Elthy

Afaik the waste produced by fusion powerplants decays much faster than fission products, so you have to store it for "only" about 100 years so it can be stored in castors like todays waste is, except that you can open it after a reasonable time...

You wont need to go to 1K, there are superconductors up to 138K, where liquid nitrogen is enough...

Those guys are telling bull**** (or they calculate with two GTX 770), you will NEVER need more than 480W (even OCed and with Furmark) for that card. The GPU vendors recommend more power since the cheapest/worst PSU that can only hold its rated power for 1sec has to work... Also i have no idea why you stick to such small CPU-coolers, for OC you could use a bigger one like the Thermalright Macho or the Alpenföhn Brocken 2, there is enough space in that case.

The GTX 660 doesnt need much power, you wont need a PSU with more than 400W. If you want to upgrade you can take a PSU with just over 500W, it will be enough for all High-End GPUs. Also you should use RAM without a high heatspreader (you wont need it anyway), is limits the compability with most CPU-Coolers (not sure about 412s though). Your CPU choice is suboptimal since you have a Z87 Mainboard and a CPU Cooler but no K CPU. You could go up for the i5 4670K or you just take the cheapest Mainboard with an 8X chipset and the cheapes i5 4XXX Quadcore and invest the remaining money in a better GPU.

The problem with nuclear disposal is that its not stored where its safe for the longest time, but where its cheapest and less people can protest against it...

What you seem to forget about the cons of nuclear only: I needs storage technology, too. Nuclear powerplants are designed to run all day with the same output, shutting them down takes hours to days. But power demand isnt the same at each time, so you need some buffer to keep energy available at each daytime. Currently this job is made by gas turbines because they are very flexible, but thats a no-go since its not CO2 neutral (also at least europe wants to get rid of russian gas). Of course you could to Power-to-Gas like with renewables, but than the renewables are cheaper...

The problem is that you need a conductive, fast flowing fluid/gas. Maybe it works with saltwater (tides) but otherwise i dont know how to "produce" a fast flowing conductive stream and stay CO2 neutral...

All build CANDUs are last gen, there is only the plan for an advanced version with increased security (like EPR). As long as this version isnt build noone can say how expensive it is, i assume its the same with every other project of this size: It get way more expensive than anyone ever thought. Thats the good thing on wind/solar, you cant mess it up. Maybe someone falls of a roof (wont happen since there are security lines etc.) or, the worst i can imagine, a wind turbine falls. Since they are build in unpopulated areas it can hit a peasant, but thats as unlikely as a meltdown...

You complain about the costs of renewables and the infrastructure related to them, but i mentioned before that Hinkley Point C, a new, nearly failsafe reactor, is so damn expensive that the british govenment has to pay them a gigant price per kW/h. Since you have to rebuild every reactor on the world do meet these security levels the costs will be far in the trillions. Also new reatortypes like Thorium need lots of research which is very expensive due to the dangers involved and it takes years. Research in new energy storage technologies can be done by everyone and not just the big nuclear companies. More competition = even lower prices.

Wow, spain is allready out. I somehow dislike this because i wanted germany do kick them out, since they did it with us the last times...

Nuclear Power isnt cheaper: England builds 2 new reactors, Hinkley Point C1/C2. They cost about 19 billion Euros and are only pofitable because the british govenment guarantees an extreme price per kW/h (with inflation compensation) and pays when the powerplants cant sell all the power because the market cant take it, both for the next 35 years! The deconstruction and storage for the waste are not included. The EEG subvention for renewable energy in Germany is lower, not inflation compensated and only for 20 years and still is everyone building wind turbines as fast as possible. Also it gets paid by higher energyprices and not higher taxes, which is better since it encourages to save energy. Everyone knows that reactors are quite safe as long as everything goes right. But stuff never goes right, someone missreads the manual or a shady building company safes material on the reactor and if something happens you have another landscape not habitable for centurys and billions of costs. Also renewables dont destroy the landscape. I have 5 200m windgenerators 2km from here and noone is complaining. Solarcells are not placed on a green field, you simply build them on existing roofs.

And this is an uranium mine... I would say that this is a tie.

I dont think that burning the waste is a good idea. Electronics should be recycled and produce lots of nasty stuff when burning. Plastic just increases the CO2 since (most if it) is made from oil. Biowaste can be composted or fermented to gas (im not sure if whats more efficient). Also we afaik we dont produce enough waste to power our economy with it (and we should be happy about that.)

I had the number from a german scientist leading an institute about radiation. I wasnt able to find the direct souce but he is qouted by wikipedia and the german green party, so i think its the reasonable upper limit of estimated deaths... Additional we have a rise in the risk of cancer and other hard to pin down long time results. No matter what, its worse than anything that could ever happen with green energy.

You forgot about 50.000 liquidators who died from radiation after helping at chernobyl. Also i have no idea how people die from solar panels. Maybe they fell from the roof while monting them but same accidents happen when building nuclear power plants...

As a german, i enjoyed the game against portugal very much. A week ago everyone was afraid that the german team is in a bad state, but now everyone is sure we can win the world cup.

Who is "them"? I never heard about this point, it could be just from an oil company who is affraid to loose its profits...

Do you have sources for that claim? I never heard of that and im 99,9% sure that this is not true.

Two Ways: -Power to Gas (Pipeline are well understood). It can be a problem to get enough water in the desert, though... -Direct current instead of alternating current (not sure if thats the right translation) is more efficient on long distances. Since solarpanels produce direct current anyway thats not such a big problem.

WTF? Both involve red lights and blowing but whats the link? Thats why i would recommend Power-to-Gas. The gasgrid in germany can hold the energy for several months. Also biogas plants can provide power when nothing else works. They store the gas over the sunny/windy days and burn it when there is demand.

You said that quiting nuclear power was a bad decision for germany. But nearly everyone in germany agrees that it was a good idea, even the conservative parties. If everyone agrees it has to have advantages for everyone, even if its just that we dont have to pay that much to get rid of never produced waste... What do you think about a hydrogen/methane powered industry? Hydrogen can be produced by unused wind/solar energy an then react with atmospheric CO2 to methane (the same gas we currently use) and then power cars or powerplants and heat houses. Its easily storend in the gas grid, the germany gas grid has capacity for months. Also hydrogen can be used directly, but fuel cells are currently quite expensive. Im not sure which one is better, but they both are completly renewable (which no form of fission will be) it would have the advantage that we never have to switch it again...

Waste radioactive enough that you have to seal it of for thousands or millions of years, which is simply not possible (weve tried, but the "Asse" leaked radiation after some decades). Strangely the decision to shut down everything is now accepted by everyone in the politics, not just the parties currently elected. While there are lots of arguments in the aftermath i can hardly think of any decision in the last years where so many people agree. Perhaps because everyone sees the benefits...

Cant we just stick to NERVA? Im not that confortable with radiactive stuff on top of thousand tons of explosives, but fluorine is worse. Also i dont want to think about the pollution such a rocket leaves in our athmosphere...

The used fuel rods are not the main source of radioactive waste, its the stuff contaminated while running a reactor, including the reactor itself (at some day you have to scrap it). We have about 20 reactors in germany that have to be scraped in the next 20 years, and we dont know where to put all the waste we get just from the fuel rods. So this is a very big problem for the future... Also the deconstruction of the reactors and disposal of the waste is one point that doesnt get calculated in the energycosts, it gets paid by taxes. If you mind these nucelar power is the most expensive, by far (Sources vary from 50ct to 1€ per kW/h). Be carefull, such words can get a thread locked very fast (happened several times allready)... Also there are hints that a climatic change is just happening now. In the last 10 years we had so many hottest/coldest every recorded temperatures, strongest floods/storms etc. Something is definetly happening and saying its not the humans is like saying someone with a big bullethole in his had died of cancer...

I have an extreme modded KSP but i wont get over 1000mb VRAM usage, no matter what i do. I doubt that this is a problem... Can you post a screenshot of your VRAM usage?