3 ms·

> "Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union." Yes, but this is possible because Germany's emissions are amongst the highest in the EU

> "Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union." Yes, but this is possible because Germany's emissions are amongst the highest in the EU to begin with. Although Germany is making progress and can be commended for it's investment in renewables, more than 30% of it's electricity is still produced from coal (hard coal and worse, lignite), which results in one of the highest grid carbon intensities amongst it's European peers. Building new nuclear is one thing (there are valid economic and environmental arguments against this), but Germany's decision to close existing nuclear plants, some with many years of life remaining, was a political and emotional one rather than rational and scientific. Keeping existing nuclear plants operating would have allowed more time to develop and expand renewables, enabling coal plants to be closed earlier and reducing CO2 emissions faster.

natmaka 6y ago
> to close existing nuclear plants, some with many years of life remaining, was a political and emotional one rather than rational and scientific. Seems debatable because it seems that, in Germany, most/many (?) citizens are not willing to see nuclear plants running nearby. It may not be rational. I think it is. There are counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments, and so on... up to the point of the debate confining to ethics/metaphysics: do we have the right to create long-lived dangerous waste? Or even the simple "do those who accept have the right to expose those who don't, given that nobody can behave in order to escape the effects of a disaster?" All this leads to much more generic debates (politically dangerous), moreover no politician wants to remain in history as the one who maintained some nuclear plant which, afterwards, caused a disaster. > Keeping existing nuclear plants operating would have ... induced risks. Even field experts warn us about it. In France: https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2016/03/03/il-faut-imaginer-qu-un-accident-de-type-fukushima-puisse-survenir-en-europe_1437315 https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2016/03/03/il-faut-imaginer... In the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nucl...

natmaka 6y ago

> to close existing nuclear plants, some with many years of life remaining, was a political and emotional one rather than rational and scientific. Seems debatable because it seems that, in Germany, most/many (?) citizens are not willing to see nuclear plants running nearby. It may not be rational. I think it is. There are counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments, and so on... up to the point of the debate confining to ethics/metaphysics: do we have the right to create long-lived dangerous waste? Or even the simple "do those who accept have the right to expose those who don't, given that nobody can behave in order to escape the effects of a disaster?" All this leads to much more generic debates (politically dangerous), moreover no politician wants to remain in history as the one who maintained some nuclear plant which, afterwards, caused a disaster. > Keeping existing nuclear plants operating would have ... induced risks. Even field experts warn us about it. In France: https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2016/03/03/il-faut-imaginer-qu-un-accident-de-type-fukushima-puisse-survenir-en-europe_1437315 https://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2016/03/03/il-faut-imaginer... In the US: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nucl...