Seems we have different moral standards. Looks like you have lost all moral perspective. How on earth can you call that a good cost/benefit ratio? Who are you?Quote:
So far the score is 1 serious event every 25 years (Windscale fire, Chernobyl disaster, Fukushima accident). Looks OK for me from cost/benefit point of view.
Get over it, wind and solar power are price competitive. You might want to get yourself informed properly, for instance check NREL http://www.nrel.gov/publications/ and SANDIA http://windpower.sandia.gov/topical.htm reports, they cover the renewable scene quite well using objective and scientific methods. Note that your reference says only something about the PV feed in tariffs in Germany and illustrates the effects of the latter on the German PV marked.Quote:
I have better idea, let's try to dig the second Panama Canal using only teaspoons! That'll give jobs to millions of people, I dare say even hundreds of millions!
Right now, wind power is not competitive and can't live without government subsidies. Ditto for solar power: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7053
Ok, fair enough, I can't give you exact numbers. That will require some research to back these statements (which I did not invent myself) up to a certain extent. But the point I am trying the make here is that it is not all that simple if you try to calculate the price of nuclear power. Nuclear power plant related research has been subsidised before and still is today (so are many other areas in science and engineering as well). You could at least suspect that the shear volume of that funding is an other order of magnitude compared to what renewables get.Quote:
Really? Can you cite your sources? Of course, only research of nuclear power generation is relevant.