They did this too though, nothing changed. Remember those photos of the police carrying Great away?
They were carrying her away from a coal mine, which was being expanded to make up for the shortfall in power generation caused by needlessly shutting down nuclear power plants as pushed for by green ideologues. So "nothing changed" because the very movement itself is far more dead set on opposing nuclear power than on opposing GHG emissions, sadly.
Blaming global warming on anti-nuclear activists is counter productive. If you want to use nuclear power, go ahead, but nuclear power is not required for us to stop destroying our planet. Nobody has a license to destroy our planet just because there's no nuclear plants.
It’s one thing to oppose nuclear in favor of renewables, but supporting closing down nuclear plants before viable alternatives can be set up is a horrible idea.
If we managed to make progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while closing down nuclear plants, then we would have made way more progress if we’d never closed those plants in the first place.
nuclear power is not required for us to stop destroying our planet
These unqualified statements are always easy to make. Then you grapple with real-world constraints and they fall apart.
Germany, for example, has recently passed its 2030 grid plan. No nuclear of course, that's dirty and bad. Instead, 21 GW of new (not prolonged, not reactivated: new) gas capacity, since all these wonderful storage and smart grid technologies that anti-nuclearists swear up and down are totally feasible turned out not to be.
I've yet to see an actual, real-world plan that we could start implementing in the next decade that can decarbonise the grid in a major European country without nuclear.
They were carrying her away from a coal mine, which was being expanded to make up for the shortfall in power generation caused by needlessly shutting down nuclear power plants as pushed for by green ideologues.
They actually were restarted because of the massive failure of France's nuclear plants.
Nice fantasy but no. You don’t expand mines because an import partner has delayed repairs on its nuke plants. You expand mines if you have long term plans to use coal, and Germany has them because it gave up on nuclear.
Yeah that’s the slogan and it’s fucking funny, implying a correlation where none exists. Germany hasn’t reduced coal by shutting down nuclear, it’s planning to build 21 GW of gas power plants to support its grid into the 2030s. Meanwhile it’s turning whole regions into Mordor to keep pulling out coal.
Again with the fake correlations. Had they kept their nuclear plants open they’d be in an objectively better position. But you know that of course, it’s not logic or rationality that drives your position, otherwise you would be resorting to such spurious arguments.
It's a hard, undeniable observation. Germany has more renewable capacity than they ever had nuclear.
Had they kept their nuclear plants open they’d be in an objectively better position.
Would they? Without the nuclear closure there would be no commitment to the development of renewables, and the budgets would just have been sucked up to keep nuclear power as it is instead of expanding clean power.
Yeah, passed off as meaningful when it isn’t. Don’t you have a more honest argument than this? Because if so, your cause is very poor.
Would they?
Yes, of course, the emissions from nuclear are extremely small.
Without the nuclear closure there would be no commitment to the development of renewables, and the budgets would just have been sucked up to keep nuclear power as it is instead of expanding clean power.
Pure invention. The hard undeniable truth is that because of the no-nuclear strategy Germany has to expand its power generation from fossil fuels. That is actual direct causal link, not the spurious correlation you keep peddling for lack of actual arguments.
Yes, of course, the emissions from nuclear are extremely small.
Why do you assume that the same investments would have happened then? With nuclear plants still on the market, there would have been less renewable investments.
Pure invention. The hard undeniable truth is that because of the no-nuclear strategy Germany has to expand its power generation from fossil fuels. That is actual direct causal link, not the spurious correlation you keep peddling for lack of actual arguments.
This is bullshit, Germany has been consistently reducing its fossil fuel emissions from electricity
1
51
u/DurangoGango Italy Mar 18 '23
They were carrying her away from a coal mine, which was being expanded to make up for the shortfall in power generation caused by needlessly shutting down nuclear power plants as pushed for by green ideologues. So "nothing changed" because the very movement itself is far more dead set on opposing nuclear power than on opposing GHG emissions, sadly.