[Skybird]

Nukeclear power is persuasive these days, and maybe one must even argue that the climate bgoals some nations have formulated cannot be acchieved without it. On the othe rhand, reneable energy's potential constantly get underestimated. their major problem is that they will need more time to be installed then we have left - at least having left bwhen listening to the ngermkan government's plans to have significantly reduced CO2 emission at this or that point of time. Some days ago they announced their intention to build 30 offshore windparks in Germany. hat will costs not only much, very much money, but also will not be completed before 2030. But climate goals they have announced for years much earlier, so - the timetable is seriously messed up. And that timer table is just ink on paper anyway. If nature gives us so much time before becoming really angry with us, remains to be seen.

I am undecided on the nuclear energy thing. I was in favour of Germany's decision to leave it behind and shut of nuclear powerplants alltogether. But I meanwhile had to realise that it probably will not work well without these in the forseeable future, and that one nation leaving nuclear energy all alone will make no difference for the world. Nuclear accidents do not stop at borders, and their are reactors in France as well, Britain, and Sitzerland plans to build one right at the border to Germany.

I think the best option is to make as much reduced use of nuclear energy as possible, shut down old plants, and build as few new ones as possible - and for these only using the most safest conctruction principles and technologies known on the market. And the truth is, even if that hurts some patriot's feelings, that not all nations build reactors of comparable security standards.

But we must be aware, that every technology never will be fail-safe, and that even perfect maintenance does not mean at all that some critical thing will not break. A major mess like Chernobyl - but in the middle of europe, in central Germany for example, could change life in the old world forever, and would cut economic wounds from which Europe in today's global and sharp competition would not recover in the forseeable decades.

It makes zero sense to tame this statement by saying the probability is like this or that - when it is takign place, the probability has turned into a solid 100%, and probability calcvulations have the same problem like classic test theory in statistics - they base on the assumption that there is an unlimited or at least very very high number of trials on which these calcualtions base. But there isn't, and even a probabilty of 0.00001 does not mean that you could not have one reactor blowing up per year for the next 10 years. Probability calculations get massively absued these days, and often are used to boost a wanted agenda. It is stupid to take consolation from such calculations.

So let'S make critical use of it, but as limited as possible, and do this exercise as careful as possible. That includes to leave control of safety not to the industry or it'S lobbyists in politics, of course. Independant, unannounced, constant control is absolutely indispensable. Things like the lying policy of the Swedish company after their series of very serious problems lately are unacceptable and should rank as most major crimes like slaughter for example. responsible managers must go to jail - and not just for a shamefully small number for years, but so long that it really hurts badly. the unconditonal cooprtation with the controlling authority must be enforced - with all means. the consequences of a major accident are simply to costly and too bad as if we should accept anything less. Company interests are absolutely and always of just secondary importance here.

In other words - I would not trust any politician talking about responsible use of safe nuclear energy, and security measures.

Which leaves me in a dilemma, of course.