4 ms·

Now we've made full circle because this question of yours is how we started the discussion. To this I can only repeat my answer: it matters because the exact op

Now we've made full circle because this question of yours is how we started the discussion. To this I can only repeat my answer: it matters because the exact opposite is being told, even in this thread in the top comment. If it didn't matter, this lie wouldn't be repeated ad nauseam. I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 (although I didn't check the US numbers in detail, so I might be slightly off). So in this regard, what Germany is doing is an obvious success, but reality does not fit to agendas. If everybody was doing this, the world would be in much better shape. Instead those that do well, are criticized for not doing better, mostly on wrong assumptions and bad data. That's just weird.

fsflover 5y ago
> I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 This is whataboutism. The fact that someone else is doing worse, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the better. There is no reason to switch off nuclear in Germany before switching off coal, except propaganda and irrational fear.
- locallost 5y ago
  It would be whataboutism if Germany hadn't done squat, or even worse replaced nuclear with coal which is what you and a lot of people mistakenly think because you never look at data before having an opinion. But they started switching off both. That's why coal % is way down which is a success. In absolute numbers they used to produce almost 300TWh from coal and are now down to less than 150TWh. Again, tremendous progress. And it's really sad I have to repeat the same data over and over, and it doesn't get through. So much for rationality. I repeat: if all the countries in the world would go their route, especially the developed countries, the world would be in much better shape. There is no counter to that because that's what the data says. Emissions way down, full stop. No threat of Fukushima like event because of reactors built 50 years ago. Full stop
  - fsflover 5y ago
    You repeat the data but don't understand its implications. Reducing coal to 25% while reducing nuclear to 0% goes against the environment, even though it's better than other countries. It should've been vice versa, 0% coal, 25% nuclear.
    - locallost 5y ago
      Less coal is good for the environment, as is less nuclear. Or was Fukushima good for the environment? Of course you realize this for both, you wouldn't otherwise make up that they replaced nuclear with coal, and ignore mentioning Fukushima even once.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987. The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974. I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact which you are unable to accept. Let's come back to our examples. Possibility 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. Why is coal not at 0%? Because the renewables are not enough to cover the energy usage! This is why coal is still there. In other words, coal (partially, along with the renewables) replaced the removed nuclear, despite they both are used less.
        locallost 5y ago
        I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.

fsflover 5y ago

> I think it matters that Germany's fossil fuel use for electricity went from 60% in 2010 to 40% in 2020. I also think it matters the US went from 60% in 2010 to 60% in 2020 This is whataboutism. The fact that someone else is doing worse, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for the better. There is no reason to switch off nuclear in Germany before switching off coal, except propaganda and irrational fear.

locallost 5y ago
It would be whataboutism if Germany hadn't done squat, or even worse replaced nuclear with coal which is what you and a lot of people mistakenly think because you never look at data before having an opinion. But they started switching off both. That's why coal % is way down which is a success. In absolute numbers they used to produce almost 300TWh from coal and are now down to less than 150TWh. Again, tremendous progress. And it's really sad I have to repeat the same data over and over, and it doesn't get through. So much for rationality. I repeat: if all the countries in the world would go their route, especially the developed countries, the world would be in much better shape. There is no counter to that because that's what the data says. Emissions way down, full stop. No threat of Fukushima like event because of reactors built 50 years ago. Full stop
- fsflover 5y ago
  You repeat the data but don't understand its implications. Reducing coal to 25% while reducing nuclear to 0% goes against the environment, even though it's better than other countries. It should've been vice versa, 0% coal, 25% nuclear.
  - locallost 5y ago
    Less coal is good for the environment, as is less nuclear. Or was Fukushima good for the environment? Of course you realize this for both, you wouldn't otherwise make up that they replaced nuclear with coal, and ignore mentioning Fukushima even once.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987. The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974. I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact which you are unable to accept. Let's come back to our examples. Possibility 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. Why is coal not at 0%? Because the renewables are not enough to cover the energy usage! This is why coal is still there. In other words, coal (partially, along with the renewables) replaced the removed nuclear, despite they both are used less.
      - locallost 5y ago
        I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.