

So that's what happened with Womens Suffrage, Ghandi, Mandella, and US independance. Thanks for the info.

Yep...we should all stay at home and write blogs. That'll really impress the government.

I suspect you're probably young ....

When I was young and idealistic, we input data into computers using punch-cards.

Fine, then I suspect you are only old and grumpy. Go crawl back to your rock and play with your punch cards until you can put together a rational thought. This would include something other than random name-calling. And would include some factual element to the discussion.

So that's what happened with Womens Suffrage, Ghandi, Mandella, and US independance.

Too funny.

Sure, the U.S. won its independence through the couple of thousand hippies that protested. Not the armed conflict. lmfao

Womens' Suffrage - protests were a tiny part in a huge, multi-decade process.

Mandella? I think you mean anti-Apartheid. Perhaps the intl. embargoes played a part? Naw, it was hippies.

Ghandi - your sole reasonable comment. Good pick. One of the few times in history where protests were the larger part of the big picture.

If you check out the past development you may notice that it has FAR exceeded every forecast
http://www.unendl...ten.html

And you seem to think this can be sustained indefinitely?

And you seem to think this can be sustained indefinitely?

Does it need to be? Even if the efficiency of setting up alternative power plants vs. subsidies invested drops by a factor of 10 alternative energies will outperform nuclear and coal/oil/gas. (And there is no reason why that ratio should drop. Wind/solar powerplants do not suddenly become harder to produce. Quite the opposite.)

Other countries can manage to go almost without fossil fuels. And that 'almost' is only because the time since switchover has been so short - with very little in the way of subsidies. Why shouldn't germany (or any other country) be able to?