Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

Oh, come on...

The prize doesn't matter at all? Who's going to pay for it all? Maybe you yourself is prepared to spend whatever the prize may be, but I think you'll find a hard time convincing everybody to do the same.

At least you'll have a hard time convincing people in lesser developed countries. They can't afford the luxury to spend whatever on their essential energy production. And that would in turn force the rest of us to think along the same lines. It would be devastating for our own prosperity to not regard the cost of energy.

You missed the point I see.

I'm trying to say the point we must look for is not the economic cost/benfit calculation, because it leads in a wrong (my opinion of course!) direction.
We need to talk about energy as we discuss of a uman right:
then we'll see that a higher cost of production is not the worst of our problem (a uman right is not something to ask for : how much does it cost?),
a different type of production and a different distribution of users and producers is preferable (no nuke concentration of power in the hand of few people..),
a different use of licenzed ideas is better (if something usable for free is in the hand of a nuke lobby?).

If you still think at a world separated in country, separated in people, separated in markets you're right, but is going to be a view of the past. Not of future, imho.

You really think that "something useable" is "in the hand of a nuke lobby" and is beeing held back?
And you really think that energy is a human right, and as so the costs are indifferent?

Fine. I can see that we live in two different worlds. Idealism is ok, but don't let it stand in your way of actually achieving something. Just a bit of advise from one to another.

el pupe... I understand you, but it is just dream....

I am going ot give an example:

You would make new political party, which need just maybe 5-7% of votes total to be in parliament to change system in production energy of the country. People will be happy, great idea, your preferences will be high. But than, some of other parties tell to people, that this change will for short time multiply their bills for electricity (because from the start it will be expensive technology, of course after maybe 10 years due to mass production it can be lower) / (or that government is forced to take huge loan for this change, which is same, that money will be then missing maybe in education or somewhere) and then I think your political party will get just 0,1% of total votes (green-peace voters)

So, I understand you, but get up and tell me how you want make change...talking about this is nice, but speaking will not build any clean PP :-( and people (most of them) will always vote lower bills in current time (no matter risk or pollution) than higher bills and strategy investment for future and for their children....

car's engine on "water" are discovered long time... but every such a patent is in property of oil companies :-)

Your opinions are senseless and blind. There are so much more economic issues related to basic human rights prior to energy. Try finding out how many people in the world do not have access to drinkable water. Comparing water and air economically is either plain stupid or even cynical. Both water and air are not scarce resources. But with water you have a distribution issue which air, obviously, doesn't have. Nobody will get the water to where you need or want it for free. If you think that they should, feel free to volunteer.
Energy production is an even more complex issue, so if someone needs to explain the above to you, then please don't bother getting into discussions over energy.

It is not true that people will vote only for cheaper solutions nor that green political parties are subscribed to ideal solutions but more to idealism at its worst form, i.e. great words, wrong deeds.

That's not completely true, in some countries to have electricity is your right. In the Netherlands everyone has the right to have gas and electricity in winter (except when you commited fraud with 1 of these 2, if you refuse to pay the debt in 1 way or another or if you have asked to be cutoff yourself). Of course this isn't free electricity, someone at the end has to pay for these bills unfortunatly .. The sun rises for nothing, everything else costs money.
I don't really know how this is in other coutries, but probably some countries do have free electricity as their right.
(edited)

but every such a patent is in property of oil companies :-)

Unfortunatly this is very true. And for those who don't understand this impact. Just imagen how televisions would have looked like if radiocompanies bought many key patents of televisions part and put these in a safe so these would never be used :)

sometimes I think that also greg sold a lot of upgrades to UM so sokker is in stagnation :-D

I don't really know how this is in other coutries, but probably some countries do have free electricity as their right.

Nothing's free just like that. As you said yourself someone has to pay for it in the end. And that someone is always a consumer or a taxpayer somewhere.

but every such a patent is in property of oil companies :-)

Unfortunatly this is very true. And for those who don't understand this impact. Just imagen how televisions would have looked like if radiocompanies bought many key patents of televisions part and put these in a safe so these would never be used :)

I hear these claims all the time. Have you got any evidence, that's it anything but an urban legend or conspiracy theory?

Regarding your analogy it's a good example, but false. If any radio company held a patent for what would undeniably be the technology of the future, you could be very sure, if would make use of it. Why stay in a developed and very competitive market (radio in this case), when you have a totally undeveloped market all for yourself because of a patent for superior and very profitable technology (tv in this case)? It simply doesn't make any sence. And the same goes for energy production obviously.

that's true :) 'free' is the wrong word for it.

Manual: Convert Your Car to Run on Water

@everyone:
roads are public and free
why?
because we think that moving is a right for everyone and is an advantage for the entire society to give free roads to people.

I think you must start thinking about energy the same way..

PS:
I learned one thing in years of tv and tg..
..when they tell you there's not alternative to something the only sure thing is that they are gonna sell that something to you!!!

@all
whoops, did you read this ???

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html