First of all, friend / Reader / a, I make three points: a) I am a fervent advocate of 
power generation based on nuclear energy, b) I am a strong supporter of renewable energy (although they do not contribute almost nothing to global power consumption c) No delivery of dogmatism and "tenebrist" as they get used to cloud the debate on nuclear.
What do I have clear is that I want to leave a cleaner, safer world for future generations and I have even clearer that the generation of electricity using fossil fuels YES condemn humanity to a true destination: the impending climate change, and this is a reality, not the result of nuclear energy, has been a combination of comfort and technological need that involves our current society and none of us, asumémoslo, we will resign.
Having said that I make a number of testable facts, easily reachable, and largely made available to the public in a book, which I highly recommend reading: Nuclear why not? of Manuel Lozano Leyva , one of the best nuclear physicists Europe.
I will not go into too much (now that I turned this premise to start), but to go for parties, are we willing to continue to count on fossil fuels, the answer is no, we can not pay this high price on the future of future generations of mankind. This is a fact, this option is not viable. On the other hand we have the problem that holds wind power is an energy expensive (currently heavily subsidized and therefore not viable on their holdings in private hands, at the time withdraw heavy subsidies received) and also has the problem that can not be combined in the energy transport system. Its peak production to be quickly entered into the system for consumption (This is the reason that when we look at a wind farm on a day of strong wind turbines standing there they do not work: the system simply is not able to absorb all the energy generated).
There are currently 438 operational nuclear power plants in the world (www.insc.anl.com ), and we can say that there are five types of nuclear power, the most common call PWR (pressurized water system). These are the type that are installed in Spain, belonging to the 1st generation of plants that were built in the world, using technology fission (the fusion of time is tested in model tokamak , and will undoubtedly be to revolutionize the energy future of the planet, but its development and consolidation could change the world energy model, and therefore economic - This will be the subject of another post, below). The most efficient and safer today is called CANDU (2nd Generation). Finland is building the first plant type 3 ª generation and is already developing the most efficient and clean that represents the 4th generation model, which takes a few years translated into reality.
The Central Finland 3rd Generation will generate an output of 1,600 MW, compared to 1,097 of Cofrentes (Valencia) opened in 1984 on the type BWR (boiling water system).
All that said, some data that help to clarify what is happening. We all irritate each time we get the bill electricity bill, do we have to pay a thing called the euphemistic name of "tariff deficit". You know what that is? For that is the toll we pay all the Spanish since 1991, due to the Nuclear Moratorium Felipe Gonzalez signed at that time (and all subsequent presidents have been maintained. By the way Felipe Gonzalez is now in favor of repealing the moratorium, open the nuclear debate and clearly inform the public about the pros and cons of this type of energy generation). We all like to take heart about that in Spain not built new nuclear and bet on renewable energy, but the stubborn reality is that when we have peak consumption in Spain, the need to import, mainly from France, which incidentally produces 85% of its energy through nuclear power stations. Ie in Spain consumes more energy than nuclear origin that actually occurs.
Follow. Therefore the tariff deficit comes from the abandonment of the projects were under way to launch new nuclear power plants (some under construction) by the utilities. Specifically: Lemóniz I and II, Valdecaballeros I and II, Trillo II, Escatrón I and II, Santillan, Regoloda and Resume. Come on, a trifle. This is the type of actions (and political decisions) we pay citizens made to blow poll, without the population has had the slightest chance of forging a strong opinion that determines your future and that of humanity.
More data. Rid a myth. One of the recurring nightmares of the collective imagination is the possibility that a nuclear burst, with mushroom cloud included anywhere in the world. Not have more bad dreams: the possibility of this happening is simply ZERO possibilities. It's impossible. Why is it impossible? For the simple reason that the nuclear fuel used is a tiny rich isotopes needed (between 3 and 4% of wealth is called enriched uranium is the fuel type based on uranium oxide using plants. To make an atomic bomb needed Uranium enriched to 80%). More precisely, the amount of uranium to make a small atomic bomb is 30 Kg (a material is extremely dense), in the case of plutonium is about 11 kg but this type of plant less abundant, and 3rd generation are based on the use of uranium. (The amount of uranium used in a nuclear power plant of this type of material for the construction of a nuclear pump amounts to a few tens of grams).
On storage. This certainly remains a problem more important than the plants themselves, however the scientific community says the new models of containment are much safer than the 1st generation and most of the scientific community says that in a medium-term future, it can reuse current waste in future fusion plants (the future of nuclear energy), remember that the alternative is to continue burning fossil fuels to maintain our rate of consumption.
I do not want to go any further, except to remember four major nuclear disasters: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, will not say anything more about this monument to the brutality of humanity that has nothing to do with power (but I recommend the cancer studies that have taken place since detonation until today, I left very puzzled, and studies to be bored). Another disaster was the Three Mile Island (Harrisburg) . This had a special significance, since the escape he suffered was magnified by the release at the same time the movie " The China Syndrome , "based on a screenplay by Michael Crichton alarmist and starring Jane Fonda. Developed the idea that a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania merged its core, exploded and appeared in China (the archenemy of the U.S. by the USSR in the 70), by the way guess where it was Harrisburg (what a coincidence, right?). The point is that through a science fiction script (none of the events he narrates Crichton is supported by a serious theory), made such a stir that even last echoes of that in the population. In fact Jane Fonda was tireless propagator of anti-nuclear message (and environmentalist, socialist) throughout the world, until she met Ted Turner , but that's another story. The third fact of importance was the incident at the plant of British nuclear enrequicimiento Sellafield (a flight of level 3 - based on an alert system from 1 to 5 which contaminated part of the nuclear plant), this fact was used by Greenpeace and other organizations as a potential danger to society tribute to nuclear energy. Indeed the incident of Harrisburg, was something more serious, level 5, which means there was a leak in the vicinity of the plant without an imminent danger to the public.
The last thing I want to cite is that of Chernobyl (former USSR), since it is an incident (the most serious in the history of nuclear energy) and that this particular post being longer than usual, I'll leave it to a subsequent entry, dedicated to this subject.
I write this is not a dogma, it can actually be wrong, but with the objective facts that I have accumulated on the generation of all types of energy throughout the world, I understand that energy is cleaner and more efficient (and less dependent for our balance of payments). Think of all the oil and natural gas we consume, not just of nations comes from reliable in terms of respect for human rights and ecological concerns.
I leave the thinking to open what I hope will be a lengthy and interesting debate on our future.
I hope your contributions.
Pingback: Bitacoras.com