Problem with reversing on nuclear power is that only solid fuel rod, pressurized water nuclear reactors are subject to the problems experienced by Fukishima. Also, what doomed Fukishima is the politicized safety protocols followed. A solid fuel rod, pressurized nuclear reactors is the most dangerous when shut down yet their procedure was to automatically shut down when an Earthquake occurred thereby inducing their least safe process and final state during the most perilous situations. Coastal Earthquakes are usually followed by a tidal wave and diesel generators are the most vulnerable to being submerged when they are operating yet Fukishima's procedure was to automatically start the generators as soon as grid power was lost rather than wait for the known tsunami threat to pass. Reversing on nuclear power completely kills off the development of ambient pressure molten salt reactors which would've automatically been passively safe rather than rely on the poorly conceived safety protocols selected by committees in complete ignorance of the physics involved. It is public ignorance that is driving the reversal on nuclear not public awareness.
Hard to say. You can always google rental property ads for Hamburg Germany. My educated guess is that they would pay about 3,500 Euros ($4,000) monthly for a 3 bedroom, 360 m (1200 square foot) apartment not including appliances. Such appartments would be on par with those in Manhattan NYC, NY or San Francisco, California
@@ph11p3540 still so much better and healthier and safier than the American Cities you mentioned! SF and NYC are full of junkies and thugs almost next to any public spaces. So that big detail u wont see on Hafen City
It's not a lie, more a misunderstanding: Hamburg itself has 1.8 Million inhabitants but up to 5 Million people live in the metropolitan region. The Elbe Philharmonic Hall has nothing to do with the status of a green city.
Wait what...4 million people living here?! 1.7 Million in the city it self. 4 Million if you consider the suburbs, but those are not really hamburg anymore...you know Hamburg is a citystate so at the citylimit ther are diffrent states, in witch most of the suburbs are. So no, Hamburg it self has only 1.7 Million people, the Metropolitan area however does have about 4 Million people, but thos are technically not Hamburg.
How to store energy: "Energon Cubes" like in the "Transformers". Q is... how do we get to the point of creating such cubes? I've been wondering for some time now. (^^^)
Aaron Vega For the time being, renewable energy is more cost efficient and takes up less space, and is far less difficult to maintain. I think a combined mixture of renewable and nuclear energy systems will be the way to go for the future
Impossibly high liability underwriting costs. A single nuclear power plant needs over a trillion dollars of liability coverage. Something no insurance company will touch with a 100 mile long pole. If the worst happens the rest of the country has to assume the full costs and that might bankrupt the country in question.
I love this city and walking around the many cool neighborhoods in the city. You can check out a recent post I did on this attraction and some of my favorite discoveries and neighborhoods in Hamburg here travelphotodiscovery.com/a-first-impression-of-hamburg-germany/
these are pure lies, Hamburg has a little less than 2 Millions of people and not 4 ... building you see is not finished yet and so far it costs about 600 million euros, 400 million euros more than the authorities promised
"green" in this context means environmentally friendly. Trees in a city are aestetically pleasing and provide shade, but they are negligible when it comes to their positive on the environment. What the planet needs is more are large forests that provide habitat to animals, not cosmetic improvements to cities. There is no contradiction.
I understand the concept but disagree that "trees...are negligible". I appreciate the effort to make this city green in the context of using less resources but to me most cities look like environmental disasters. Just my opinion.
Ocean Blue I said trees in a city are negligible when it comes to their positive effects on the environment. That's a fact, no need to agree or disagree :) Some places are not very suitable for trees. Hamburg has a lot of green outside of the commercial and industrial areas. Housing districts are full of trees and parks. Those weren't shown in this video.
Workoft, thats somewhat incorrect. Trees do help with heat reduction in summer/reducing what is sometimes referred to as the "urban heat island effect". I can't remember precise facts at the moment but they (along with green roofs and vertiscaping to a lesser extent) help with air quality as well as *possibly* reducing the UHIE by like 12% in some cases or something like that. Sometimes up to 40%. They also reduce noise. =) While it is true that some areas are not very well suited to trees, incorporating them in little "planter" like squares along the roads or in small bits/certain areas would be perfectly within reason (Many cities already do this, though, admittedly, it was probably initially just for the beautification of the roads). Also, like, yeah, trees are pretty too. So its not *necessarily* "negligible". Its not a hard and fast indisputable fact. There are many green builders who would argue that trees/green areas are important.
Workoft I appreciate all the positive efforts and I am not minimizing the focus on renewable resources. I just wonder when all of the building is going to stop. We have many vacant buildings in the States yet we continue to tear down trees and destroy land to develop new areas. Eventually our world will not be able to sustain constant development all in the name of progress. I will always be more impressed with nature over anything man can create. Trees are life.... not to sound like a hippie but they really are immensely important.
@Gabriel Fernandez : please go beyond this video and search for pollution created by mineral energies (especially coal) in Germany replacing nuclear one. Suppressing atom doesn't imply an immediate switch to green energies.
Germany's electricity production from coal is decreasing in the long run, despite reduced output from nuclear AND evergrowing exports. The problem isn't that nuclear is replaced by coal, it's lobbyists putting pressure on officials to be allowed to keep producing energy from coal. We HAVE TO shut down nuclear because nuclear energy is the most difficult to regulate. This isn't in accordance with high variability of renewable sources since during the transition, fossil fuels are intended to provide energy when renewable sources aren't available. Nuclear can only do this very very poorly.
A Alemanha é uma maravilha! O alemães possuem tudo isso porque são conscientes, ordeiros, e muito esforçados. Pena que tudo isso está ameaçado pela invasão dos imigrantes islâmicos e sua cultura totalmente dissonante e muitas vezes extremista.
Nuclear energy is green. Is cheaper, more efficient, and provides more energy than solar or wind. The taxes needed to support solar/wind energy harms the lower classes the most, since they don't have as much money. Yet its the middle class that selfishly trumpets solar/wind energy, mindless of the woes of the lower class. Nuclear energy is the clear future, solar/wind just isn't sustainable.
+Smoothbluehero You may have a point stating nuclear fission's waste is a better alternative in comparison to conventional power's green house gases but claiming nuclear energy to be "the clear future" is not only far from truth but a dangerous thesis to uphold. Right now billions of euros (tax money) are invested in building a new sarcophagus around Chernobyl, since the old one is about to collapse, threatening the whole of Eastern Europe to become a nuclear wasteland. A process to be repeated about every 50 years. Just imagine conflict intensified in this region... History shows that time spans needed for nuclear waste to decay are hardly with continuous stability. We cannot just produce this stuff expecting it to be safe for thousand of years in caves. It is of mind boggling arrogance thinking only even some tons of nuclear waste could be dealt with for so long without any major problems. Even if nuclear energy were to be our best option right now, please do not claim it to be clean. You have only good intentions thinking about the poorest of society but please do not let nuclear energy seem less problematic than it is. As it seems right now there is no easy answer to our crave for energy.
***** I was not talking to you. +Smoothbluehero was talking exclusively about nuclear fission in his main comment. I was just refering to this single comment in which he wrote: "Nuclear energy is the clear future" This may have sounded aggresively but I just want to clarify, although I agree with your point He3 on the moon would be a great energy source, I was just talking about nuclear fission, because mining He3 sounds easier than it is. Getting it from the moon to here energy efficiently is by any means possible but not something you can take into acount when critizising renewable energy sources. It's not like +Smoothbluehero was talking about He3, when claiming: "Nuclear energy is the clear future". You can't tell me "You don't get it do you...it's not just nuclear energy", when +Smoothbluehero said exactly that.
Under normal operating conditions, you might make the argument that nuclear is green, but this is far from the case when things go wrong. As for costs, there is little comparison. The cost of construction, operation, maintenance, disposal, storage and decommissioning far outweigh the costs of any other energy source. Storage costs are essentially forever. As for the taxes you speak of, governments around the world have subsidized the energy industry for decades. The oil industry takes more public money than any industry in history At least the subsidies to green technology can have positive benefits for the people who pay for them. Wind, solar, geothermal and other green technologies are in their infancy and getting better every day. Nuclear and fossil fuels have reached their limit. We can look to a progressive, cleaner future of remain stuck in the past, listening to people like Smoothbluehero.
What a mentality! These plans are to make everything cheaper and more sustainable and all "Andre Robins" is able to ask is: "So they pay more taxes to live green?" ?????? Ohhh myyyyyyyyy God !!!!!!!!!!!
No there are using more of there tax money for green infrastucture projects. You don't raise tax for every additional public project - you redistribute where you spent your tax money.
"First industrial powerhouse of Europe" is European-inflected English for "Europe's No. 1 Industrial Powerhouse".
Congratulations, Germany! You're setting a great example for the world.
Problem with reversing on nuclear power is that only solid fuel rod, pressurized water nuclear reactors are subject to the problems experienced by Fukishima. Also, what doomed Fukishima is the politicized safety protocols followed. A solid fuel rod, pressurized nuclear reactors is the most dangerous when shut down yet their procedure was to automatically shut down when an Earthquake occurred thereby inducing their least safe process and final state during the most perilous situations. Coastal Earthquakes are usually followed by a tidal wave and diesel generators are the most vulnerable to being submerged when they are operating yet Fukishima's procedure was to automatically start the generators as soon as grid power was lost rather than wait for the known tsunami threat to pass. Reversing on nuclear power completely kills off the development of ambient pressure molten salt reactors which would've automatically been passively safe rather than rely on the poorly conceived safety protocols selected by committees in complete ignorance of the physics involved. It is public ignorance that is driving the reversal on nuclear not public awareness.
Whow, really inspiring. How expensive is a flat in the HafenCity. Is it still payable??? Then I will live there...
Hard to say. You can always google rental property ads for Hamburg Germany. My educated guess is that they would pay about 3,500 Euros ($4,000) monthly for a 3 bedroom, 360 m (1200 square foot) apartment not including appliances. Such appartments would be on par with those in Manhattan NYC, NY or San Francisco, California
@@ph11p3540 still so much better and healthier and safier than the American Cities you mentioned! SF and NYC are full of junkies and thugs almost next to any public spaces. So that big detail u wont see on Hafen City
This is a really good video , keep it up!
@Baby_With_A_Gun sup
green energy looks cool, maybe I should work in the green energy sector one day.
It's not a lie, more a misunderstanding: Hamburg itself has 1.8 Million inhabitants but up to 5 Million people live in the metropolitan region.
The Elbe Philharmonic Hall has nothing to do with the status of a green city.
How is the hydrogen produced? That usually is the snag in the hydrogen power model.
But...they build a new coal power station and there are no low-emission zone for cars like in the other big german cities.
The coal power station is now shutted down
Well done Hamburg!
I love the ship in the first clip," Mississippi Queen" lol
well, actually hamburg has 1.8 mio inhabitants and a coal power plant is just built. but i still love to live here :)
Wait what...4 million people living here?! 1.7 Million in the city it self. 4 Million if you consider the suburbs, but those are not really hamburg anymore...you know Hamburg is a citystate so at the citylimit ther are diffrent states, in witch most of the suburbs are. So no, Hamburg it self has only 1.7 Million people, the Metropolitan area however does have about 4 Million people, but thos are technically not Hamburg.
This is very interesting. I like the thinking.
How to store energy:
"Energon Cubes" like in the "Transformers". Q is... how do we get to the point of creating such cubes? I've been wondering for some time now. (^^^)
whats the problem with nuclear?
Expensive, still no solution for nuclear waste, can make large regions unlivable in case of a melt down.
Aaron Vega For the time being, renewable energy is more cost efficient and takes up less space, and is far less difficult to maintain. I think a combined mixture of renewable and nuclear energy systems will be the way to go for the future
Impossibly high liability underwriting costs. A single nuclear power plant needs over a trillion dollars of liability coverage. Something no insurance company will touch with a 100 mile long pole. If the worst happens the rest of the country has to assume the full costs and that might bankrupt the country in question.
Yeap mostly promotion not like the Masdar project which really is a cutting edge green city in the making
excelent i like it !!
isnt hydrogen highly explosive?
Hamburgers will never be green.
I love this city and walking around the many cool neighborhoods in the city. You can check out a recent post I did on this attraction and some of my favorite discoveries and neighborhoods in Hamburg here travelphotodiscovery.com/a-first-impression-of-hamburg-germany/
these are pure lies, Hamburg has a little less than 2 Millions of people and not 4 ... building you see is not finished yet and so far it costs about 600 million euros, 400 million euros more than the authorities promised
Green is ok but has it to be so ugly?
Jacques Fresco needs to be credited to a degree.
A green city with no trees or grass......all i see is lots of concrete.
"green" in this context means environmentally friendly. Trees in a city are aestetically pleasing and provide shade, but they are negligible when it comes to their positive on the environment. What the planet needs is more are large forests that provide habitat to animals, not cosmetic improvements to cities. There is no contradiction.
I understand the concept but disagree that "trees...are negligible". I appreciate the effort to make this city green in the context of using less resources but to me most cities look like environmental disasters. Just my opinion.
Ocean Blue I said trees in a city are negligible when it comes to their positive effects on the environment. That's a fact, no need to agree or disagree :) Some places are not very suitable for trees. Hamburg has a lot of green outside of the commercial and industrial areas. Housing districts are full of trees and parks. Those weren't shown in this video.
Workoft, thats somewhat incorrect. Trees do help with heat reduction in summer/reducing what is sometimes referred to as the "urban heat island effect". I can't remember precise facts at the moment but they (along with green roofs and vertiscaping to a lesser extent) help with air quality as well as *possibly* reducing the UHIE by like 12% in some cases or something like that. Sometimes up to 40%. They also reduce noise. =) While it is true that some areas are not very well suited to trees, incorporating them in little "planter" like squares along the roads or in small bits/certain areas would be perfectly within reason (Many cities already do this, though, admittedly, it was probably initially just for the beautification of the roads). Also, like, yeah, trees are pretty too. So its not *necessarily* "negligible". Its not a hard and fast indisputable fact. There are many green builders who would argue that trees/green areas are important.
Workoft I appreciate all the positive efforts and I am not minimizing the focus on renewable resources. I just wonder when all of the building is going to stop. We have many vacant buildings in the States yet we continue to tear down trees and destroy land to develop new areas. Eventually our world will not be able to sustain constant development all in the name of progress. I will always be more impressed with nature over anything man can create. Trees are life.... not to sound like a hippie but they really are immensely important.
The people that live there have to pay for this? Did they vote for that?
@Gabriel Fernandez : please go beyond this video and search for pollution created by mineral energies (especially coal) in Germany replacing nuclear one. Suppressing atom doesn't imply an immediate switch to green energies.
Germany's electricity production from coal is decreasing in the long run, despite reduced output from nuclear AND evergrowing exports. The problem isn't that nuclear is replaced by coal, it's lobbyists putting pressure on officials to be allowed to keep producing energy from coal.
We HAVE TO shut down nuclear because nuclear energy is the most difficult to regulate. This isn't in accordance with high variability of renewable sources since during the transition, fossil fuels are intended to provide energy when renewable sources aren't available. Nuclear can only do this very very poorly.
A Alemanha é uma maravilha! O alemães possuem tudo isso porque são conscientes, ordeiros, e muito esforçados. Pena que tudo isso está ameaçado pela invasão dos imigrantes islâmicos e sua cultura totalmente dissonante e muitas vezes extremista.
Germany Europe's first Industrial Powerhouse ..... oops seem to have forgotten where the Industrial Revolution started.
yes and energy expensive to produce!!!!
Hydrogen makes for good storage, but awful for transportation. Not viable to replace the world's current fossil fuel infrastructure.
Nuclear energy is green. Is cheaper, more efficient, and provides more energy than solar or wind. The taxes needed to support solar/wind energy harms the lower classes the most, since they don't have as much money. Yet its the middle class that selfishly trumpets solar/wind energy, mindless of the woes of the lower class.
Nuclear energy is the clear future, solar/wind just isn't sustainable.
*****
What is a "fusion" power plant? How is it different from nuclear?
I don't think we'll have fusion any time soon. And even if we did, h3 is still unsafe if ingested, which as a gas its very easy to do.
+Smoothbluehero You may have a point stating nuclear fission's waste is a better alternative in comparison to conventional power's green house gases but claiming nuclear energy to be "the clear future" is not only far from truth but a dangerous thesis to uphold.
Right now billions of euros (tax money) are invested in building a new sarcophagus around Chernobyl, since the old one is about to collapse, threatening the whole of Eastern Europe to become a nuclear wasteland. A process to be repeated about every 50 years. Just imagine conflict intensified in this region... History shows that time spans needed for nuclear waste to decay are hardly with continuous stability. We cannot just produce this stuff expecting it to be safe for thousand of years in caves. It is of mind boggling arrogance thinking only even some tons of nuclear waste could be dealt with for so long without any major problems.
Even if nuclear energy were to be our best option right now, please do not claim it to be clean. You have only good intentions thinking about the poorest of society but please do not let nuclear energy seem less problematic than it is. As it seems right now there is no easy answer to our crave for energy.
***** I was not talking to you. +Smoothbluehero was talking exclusively about nuclear fission in his main comment. I was just refering to this single comment in which he wrote: "Nuclear energy is the clear future"
This may have sounded aggresively but I just want to clarify, although I agree with your point He3 on the moon would be a great energy source, I was just talking about nuclear fission, because mining He3 sounds easier than it is. Getting it from the moon to here energy efficiently is by any means possible but not something you can take into acount when critizising renewable energy sources. It's not like +Smoothbluehero was talking about He3, when claiming: "Nuclear energy is the clear future". You can't tell me "You don't get it do you...it's not just nuclear energy", when +Smoothbluehero said exactly that.
Under normal operating conditions, you might make the argument that nuclear is green, but this is far from the case when things go wrong. As for costs, there is little comparison. The cost of construction, operation, maintenance, disposal, storage and decommissioning far outweigh the costs of any other energy source. Storage costs are essentially forever. As for the taxes you speak of, governments around the world have subsidized the energy industry for decades. The oil industry takes more public money than any industry in history At least the subsidies to green technology can have positive benefits for the people who pay for them. Wind, solar, geothermal and other green technologies are in their infancy and getting better every day. Nuclear and fossil fuels have reached their limit. We can look to a progressive, cleaner future of remain stuck in the past, listening to people like Smoothbluehero.
Are you saying the rich do the work and the poor are the dumb slackers in society?
Wow.
1:47 That kid just flipped you! :D
No, he didn’t.
hi
Where is the Green???? Trees in that city is minimum.... energy eficiant but not green
+Chris Sk there are really a lot of parks in Hamburg - and also a lot of street trees and smaller green areas.
Georg Washington Wehen you live in the hafencity then have you so much mony they have Pay for it
This is nonsense this video - just self promotion.
XD
Qqi
So they pay more taxes to live green? ;-(
We pay as much as the other cities in Germany ^^
What a mentality!
These plans are to make everything cheaper and more sustainable and all "Andre Robins" is able to ask is: "So they pay more taxes to live green?" ??????
Ohhh myyyyyyyyy God !!!!!!!!!!!
Rotebuehl1 Actually, the majority of taxes in Germany are significantly lower than in the UK.
No there are using more of there tax money for green infrastucture projects. You don't raise tax for every additional public project - you redistribute where you spent your tax money.