3 ms·
I brought Germany up, because the whole topic here was on Germany and you make the exact same argument for Sweden as was made for Germany. Regarding the plant
by cycomanic 5y ago
I brought Germany up, because the whole topic here was on Germany and you make the exact same argument for Sweden as was made for Germany.
Regarding the plant shutdown, you nicely ignored the fact that contrary to your assertion it was just down for economic reasons. Sure Vattenfall could have kept it running and made losses and now that demand increased they would have stopped prices going up (likely not because the big winners of the price hikes are the nuclear power plant operators). They could have also build windfarms for that money that likely would have taken prices down.
- Ourgon 5y agoNo, this is an oft repeated statement which is simply not true. Had "Miljöpartiet" not pushed for the closure of those reactors they would still be running. If you'd rather take this from the horse's mouth here's Lorenz Tovatt, energy policy spokesman for that party [1]: Haha det är så kul med kärnkraftshögermän som låtsas att vi i MP motarbetat kärnkraft ”i smyg” för att sen skylla på marknaden. Löjligt. Jag tar hemskt gärna cred för nedlagd kärnkraft. Utan MP hade nog flera av de nedslängda reaktorerna rullat vidare. ...which translates to: Haha it's so much fun with nuclear right-wingers who pretend that we in the MP ("Miljöpartiet") opposed nuclear power "secretly" and then blame the market. Ridiculous. I'm terribly happy to take credit for discontinued nuclear power. Without MP, several of the closed ("nedslängda" means "dropped", I guess he meant to write "nedstängda" which means "closed") reactors would probably have rolled on. So, no. Not "the market" but politics pushing that market in a certain direction. [1] https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328 https://twitter.com/LorentzTovatt/status/1478049881487032328