3 ms·

Germany decided to focus on cutting nuclear instead of cutting coal. This is not an example to follow, really. In the current situation, getting rid of coal a

Germany decided to focus on cutting nuclear instead of cutting coal. This is not an example to follow, really. In the current situation, getting rid of coal and fossil fuels should have higher priority than getting rid of nuclear purely for ideological reasons... Your argument is also misleading: Of course use of nuclear power can be reduced by increasing use of renewables. But the important point is that renewables cannot replace nuclear.

cygx 7y ago
Doesn't matter for the argument under discussion. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Germany did reduce coal energy by 48TWh, which was essentially offset by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. So focussing on nuclear, you're left with a decrease by 84TWh offset by an increase of Wind energy by 95TWh and Solar by 46 TWh.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. Some natural gas? Some? You think those pipelines from Russia are there to only provide 'SOME' natural gas?? Nord Stream has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters. Nord Stream 2 will double that to 110 billion cubic meters. Those are huge, politically sensitive, projects. And those aren't the only planned natural gas pipelines. Second, biomass really sucks as the fuel of the future. It is environmentally destructive due to the land-use requirements. It's also expensive. It may be carbon neutral (depends if you burn dedicated crops or if you burn waste). Regardless, it's crazy that people would be pushing this as a fuel of the future just so they can get nuclear power off the table. There is only one answer to cutting C02 emissions, and that's nuclear. We've already lost 50 years because we haven't internalized that fact, and we'll continue to lose time until we do.
  - cygx 7y ago
    Yes, 'some'. Specifically, 4.44TWh.

cygx 7y ago

Doesn't matter for the argument under discussion. If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Germany did reduce coal energy by 48TWh, which was essentially offset by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. So focussing on nuclear, you're left with a decrease by 84TWh offset by an increase of Wind energy by 95TWh and Solar by 46 TWh.

macspoofing 7y ago
>by increased biomass capabilities and some natural gas. Some natural gas? Some? You think those pipelines from Russia are there to only provide 'SOME' natural gas?? Nord Stream has an annual capacity of 55 billion cubic meters. Nord Stream 2 will double that to 110 billion cubic meters. Those are huge, politically sensitive, projects. And those aren't the only planned natural gas pipelines. Second, biomass really sucks as the fuel of the future. It is environmentally destructive due to the land-use requirements. It's also expensive. It may be carbon neutral (depends if you burn dedicated crops or if you burn waste). Regardless, it's crazy that people would be pushing this as a fuel of the future just so they can get nuclear power off the table. There is only one answer to cutting C02 emissions, and that's nuclear. We've already lost 50 years because we haven't internalized that fact, and we'll continue to lose time until we do.
- cygx 7y ago
  Yes, 'some'. Specifically, 4.44TWh.