[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ingsoc84

So the "nuclear" moneygrubbers are just chomping at the bit to build more reactors? I though it was "big oil" that were the moneygrubbers in the energy business...do you mean to tell me that there are more than one band of money grubbers looking to steal our money to keep the lights on? Couldn't imagine that.

What big business isn't a money grubber? It's part of their very nature, that has to be accepted and taken into account without any ill feelings. After all that is how capitalism works.

So what do you suggest? NO fossil fuels? No Nuclear power plants? Solyndra sure worked out well in the States, there is another 1/2 billion down the tubes for "clean efficient affordable solar energy". Maybe solar cells can power up all our homes and cars? Not

Actually, that is exactly where it will ultimately lead too. Fossil fuels are running out, the reserves we still have require ever more expensive and dangerous exploitation methods while world demand still climbs. Now you certainly can try to fight another couple wars to secure those reserves, but given the costs for modern wars (what was Iraq? 3 Trillion?), environmental costs and the potential damage to other industries like fishing, I am not sure the final bill really justifies that policy.

Bad old nuclear power...Ohh my...and where is your proof that if the could have diverted all the money spent on nuclear construction, research etc., and developed a cleaner form of fossil fuel or other fuel? There is none, it's just an assumption.

Nothing bad about it, just becoming a bit outdated and too many open questions that hang in the air for 40+ years without answers to this date. In Germany some 300 billion have been spend on nuclear energy subsidies over the last decades, compared to around 40 billion on renewables. There is no "proof" that this money would have achieved more if it went into nuclear, but the likelyhood is quite obvious, especially when looking at the recent achievements in developments of alternatives. Too many ppl assume we already are at the end of line in regards to alternatives development, while in fact we are just at the beginning. Broad application of those technologies will only accelerate this development, if comparisons to other new technologies and their history are taken into account.

The Germans shutting off their Nuclear reactors? Great..so one day when Russia decides they need to pay more for natural gas/electricity and they don't like the price, the Russians can shut it off during the winter just like they did in the Ukraine a few years ago, that ought to work out well.

huh? AFAIK, Russia needs our money as much as we need their gas. Even during the most tense days of the cold war the russians made their deliveries here. I doubt that will change anytime soon. There is a reason why there was a new pipeline built through the baltic going around countries like Ukraine who fail to pay their bills. (the political questions that raises have to be debated on another page)

As far as Chernobyl is concerned, it's amazing anything mechanical in that country works, let alone something built during the Soviet period. Have you ever been there? They still make gigantic apartment blocks just like they did in the 30's...cheap. shoddy, the entire country looks like a giant machine that has been left out to rust in the rain for the past 50 years, and that's being polite. It's truly amazing given their lack of building standards now and especially then that that reactor didn't have a problem day one when it went online.

I do not think slamming of russian tech, justified or not, has a lot to do with current day problems in regards to energy consumption and future developments.