"The anti-nuclear crowd" well, that is needlessly inflammatory. Did you ever realize that -- at least a part -- of their arguments might have a stance? We have

"The anti-nuclear crowd" well, that is needlessly inflammatory. Did you ever realize that -- at least a part -- of their arguments might have a stance? We have tons of political decisions to do in every country where the answer is not totally clear. Often it's a preference. Should we tax the rich? Or take from the middle class? Should Belgium support an army, or creches? Things like that. IMHO nuclear energy usage is in a similar ball park. It has real risks, and real benefits. And so, if you see one that thinks the risks are more important than the benefits, there is ZERO need to use inflammatory speech. BTW; I also tend to be an opponent. Many reasons: - Germany still doesn't have an answer to the permanent storage of the waist - with existing reactor types the worst imaginable accident is really, really bad. Especially for a densely populated country like mine - nuclear power is quite expensive. The electric power prices at the customers are only so low because there are open and hidden subsidies in place (e.g. no atomic power plant in Germany has to pay full insurance. Or they don't need to pay for the 20000+ year long storage --- that's all "socialized", e.g. the tax payers pay for it - nuclear power needs at the end reliably cooling. Look at the rivers --- in Germany we had to stop nuclear power plants, because the summer drough was so intense that not enough cooling water was available. That happened several times in France, too. - these days, the electric power companies of Germany don't want to build nuclear power plants. In "Manager Magazin" --- not your usual leftist or eco magacine --- they layed out that this is economically infeasible. - most countries don't have uran mines. My own one used to have, but that is depleted. Interestingly, the russian atom sector owns a lot of the uran infrastructure worldwide, even when abroad (e.g. they own things in Australia or Canada). We just learned the hard way that depending on Russia --- or USA with their toll war --- is an extremely bad idea I know that for some of these problems there are theoretical answers. E.g. since about 20 years there is the idea to use breeder reactors to convert highly radioactive material with a long half-life into something with a shorter half-life time. But ... they didn't materialize. And Germany's tryout of a breeder was so expensive (both building and operation cost) that the project was terminated. Personally, I like the idea of renewable energy. We get the energy for free, we don't have to pay Russia (gas, oil, uran). Or the USA (LNG). Or some wahabitic islamistic scheichs (Saudi-Arabia). And if the billions of euro that we invested into nuclear reasearch would go to long-term storage (like iron-oxyde-powder batteries, reflow batteries etc) than we would have something that is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, has little risk to the neighbourhood AND doesn't funnel money into the hand of reckless power hungry leaders. So, and now call me "anti-nuclear crowd". Or refute me at an intellectual level, maybe I can learn a thing! Oh: and if we don't "overregulate" then we have perhaps another Chernobyl. That happened exactly because the regulation AND the execution of the regulation was too lax.