4 ms·

Wind only displaces gas and coal when governments aren't shutting down nuclear to persue it like in Germany, California, New York, etc.

pfdietz 5y ago
This is not true. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
- andromeduck 5y ago
  https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    That paper is comparing what happened to what would have happened without the nuclear phase out. That is, coal would have gone down MORE if nuclear had not been phased out. It does not support your claim that nuclear was replaced by coal. As the graph I gave you shows, coal use there declined over this decade, even as nuclear has also declined.
- LaMarseillaise 5y ago
  It is absolutely true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encina_Power_Station#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encina_Power_Station#Retiremen... I lived there. I believed the 'environmentalists' when they said that SONGS would be replaced by renewables. I am not falling for it again.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    He made a universal statement. You presenting an example where it might be true doesn't save his statement, when I can present an example where it is wrong.
    - LaMarseillaise 5y ago
      Universal statement? The above commenter specified California. I provided an example confirming that statement for California. Not to mention, the comment is practically a truism aside from the locations mentioned: "Wind only displaces gas and coal when governments aren't shutting down nuclear to persue [sic] it..." If a nuclear plant were shut down and replaced entirely with wind, then that necessarily means that coal and gas are not displaced.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        I see you edited out the part that shows you are wrong. "Wind only displaces gas and coal when governments aren't shutting down nuclear to persue it like in Germany, California, New York, etc." Notice that word "Germany"?

pfdietz 5y ago

This is not true. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2020.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...

andromeduck 5y ago
https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598
- pfdietz 5y ago
  That paper is comparing what happened to what would have happened without the nuclear phase out. That is, coal would have gone down MORE if nuclear had not been phased out. It does not support your claim that nuclear was replaced by coal. As the graph I gave you shows, coal use there declined over this decade, even as nuclear has also declined.
LaMarseillaise 5y ago
It is absolutely true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encina_Power_Station#Retirement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encina_Power_Station#Retiremen... I lived there. I believed the 'environmentalists' when they said that SONGS would be replaced by renewables. I am not falling for it again.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  He made a universal statement. You presenting an example where it might be true doesn't save his statement, when I can present an example where it is wrong.
  - LaMarseillaise 5y ago
    Universal statement? The above commenter specified California. I provided an example confirming that statement for California. Not to mention, the comment is practically a truism aside from the locations mentioned: "Wind only displaces gas and coal when governments aren't shutting down nuclear to persue [sic] it..." If a nuclear plant were shut down and replaced entirely with wind, then that necessarily means that coal and gas are not displaced.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      I see you edited out the part that shows you are wrong. "Wind only displaces gas and coal when governments aren't shutting down nuclear to persue it like in Germany, California, New York, etc." Notice that word "Germany"?