It is usually expected that highly-developed countries will use less power in the future, because of more efficient technology.

A carbon tax does not affect every business equally.

Nonsense Radiation from CT is a serious concern. A single abdominal or chest CT corresponds to a dose of 5-10 mSv. The is especially a concern for children and in case of repeated scans. For example, see:

http://www.ajronline.org/doi/a...
"In the United States, of approximately 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually performed in children under the age of 15 years, a rough estimate is that 500 of these individuals might ultimately die from cancer attributable to the CT radiation."

Well, one could argue that the bureaucracy is required for safety.

Considering the state of the technology today, I agree that renewables cannot provide all of the demand today. But nuclear only provides baseload and so does not help.

Yes, also forcasts for nuclear have usually been very optimistic. The main cost of nuclear is the cost of construction which often went up a lot in actual projects. But even considering this it is not competitive with gas, wind, and hydro.

Creating a dramatic drop in prices. You have to compare it to what has been spent on nuclear so far.

The subsidies are meant to create a market which will then make solar (and other renewables) more efficient. This was very successful so far. Much more has been spent in nuclear in the past and it is still not competitive.

That is actually not true in Germany. CO2 production was stable. Also, don't you think we would produce a lot more CO2 if Germany had scaled up coal instead of renewables to replace nuclear? In the near future when renewables replace coal instead of nuclear, CO2 will obviously come down.

Huh, what makes you think it does not?

Energy prices on the market have been declining while end-user price have been increasing, but only a small part of this is from the feed-in-tarif fee. So high energy prices are clearly not caused by abandonment of nuclear (otherwise the market price would be up but it is not). While renewables are demanding to the grid and require some investment, grid stability issues are a myth: Germany has one of the most stable grids in Europe and this did not change in recent years with a downtime as measured by the SAIDI index of about 15-20 minutes per year, much better than France with 60 or the US which > 100). Nuclear waste is a bit of a problem, and there is not a single country which would already have a real long-term solution to this problem. But the most important problem with nuclear is that is simple cannot compete economically and is therefor a waste of resources.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Google for "levelized cost of energy sources"

And this is about actual costs with mature technology, not even about some hypothetical future closed nuclear cycle, which - pardon the pun - is vaporware.

Why would you think this? To me it seems that an energy mix consisting of renewables and some saving by the use of more efficient technlogies could easily solve all our energy problems. And I seriously don't see how space is a problem. Nuclear could in theory, but only at a much higher cost.

I am always surprised about people promoting nuclear. Nuclear is hopelessly un-economocal, which means that investing in it even as a stopgap measure is a waste of resources. Even today, conventional power plants are not usually build without large subsidies. But conventional nuclear power plants are no solution to our energy problems. Only with breeder reactors is it possible to scale up nuclear to provide a significant part of the world's energy needs. And breeder reactors are even more expensive and costly...

Solar panels are usually cleaned by rain, but even in absence of rain as in California the small increase in efficiency is usually not not considered to be worth it.

For example, it could still be economical for investors if it gets enough direct subsidies. For related reasons, this information is also useful for policy makers. It would not usually make sense to have subsidies for something like this.