Answer for green in green.
Dude I don't know how many times I can repeat this. I really think you are pretending to be blind now. I told you I never made the point that the data from TVM power plant was used to conclude in favour of nuclear power. WHen you made that point, I told you it was a simplistic misunderstanding on your part, and not the reality. And you still continue to accuse me of saying that, in your supposedly sarcastic sentence. I cannot keep repeating this. For the last time. Data from that plant was NOT used to favour nuclear power. The only point I made by bringing that was to say it can only produce 150 kilowatts, and not gigawatts of energy. The rest is - and I'm telling you for the fifth and last time - your own misunderstanding of the point.
Also - you keep saying that it was built in 1991, and accuse me of foolishness for thinking that the samw will apply today. Can you tell me what has changed between 1991 and 2012, that changes things now? What new developments have come in that field now to make it orders of magnitude more productive?
I answered your point about safety several times. You are going on asking. I told you these reactors are a generation ahead on safety issues from the ones in fukushima. If you want to know, here is why. First of all, do you know what caused the safety concerns at Fukushima? Because the flooding wiped out the power supply for cooling the reactor core. The design at koodankulam has FOUR REDUNDANT AND INDEPENDENT emergency cooling systems, for such an eventuality. Unless four tusnamis from four different sides wipe them all out, power will not be lost.
This newspaper report gives you the number of institutions that have inspected the reactors and declared them to be safe. These include the atomic energy commission of India, the International atomic energy agency (IAEA), the Bhaba atomic reseach center (BARC), and IITs.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/article2612339.ece
The Hindu : States / Tamil Nadu : Fukushima no yardstick to oppose Kudankulam project: IGCAR chief
http://www.siasat.com/english/news/kudankulam-plant-very-well-protected-aerb
In addition, here is APJ Abdul Kalam saying it too:
Kudankulam plant safe: APJ Abdul Kalam - The Times of India
And again you are accusing me of fibbing. I'm sure you remember that I did not fib, you had misread the sentence. I said "one of the largest" and you thought I said "largest". You admitted it yourself then. It shows a certain fundamental dishonesty that after a few posts you again say I fibbed, because it may go unnoticed. Underhanded tricks.
You said that you "read in a report" that China is going to make 1500 GW of green energy. Could you please tell us which "report" that was? Because the reality is that they are aiming for something like one by thousandth of that. Maybe you might want to stop exaggerating by a factor of thousand to prove a wild claim.
So here is the long and short of it. You brought up two points only as far as I can see. One, safety. I have explained several times, including in this post. Two, you brought up green energy. As I said several times, green energy can never produce anywhere near what we want. So both these points don't hold water, and I don't think you have made any other arguments.
It is kind of sad that you have to self declare yourself as the "winner". Usually participants let the viewers judge that for themselves. In this case, the readers can see who is making cogent arguments, and when you have to tell everyone that you won, it kind of sets one thinking, doesn't it? On the internet, this is called Danth's law or Parker's law. It says that:
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.
Danth's Law - RationalWiki
Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe - Telegraph
(See number 6).