4 ms·
That's not true, coal did not replace nuclear, renewables did [0]. What's true is that coal plants could have been shut down instead of nuclear ones, which suck
by svara 7y ago
That's not true, coal did not replace nuclear, renewables did [0]. What's true is that coal plants could have been shut down instead of nuclear ones, which sucks. But note that anthracite coal is decreasing since ~5 years ago (dark grey bar in [0]).
[0] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/3_abb_bruttostromerzeugung-et_2019-02-26.png https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/38...
"Kohle" is coal; "Kernenergie" is nuclear; "Erneuerbare" is renewables.
- looping__lui 7y agoYes. And not to mention that the coal plants emit 2x as much radioactivity into the environment at comparable power generation [0]. [0] https://www.bund-nrw.de/fileadmin/nrw/dokumente/braunkohle/2008_11_BUNDhintergrund_Radioaktivitaet_aus_Kohlekraftwerken.pdf https://www.bund-nrw.de/fileadmin/nrw/dokumente/braunkohle/2...
- C14L 7y agoAnd are the deadliest form of energy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...