From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri Mar 22 2002 - 07:46:04 MST
Rüdiger Koch wrote:
>
> First, let me say that I didn't read the article. But since this is a more or
> less hot topic in Germany for the last 20 years almost everybody here is
> sufficiently informed to give an answer.
>
> For Germany, this isn't exactly news. The bill passed more than a year ago.
> Currently no new power plants are built but the old ones can stay operational
> for up to 30 more years.
>
> So what are we doing to replace them? First, we build plenty of wind
> generators. No idea if they really produce enough energy to be a replacement.
> Second, it seems like we're simply importing electricity from France and the
> Czech Republic. One can argue if the Russian built Czech reactors are safer
> than the Siemens reactors - maybe Tchernobyl gives a hint.
Typical. Relying on French nuclear power and Czech nuclear power. So
what was that about giving up on nuclear power? Oh, just GERMAN nuclear
power.
>
> On Friday 22 March 2002 02:48, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> > What is the problem? Russia certainly has ample supplies
> > of materials that could be used to fuel nuclear reactors.
> > So it has to be either a perspective that nuclear power
> > is unsafe, or a waste disposal issue that radioactive
> > isotopes cannot be transformed into nonradioactive variants.
>
> Exactly this is what the debate during the last 20 years was all about. The
> fear that something like Tchernobyl might happen here and the feeling that it
> is not responsible to put lots of radioactive waste underground because noone
> can ensure that it's safe there for the next millenia until it's converted to
> lead.
Of course, its entirely responsible to leave the responsibility for long
term radioactive storage to the French and Czechs.
You know, you have no assurance that the sun will come up in the
morning, yet you seem to go to bed all calm and assured...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:04 MST