3 ms·
The fact that coal usage is actually declining was mentioned obliquely in paragraph 7. Virtually the entire article is cheerleading hard for nuclear. Not ment
by crdoconnor 9y ago
The fact that coal usage is actually declining was mentioned obliquely in paragraph 7.
Virtually the entire article is cheerleading hard for nuclear.
Not mentioned is also the fact that the UK is building a new nuclear plant and it's very expensive. Significantly more expensive than the equivalent in wind/solar would have been even if you assume that they do not continue to decline in price (which they probably will).
- lispm 9y agoThe UK needs to keep nuclear skills for their military. Germany does not need that technology, it has neither nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapon production, nor nuclear powered submarines.
- StreamBright 9y ago"Looking ahead, the best way to ensure that coal-fired electricity plants keep closing is a rising price of carbon. On that front, there is good news: Promised reforms to the European Union's cap-and-trade system would shrink its chronic oversupply of emissions permits. By 2020, according to an analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, this should triple the price of carbon to 24 euros a ton -- high enough to push all European countries away from coal. If Merkel acts on the proposal to close those lignite-powered plants, she'll give this overdue shift some fresh momentum." This? I think most of these are plans and speculation.