4 ms·

There was another post here last week, basically as it is now, Germany relies of burning things and producing CO2 for the majority of their power. Most of that

There was another post here last week, basically as it is now, Germany relies of burning things and producing CO2 for the majority of their power. Most of that is lignite, which is 1/3 and inferior to coal, because its low heat capacity, so they need more to burn. Given the several once in a 100 year floods they've had just about every year in the last decade, they can't afford to keep burning.

riedel 5y ago
There is a difference between turning off nuclear reactors completely while there is not enough renewals to replace them and diverging investment money from renewables by creating a sustainability label to something that causes likely a lot of cost in the future and is risky. In end both maybe wrong . (Although I believe personally that it makes sense to turn off nuclear reactors, because of the overall cost: waste, reactor shutdown costs and cost related to security and risks: it only takes one fatal failure to add alot of cost. If actually operators would pay for all the costs and include them in the pricing it would be another story. However, currently nuclear power cost are hardly calcultable and commonly the public will pay for it )