> Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Quibbling over semantics. > Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting do

> 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...