We have to cut down enery abuse, but of course it will not do if Germany did it alone. Not that i really does.. see Pdf Sky linked to.
A real sustainable production of energy entirely relying on "green" (for lack of a better word) technologies is not possible now, but who knows what science and research are able to deliver. We cannot rely on that of course.
One thing is clear, we should not go on like before without sparing a thought about the consequences. China does it of course, as does Russia. And now also the USA.
I am not convinced that the 74-year old concept of nuclear fission is such a good idea. Using nuclear energy just to "cook water" and drive turbines indirectly with it, is technologically stone age.
While it is true that coal etc. also sets free radioactive gases, Chernobyl alone made "good" for centuries of operating coal-burning plants. No coal plant bears this kind of risk when things go wrong. And things
do go wrong, everytime.
When someone tells me what to do with burnt or spent radioactive fuel (apart from using this as ammunition like this DU "depleted uranium", which is not what i consider as "recycling") or what to do with the irradiated scrapped building materials for the next some thousands of years to come, i'm game.
But not until then.
With the rising worldwide temperature, Russia can rely on burning methane instead.
Rising sea levels will cool German reactors just by flooding, easy! That has been tried out in Japan at short notice. Fukushima or something. The evaluation of this very spontaneous attempt is still running. The heavy load on concrete and steel at the nuclear power plant is seldomly discussed, keywords being microcracks/nuclear power plant/Belgium.
But you should not let that drive you crazy. We should rather focus on the real dangers of porous wind turbine rotor blades, infrasonic and poisonous wing material of the rotor
