Oh yeah, I got that wrong. But then again, I'm only a programmer and don't really need to know that stuff.

He learnt everything from Wikipedia.

I guess Chernobyl power plant was programmed by guys thinking your way -.-'

I'm just an ordinary renaissance man.

HardTranceFan: "While nuclear causes calamities when it goes wrong, coal causes calamities when it goes right, and coal goes right a lot more often than nuclear goes wrong."

Yaaaawn.

As I have pointed out before, the choice is NOT only between nuclear and coal. You can discontinue to spread this idea of perilous dilemma, although you may personally like the sinister feeling of it.

Again:

• Wind energy yields enough electricity on average, if combined over large areas. The point is to adapt power networks to be able to cope with fluctuating supply, which is facilitated by the fact that wind forecasts are highly reliable

• as Matthew saw it, windmills can be placed on farmlands etc., there's no need for centralisation, so there is little wasted space

• In case there shouldn't be enough wind/sun at all, combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants can be used as backup. They are small, more efficient (nearly 60%) than coal plants (about 31-38%) (and nuclear: 30-40%), therefore emit less CO² per kWh and, as I may presume, also less radioactivity. Furthermore, they're comparatively cheap, able to start/shut down completely (meaning from 0% to 100%) in short time (unlike coal/nuclear), which makes them attractive as backup-power. Even when there should not be any natural gas left, they can then be powered with biogas, which should be the long term focus anyway. The main component of biogas, the actual fuel, is methane. The effect of methane as greenhouse gas is 20-30times worse than CO². So it's a very good idea to burn it to get CO² and water... Consequently, in long term perspective, the gas networks should be adapted to be able to receive biogas decentrally.

• solar cells can be made of different materials, not all of which are short of supply; they are also recyclable up to about 90%

• these roads taken and measures applied, we should need considerably less nuclear and/or coal; when combined with measures to reduce power consumption (a lot of power is wasted anyway -> stand-by mode of devices for example), it should be possible to get rid of them completely

Reasons for shutting down/not building coal plants:

• CO²

• radioactive emissions

Reasons for shutting down/not building nuclear plants:

• plants are damn expensive (and take a long time to build)

• the residual risk will never be zero, especially because it's men operating them and corporations, formed by men, needing to make necessary investments to increase security (which was not done, by the way, in Fukushima, as Toshiba-engineer Masashi Goto testifies)

• if something goes wrong, there's the still the possibility it goes wrong in a way words can hardly describe

• attempts to attack plants by plane are often not taken into account by security measures (around here, the allegedly highly effective counter-measure is spreading ...fog! )

• earthquakes/tsunamis are highly unpredictable; reliable records of earthquakes and their intensity have existed for about 100-150 years, whereas earthquakes certainly do exist much longer. So, the phrase "We've taken all known data into account, it's safe!" is, as Fukushima proves, highly insufficient and not even rational.

• uranium mining is quite ugly, to say the least

Okay, that's all what comes to my mind at the moment...

The same could be said about any mission critical / advanced systems (e.g. airplanes, space travel, the Internet, particle accelerators like the LHC)... We may as well go back to the stone age if we want to feel "safe".

The same could be said for all types of power plants. And it's more of a human issue than a technology issue (see 9/11).

And what is a more rational argument? and again, not exclusive to nuclear power plants. For instance, after the quake, the Fukushima dam also broke down, flooding the city. By the same token we should not also build big buildings (e.g. skyscrapers).

My point here is that one can never be 100% safe, even when you take all the known precautions.

EDIT: Also, another fact not to build Coal Plants is that they pollute quite a lot (much more than other kinds of plants).

Agreed on that.

Not really, I think it's better to accept that life is not without risks.

You're clearly biased... Modern Nuclear plants aren't "giga-risks".

Sorry for getting the CO2 wrong. I promise, I will never do it again.

He who is without bias shall throw the first...

This 'giga-risk' was only a short, laconic reply, out of context. You know that, too. But: interesting strategy of argumentation.

The problem is not how the plant itself looks on paper/in theory (there are, however, as I've pointed out, problems with 'earthquake data'). The problem is constant operation by humans over long time, humans deciding whether to upgrade security or not etc. There are various reasons for suboptimal behavior by humans (cost/profit, corruption, stupidity, ...). That does not even necessarily concern the engineers.
You will never have a plant without all that.

But I feel I shouldn't try to argue with you anyway, because... you don't argue at all and ... well, I guess you seem to be quite biased.

Yes, if more people understood that, there'd be less of a problem with media-scare.

However, radiation can also contaminate the environment for a long time which is worse (in some aspects) than landscape altering natural disasters. But, obviously (I hope), the property damage caused by the natural disasters will exceed the damaged caused by radiation, at least in terms of total area and money.

Eh, what? We already know what the property damage is. If the radiation is worse than that, then well, Japan is doomed.

It still sounds kind of bad. Out of context, it could be mistaken for you saying you want more property damage (especially with the way the threat of radiation is being played up by the media. It would have been better to hope that the radiation damage is less than the property damage.

Not that you should really care. We all know what you meant, and no one else will ever read it. And you also shouldn't have to tailor your words so stupid people won't misunderstand and hate you.