germanys nuke abandonment called into question, page-5

"Germany have at least made the positive step (in theory at least at this point), to commence making the necessary changes"

WC8 - I know that you are very anti-nuclear, and we have discussed this before.

But your statement quoted above is misleading, to say the least. Are you suggesting that it is a positive step to go back to coal-fired power stations, as they will have to do? And even gas-fired produces so-called carbon emissions. And they will still have to buy power from France next door - most of which is nuclear.

In complete opposite stance to yousrs, I would say that the world MUST go nuclear powered - much more than it is already - if baseload power is going to keep up with demand.

You say we are running out of resources - I say that uranium is one of the most abundant resources around, with massive potential energy per pound, low running costs (but very high initial building costs), and zero emissions apart from water vapour. And hydrogen as a by-product to power the cars of the future once the oil runs out.

It's all very well being ani-nuclear, and idealistically expecting the world' population to move back to a living standard of the middle ages, with little power demands and not much transport. But that ain't gonna happen.

I know where yo're coming from - you've been reading too much Thomas Malthus's philosophies. Now he has many excellent points, and we DO need to stop using foodstuff (corn and sugar) to burn as ethanol for cars. We DO need to stop some of the rapid expansion of the human population (compulsory birth control? China has tried that).

But the demand for electricity will not only NOT diminish - it will continue to increase.

And it will be nuclear or else shiver in the dark.

Just IMHO as always ;)