Better yet, the first time some incredible fuck-up happens that causes widespread damage and/or death and its even remotely related to computers (like anything nowadays) it can be declared an act of war by any entity. If something like the three mile island incident would happen today they would probably blame Iran or 'the terrorists'.

Iran Operating System with Ahmadinejad Permitted Program store?

HVDC will improve the situation, but not to the point that no baseline power is needed at all... I agree gas is a good alternative (but like all tech it has disadvantages). But you avoid the hard choice because you know you don't like the outcome, but this an actual choice that is made by people everyday! The replacement of nuclear in practice is coal (should not, but realistically is)... so every time the 'greens' wins against nuclear nature loses because more coal is burned (in Germany's case probably lignite, which doesn't burn pretty). You can always claim that ideally this should not be the case but this is how it is *now*, and because of that nuclear is the best alternative *now*. It will change, that is the whole point or investing and researching new technology... No single one of all technologies should simply be discarded because of a disadvantage than can be overcome, with that attitude solar and wind power would never take off.

You are making a much better impression now that you've stopped preaching and make a good rebuttal. Funny how a guy called 'mindcontolled' can accuse others of being a puppet... The people who scream these things the loudest often are.

But I'll still give you a chance with this hypothetical question:

Consider a country investing heavily in solar and wind energy (always a good idea), but they need another energy source to insure power availability all day. They have no good geology for geothermal and hydro (the best renewable energy sources in my opinion) and have to import oil and natural gas at too high a price so they are left with two viable options for power generation: coal or nuclear. They ask you to decide this weighing all the benefits and risks to nature and health and leave you the room to choose the specific requirements of the power plant. Which would you choose? It may seem like choosing between two evils, but in real life things often are... This isn't about groups and politics but what you believe will be best, they are going to build a plant and you need to choose which one you believe will be best for the country and the world as a whole based on science (not just some people that can sleep better with either choice). I'm honestly interested in how you will answer this question and why. Coal or nuclear?

After this specific scenario I also wonder what your ideal power generating scenario would be.

:-) It's a shame that we have to resort to these kinds of ways of grouping people together... I consider myself not to belong to any particular group but I always find myself accused of being part of some group opposite of whoever disagrees with me. Somehow perceiving a person as being part of a group of 'enemies' serves the purpose of being able to conveniently group all opinion and arguments in the garbage bin of 'propaganda' of that group... It's very interesting to see group psychology like this because it comes so natural to us we can hardly see ourselves participate in it.

I made some proper arguments why nuclear is still one of *many* viable options for power generation. Those arguments, as well as my opinion that the green movement causes more harm than good (as most hysteric overreactions), have not been met by you with any rebuttal. I suppose you think it's all fine to withold your well formed logical arguments and put me in my rightful place since I'm just a minion praying to the nuclear altar, but just suppose you're wrong? That would just make you a guy without arguments acting somewhat like a dick...

Democracy has it's strengths, but the weakness is that a group of people will not always reach a rational decision... You are right that even if it may be tempting for the government they should not have pushed nuclear against the will of such a majority! That does not mean that no research should be done because times change and given better technology and access to scientific information people will change their opinions as well...

Yeah great idea... Go green! Help fill other people's pockets! And then give the assholes a Nobel award! Oh, and fuck nature in the process! ... Fools...

I'm all for a better 'greener' world, but it must come from good scientific decisions! Not by fighting one perceived evil and helping create an even bigger evil...

Nothing sacred about it... Just another technology that is useful. I take a much more pragmatic approach than the 'green' religion. Nuclear (fission) *will* one day be replaced, either by better nuclear (fusion) or better anything. But stating that we will do fine with solar and wind is ridiculous, we need baseline power and for now nuclear is far superior to coal (and saves lifes, do not underestimate that!)...

Also to imply that nuclear power plants will eventually need to blow up suggests you've bought into the whole propaganda of fear and have no idea of the current state of technology. It's like claiming you will never fly a plane because you've seen a documentary about the crash of the Gavilland Comet... Or you won't drive a car because you heard the decades old story of cars that explode after a minor accident. These kind of sentiments are not constructive, when all people act like that no new planes or cars would even have been developed and the technology would have gone down in history as a dangerous failure... Currently people are doing the same with nuclear, condemning the technology because of flaws in 60 year old designs and decades old power plants. People are capable of learning from failure, and we have... but fear is holding back newer safer alternatives.

Had the green movement not opposed nuclear so virulently there would have been new power plants that replaced the older ones a long time ago (and especially no new coal plants being built all the time). The way I see it the green movement is damaging nature with the best intentions.

CO2 is always touted as an advantage of nuclear but fuck that, it's not as significant as it seems... Some bigger advantages are: less toxins and fine dust particles than coal, less transport and mining needed for fuel (costing oil), possibility of recycling fuel (when research is not being stopped by 'greens'), and last but not least it releases less radioactive material than coal power plants!!! Coal contains small radioactive particles so the exhaust from a coal power plant is always slightly nuclear, and much more than would ever be detected around a nuclear power plant. Even with the meltdowns in history the nuclear material released is insignificant in comparison to all the nuclear material slowly released from coal.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant, it will be better for my health and as less risky overall and I am a strong supporter research to make nuclear more renewable but at the moment it is already the best option when compared to coal plants (only natural gas plants have an advantage and in the near future geothermal, which should all be used). Nuclear has the potential to be almost entirely renewable... The raw resources can be described as 'fossil fuel' (although fossil implies from living tissue, but I digress) but can be used again and again with a breeder reactor yielding an even higher energy density and less waste. Also uranium is not necessarily the best option for power plants (Thorium has better properties for example) but was used from the start because of the option to create weapon grade plutonium. The options are there and the science needs to be explored, to dismiss this great technology without considering what it currently is and can become is crazy. There will be a time when we will not need fission anymore, when fusion is working on a commercial scale it will be obsolete immediately... But the 'green' religion will probably find fault with that too...

I hardly believe the cost would rise to 2 EUR, but you might be right some increased cost will be there. But when you start counting total cost like that the coal plants are *much* more expensive, both in money and lifes! Also it seems to me the cost of wind power is often underestimated... the total power generated is overestimated and the power needed to build the turbines is underestimated. So the same dilemma that the total cost is not considered seems to be valid for all forms of power generation...

My point is that I love solar, wind, water and geothermal power and all need to be used and developed, but nuclear is the best baseline power generating option we have available at the moment and leaves much room for improvement... It's ironic that the green movement lobbied to halt the development of new technologies that were meant to overcome the limitations that are now being used as arguments against developing new nuclear technology. It's circular reasoning! And furthermore it's an affront to the goals these green organizations set out to achieve. Greenpeace alone caused more harm to the environment that it ever helped prevent, they are not in it for nature but for money. Bunch of greedy self-righteous assholes, but people tend to believe warnings of imminent doom and are willing to give cash and protest to prevent that doom even if they know deep down that this will only lead to another danger that is slow to kill and less visible but that is how psychology works.

Are you denying that acting out of fear will lead to worse decisions? Like building more coal plants that will cost many more lives each year than nuclear in all history. Whether this referenced the current situation, recent history or history from almost a century ago is irrelevant, the point stands that people tend to overlook obvious flaws in their logic when they are afraid and hysterical.

Yeah, like the serious reports from about 40 years ago that states that the nuclear power plant design used was inherently unsafe?

Most problems are easily resolved with a small dose of common sense... Sadly you have to deal with a corrupt government so fat chance of finding even the slightest bit of common sense there.

There are always reasons why hysteria is exploited... the experts get their 15 minutes of fame, the green party gets power, and greenpeace gets richer from suckers that think they are actually helping the environment. It's funny that all people who live within a few kilometer from the nuclear power plant are OK with it (and even love the benefits that it gives their small towns), but it's the out-of-touch-with-reality people who live a safe distance and probably have never seen an actual nuclear power plant up close that are all up in arms about it... Knowledge will obviously help since people that are informed are not afraid, but there is a deliberate attempt to give people disinformation and scare them for the reasons mentioned before: fame, power and money.

I feel much safer knowing that the nation with the best track record in the world for engineering is now producing nuclear power for a nation that is mostly ridiculed for their track records in engineering and military prowess! Oh wait...

But seriously, it is very disappointing to see the Germans make a rash decision from a scared gut-feeling instead of sticking to science and intelligent logic... The last time they did this it didn't work out so well for the rest of Europe, or them in the end for that matter...
History lesson: We all lose when they do dumb shit like this because of scared misinformed masses.