I'm only saying more common sense needs to be applied to look past the mis-information and prejudice in order to get a picture of the actual problems at hand and take an unbiased look at the solutions that are available.
I agree with that.
I'm going to be quite busy for some time, but I will try to follow this very interesting thread.
I myself am willing to change my position if real reasons make me think that way. I know, when I say I can't be bothered to read something, I sound like one of these green frikies. And I'm not. Nico makes a good point about substituting nuclear for carbon in places like India. But I can't see why we couldn't substitute gas for that carbon.
I can see you can't be bothered to read what I linked, either. Otherwise I think you'd see where's the hype in that spanish achievement. I said the article wasn't very good. Header is "Spain makes history and this year for the first time will produce more than half of its electricity with renewables" Well, that's true. We are speaking about electric generation. That doesn't include transportation of any goods, except by railroad. A lot of diesel, guys. Half the electricity is quite different from half the energy.
I'm not going to change my very old but trusty Berlingo diesel for any modern vendor-software-locked car, electric or not. So, I'm not a green guy.
But, clearly I don't like nukes.
So far, there have been people here asserting nuclear waste now goes underground, right when the japanese are dumping into the ocean.
That try to make us understand than nuclear is cleaner than carbon. Presumably because nuclear waste gets again underground, so does not reach anywhere near where we are. That's being said after Chernobyl and Fukushima, the dumpings in the ocean and so on. Come on, man. We heard that before, and we now know it wasn't true. By experience.
Moreover, I'm against carbon too, so I consider the whole point about TPPs being more radioactive than NPPs completely moot. Both have to go.
Still, these are the guys using words like "emotional", "irrational fear" and "idiotic". Do you realize, you sound like "nuke-frikies" even more than I could sound "green-frikie"? Irrational fear after Chernobyl and Fukushima? Sorry, I can't accept that.
If you want me to change my opinion, you have to give much better reasons than the ones given so far. That Science article is dated from Dec, 1978 after all. Before Chernobyl. When we were told any nuke couldn't go bonkers, never, ever. Not even the soviet ones. Thus at the end of the day, you are giving us, again, just the very same good old bullshit, I fear. Someone pointed out the defects in the documentation you linked. This Science article looks very much the same.
BTW, not so much to complain about how Finland is doing. At least they are building their underground storage and plan to keep their waste at their own country. Kudos. Others are much lower than that. But remember, we all had to pay for Chernobyl. That didn't affect the soviets only. Fukushima is affecting more countries than just Japan. So much for these radioactive elements remaining in a safe place, far from any people, forever.
OTOH I can say getting more than 50% renewable electric generation is quite something, but the better part is the amount written in our bills. To give some context, Portugal and Spain are now the Iberian Energy Island and we legally got electric market rules, different from the rest of the EU... and different electricity prices. Experience is: when there is sun and wind, our bills are quite cheaper. When there aren't, combined cycle gas power stations get most of the mix, and we see how our electricity bill goes through the roof, up to German levels.
But there's sun and wind most of the time.
Don't ask me how it does work internally. I don't know. But I mostly care for my wallet, to say the truth.
Now, if you insist in going nuclear, feel free to do so. I still think you'd be better, and cheaper, getting gas, wind and sun instead.