The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Thomas:What would you consider sufficient empirical evidence to change your view on nuclear?as opposed to unempirical evidence, you mean?
What would you consider sufficient empirical evidence to change your view on nuclear?
self-evident ever? 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
It is an urgency thing, more than anything. The potential kill count from global warming is in the billions, and people have been preaching the gospel that renewables will do the job and thus we do not need to resort to fission for over 40 years. 40 years of failure.
... Question. If 2054 comes around and Germany still burns coal, will that make you reconsider your standpoint?
Either you didn't finish your reading list or you didn't take my point of the danger of nuclear plus its cost. Sixty years and they still need subsidies!
You are downplaying the danger from nuclear. Well, unsurprisingly. Additionally you make the mistake of claiming coal was the competitor of nukes. Rubbish. Nuclear is the direct antagonist of renewables. You can't switch to wind and solar and have nukes at the same time. You've got to decide now if you want nuclear or renewables. Killing coal is the next step.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 633 comments
by Oui - Nov 522 comments