I don't know, from what I've read, the result would allow for economic growth, which is good...

... I just wish that governments would pay more attention to freer movements of labor.

I don't know, from what I've read, the result would allow for economic growth, which is good...

That's what they're saying, but in reality it would bankrupted governments, deregulate the economy destroying the quality standards on the continent and help major corporations (small and medium businesses wouldn't be able to compete with large companies). Outsourcing will explode to Eastern European countries, too I bet.

It's great for big businesses and will boost the points on the stock market, but in reality we're all gonna suffer for it.

The only issue I see here is the lack of environmental protection these companies wish to pursue, the systems in these countries are capitalism, and the government should not be allowed to block capitalism. However, I believe in a degree of environmental regulations and the transition to clean energy, but why Germany banned nuclear power is beyond me, it is incredibly safe nowadays, it is a near endless supply of energy, and it only releases Steam, and if bordering on a lake for cooling water (as the nuclear plant in my home state does, the Cowans Ford dam that forms Lake Norman is for nuclear purposes) then it results in an at most 1-2 degree water temperature raise, which does not affect things that much. Solar and wind are great alternative sources, but until they are truly commercially viable(can power cities without having a bazillion sq miles of panels) can we use them.

The only issue I see here is the lack of environmental protection these companies wish to pursue, the systems in these countries are capitalism, and the government should not be allowed to block capitalism. However, I believe in a degree of environmental regulations and the transition to clean energy, but why Germany banned nuclear power is beyond me, it is incredibly safe nowadays, it is a near endless supply of energy, and it only releases Steam, and if bordering on a lake for cooling water (as the nuclear plant in my home state does, the Cowans Ford dam that forms Lake Norman is for nuclear purposes) then it results in an at most 1-2 degree water temperature raise, which does not affect things that much. Solar and wind are great alternative sources, but until they are truly commercially viable(can power cities without having a bazillion sq miles of panels) can we use them.

oh boy ...

calling you severely misinformed would be kind, totally brainwashed accurate and incredibly stupid a bit mean, but honest.

1.

it is incredibly safe nowadays

Fukushima? cost for the total economic damage till now is estimated 250 to 500 billion dollars. That is only local economic damage in Japan. Not including the contamination of oceans and sealife.

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html

Just now Tepco has asked the Japanese government for another 137 billion dollars in financial aid.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/fukushima-137-billion-cost-has-tepco-seeking-more-aid.html

2.

it is a near endless supply of energy

It is not nearly endless. At current consumption (which always is a total unrealistic model that creates a myth of ressource longlivety) it would peak in ~ 81 years. Allthough certain other nuclear techniques, like using thorium or extracting it from seawater could enhance the ressource longlivety for a span in the tens of thousands of years, it would increase the already high cost dramatically.

3.

it only releases Steam

haha. I particularily like that statement. Maybe someone should tell you that nuclear power creates atomic waste and not only hot steam. The USA creates 2700 tons of it per year. They already have roughly 80.000 tons of high grade atomic waste. In Russia there are about 700.000 tons of radioactive waste, 140.000 tons coming from european nuclear power plants.
Since the halflife of certain Isotops is incredibly high, it has to be stored safely for a million years to be of no more risk.

Given that civilization is only roughly 10.000 to 20.000 years old, this is an incredibly ambitious timeframe, dont you think?

That is why a final solution has not yet been found and it is highly unlikely that it can ever be found. Recently the USA abandoned their 9 billion dollar nuclear waste facility because of safety concerns and in Germany a 1,4 billion dollar facility will most likely share the same fate.

So please, dont be so ridiculous and inform yourself before you believe nuclear lobby propaganda.

now don't you think your just believing the opposite propaganda? Nuclear power is incredibly safe given the number of facilities worldwide and the amount of accidents. fukushima was a natural disaster, preventable if the Japanese had used better safety measures for their reactors, which they did not. The technology, in the long run, is cheaper than developing a technology for solar that only makes new energy during the day and has to store at night. Nuclear power is a highly efficient power source, and I apologize for saying it produces only steam, you are correct, it does produce waste, but this is put into a facility that takes care of and does not allow it into the atmosphere or water table. so the only thing released is steam.
http://www.edouardstenger.com/2009/10/26/10-reasons-to-support-nuclear-power/
(look towards 6&7)

Also I suggest you take a look at your profile picture before you spew liberal propaganda about energy my way. you need to look at it every way not just at the bad, but at the incredible good it brings us, it may not be final but it is an integral energy source for the world.

fukushima was a natural disaster, preventable if the Japanese had used better safety measures for their reactors, which they did not.

What is natural about a nuclear power plant? Wasn't Chernobyl also preventable?...that doesn't mean it won't happen and considering the number of plants being opened, the chances of something going wrong is increasing.

As safe as it may be the damages just one accident does to the environment makes it unsafe, particularly in densely populated regions like the EU.

Nuclear power is a highly efficient power source, and I apologize for saying it produces only steam, you are correct, it does produce waste, but this is put into a facility that takes care of and does not allow it into the atmosphere or water table. so the only thing released is steam.

A scandal broke out in Germany recently that the safety standards of the nuclear waste wasn't good enough and that the toxic waste was leaking...France in under investigation and the US has similar problems. Explain to me what's safe about this!?!

Solar and wind are great alternative sources, but until they are truly commercially viable(can power cities without having a bazillion sq miles of panels) can we use them.

Considering humans only inhabit a small portion of the planet's surface, I don't think massive solar power plants are a problem - we're certainly not running out of space, rather land which can be cultivated, but that's a different story.

Julius, you're way too trusting, the government and corporations will lie to you as long as they can get away with it.

250-500 billion EUROs in damage done with Fukushima and no one is being held accountable. Start holding people accountable for these events and you'll see how fast they'll stop supporting nuclear energy...

Fuck it, let's just burn coal and see what happens.