[epups]

> Nuclear energy is just cheap because it gets massively funded by the state.

No it doesn't. Not anymore than gas, coal and renewables at least.

The issue of disposal is also simply incorrect. There are plenty of places to store it, France does it, everyone does it. Do you know where the waste from coal goes? Into the atmosphere, where it kills thousands directly and potentially billions indirectly with global warming. So it's comical to criticise nuclear for waste issues.

Barring hydro (which Germany cannot have) and coal/gas, there is no alternative but nuclear. Renewables cannot be a reliable source of energy because they are intermittent. You will always need some stable source, and currently (and for the foreseeable future), it's nuclear.

[sexy_panda]

> The issue of disposal is also simply incorrect. There are plenty of places to store it.

The question is not, whether there are places or not. It doesn't matter if none of the 16 regions in Germany wants to be responsible to store the waste.

If no one wants to deal with it, the effect is the same.

[tarsinge]

The discussion was on technical feasibility, that Germany is irrational (because it’s not a question of wanting to store, it’s a choice between that and fossil waste = storage in the atmosphere = climate change) is another.

[dispat0r]

Germany already has nuclear waste, we have to deal with it one way or another. I think permanent storage is a bad solution, most of the energy is still in there and further utilization will also reduce the danger of the waste.

[epups]

So it's impossible to resolve this issue? We cannot use our partners in the EU or abroad to help solve it? Well I guess we should just kill thousands with coal, and keep feeding the global warming furnace.