5 ms·

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 y

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
        > if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". > Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument. There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.
        locallost 5y ago
        Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced nuclear, what replaced the coal? It has to be nuclear, no?
        fsflover 5y ago
        > It has to be nuclear, no? No, it can be renewables. > the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.

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
      > if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". > Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument. There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.
      - locallost 5y ago
        Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced nuclear, what replaced the coal? It has to be nuclear, no?
        fsflover 5y ago
        > It has to be nuclear, no? No, it can be renewables. > the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.