4 ms·

That is just semantics. I am arguing that a nuclear shutdown event would have different long-term effects today. In the short term of course, fossil fuel plants

That is just semantics. I am arguing that a nuclear shutdown event would have different long-term effects today. In the short term of course, fossil fuel plants would still be able to pick up the slack, but there would be a larger share of natural gas than in the 1980s and were the shutdown to last longer it would be less costly to set up renewable energy plants. People in this thread are also using the article to argue about new nuclear development rather than only unplanned shutdowns. I am countering that failing to develop new nuclear energy no longer automatically means more coal pollution.

mpweiher 10y ago
> That is just semantics. Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Semantics: the meaning of things, particularly words. That's important. You probably meant "nit-picking", and I would suggest it was you who was engaging in nit-picking (though incorrectly) that this is outdated/irrelevant because it is from the past. So I see your incorrect nit-pick and raise you a correct nit-pick. > I am arguing that... Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear". The thing is that this article is not about arguing about what you believe will/should happen, however strongly you believe that, but about what actually did happen. > no longer automatically means more coal pollution. It wasn't automatic back then either, just as it isn't automatic now. However, then and now the actual replacement is largely with coal, no matter what your preferences might be. Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal" http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh... Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you) https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coal-demand-what-does-the-future-hold-coal2265/ https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa... So your "arguments" don't hold water. Reality is different from what you think it should be.
- lyschoening 10y ago
  > Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Quibbling over semantics. > Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear". You're not only nit-picking over semantics, you're also making incorrect assumptions. > Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal" > http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh.. http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh.... A 2014 article with projections for 2013 based on the author's own calculations on a site run by a mysterious owner with no credentials. The projections were completely wrong, by the way, as you can see here: https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm > Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you) > https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa.. https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa.... Another shady source. I give you that if you shut down all reactors in a country with a large proportion of nuclear energy generation you will still be in a conundrum. Still, Japan made up for the gap almost entirely with natural gas, not coal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/11/japans-energy-dilemma-in-one-chart/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/11/japan...
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    Your numbers are not up-to-date: "In 2000, Japan's coal demand was only slightly bigger than LNG consumption, around 60 million tonnes a year versus some 55 million tonnes for LNG, but gas use has now stalled while coal imports have nearly doubled since then." http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-energy-demand-idUKKCN0V30N6 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-energy-demand-idUKKCN... Also, the numbers for Germany are for "installed capacity", not for actual production. If you look at actual production, "Braunkohle" went from 146 in 2010 (pre-Fukushima) to 160 in 2012 (post). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrage/brutto-stromerzeugung-in-deutschland-nach-energietraegern-seit-2007/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrag... But please keep believing what you believe.

mpweiher 10y ago

> That is just semantics. Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Semantics: the meaning of things, particularly words. That's important. You probably meant "nit-picking", and I would suggest it was you who was engaging in nit-picking (though incorrectly) that this is outdated/irrelevant because it is from the past. So I see your incorrect nit-pick and raise you a correct nit-pick. > I am arguing that... Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear". The thing is that this article is not about arguing about what you believe will/should happen, however strongly you believe that, but about what actually did happen. > no longer automatically means more coal pollution. It wasn't automatic back then either, just as it isn't automatic now. However, then and now the actual replacement is largely with coal, no matter what your preferences might be. Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal" http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh... Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you) https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coal-demand-what-does-the-future-hold-coal2265/ https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa... So your "arguments" don't hold water. Reality is different from what you think it should be.

lyschoening 10y ago
> Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Quibbling over semantics. > Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear". You're not only nit-picking over semantics, you're also making incorrect assumptions. > Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal" > http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh.. http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh.... A 2014 article with projections for 2013 based on the author's own calculations on a site run by a mysterious owner with no credentials. The projections were completely wrong, by the way, as you can see here: https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm > Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you) > https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa.. https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa.... Another shady source. I give you that if you shut down all reactors in a country with a large proportion of nuclear energy generation you will still be in a conundrum. Still, Japan made up for the gap almost entirely with natural gas, not coal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/11/japans-energy-dilemma-in-one-chart/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/03/11/japan...
- mpweiher 10y ago
  Your numbers are not up-to-date: "In 2000, Japan's coal demand was only slightly bigger than LNG consumption, around 60 million tonnes a year versus some 55 million tonnes for LNG, but gas use has now stalled while coal imports have nearly doubled since then." http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-energy-demand-idUKKCN0V30N6 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-energy-demand-idUKKCN... Also, the numbers for Germany are for "installed capacity", not for actual production. If you look at actual production, "Braunkohle" went from 146 in 2010 (pre-Fukushima) to 160 in 2012 (post). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrage/brutto-stromerzeugung-in-deutschland-nach-energietraegern-seit-2007/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrag... But please keep believing what you believe.