2 ms·

I don't know the person we are discussing about in this thread and I don't know her opinions or the opinion of German green party etc, but I do know some argume

by forty 4y ago

I don't know the person we are discussing about in this thread and I don't know her opinions or the opinion of German green party etc, but I do know some arguments of green parties here in France that are also anti nuclear too (note also that France and Germany are very different when it comes to nuclear as here most of our electricity is nuclear already) The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it (and as a result wouldn't need to add extra nuclear or coal capacity). This part is often forgotten which results of thinking they want to replace nuclear by coal, which would be absurd. I imagine it's probably hard to imagine that someone would think that seriously from a US perspective (one of my US based colleague asked "when are you getting AC in Europe??" when here many people are wondering if the Americans are going to stop being crazy with their freezing AC ^^)

bluefirebrand 4y ago
> The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it Unless they have ideas about how people and society can continue to accomplish all of the things we want to, using less electricity, this is not a serious argument. It's simply ideological fluff, advocating for people to embrace a lower standard of living for nothing in return. If a person advocates against cleaner sources of energy on the grounds that "we should just be using less energy", then I don't think they are a serious person and they should be ignored. Let them go live their hippie life on a commune somewhere and free up the space for the adults to talk about real solutions.
- forty 4y ago
  Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. But there are also plenty of things that can be done to reduce energy consumption without impacting anyone's little confort. Regarding thermal confort the obvious solution is to improve insulation so they wouldn't have to heat or cool as much and might even save money in the long run
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    > Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. The anti-nuclear-power movement started 60 years ago. Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then. Is there a chance we would have had more disasters? Sure. But it's impossible to know. What we do know for a fact is that coal and gas emissions are killing the planet. We have a problem with CO2 emissions and here you are talking about better insulation in homes to reduce power usage. We have a great, direct solution to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. But no, let's continue to burn gas and coal, just use less of it. This is why I say anti-nuclear isn't a serious position.
    - forty 4y ago
      > Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then It's not hard to imagine, I'm French and we did replace most things with nuclear back then ^^ The result is that right now we are purchasing (probably coal made) electricity to our neighbors because around 50% of our theorical nuclear capacity is unavailable either for maintenance or because we don't manage to cool them enough with the current heat :) Nuclear is certainly a good thing overall but not the obvious and only solution to all problems as some would like to believe.

by forty 4y ago

bluefirebrand 4y ago

> The arguments they make is that producing electricity and most usage of electricity are bad for our planet and thus we should use less electricity if we want to preserve it Unless they have ideas about how people and society can continue to accomplish all of the things we want to, using less electricity, this is not a serious argument. It's simply ideological fluff, advocating for people to embrace a lower standard of living for nothing in return. If a person advocates against cleaner sources of energy on the grounds that "we should just be using less energy", then I don't think they are a serious person and they should be ignored. Let them go live their hippie life on a commune somewhere and free up the space for the adults to talk about real solutions.

forty 4y ago
Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. But there are also plenty of things that can be done to reduce energy consumption without impacting anyone's little confort. Regarding thermal confort the obvious solution is to improve insulation so they wouldn't have to heat or cool as much and might even save money in the long run
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  > Well, what they would get in return is preserving the planet were we live. Even if they don't have children, the consequences of the past and current carelessness are already showing and severely impacting many people's life. The anti-nuclear-power movement started 60 years ago. Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then. Is there a chance we would have had more disasters? Sure. But it's impossible to know. What we do know for a fact is that coal and gas emissions are killing the planet. We have a problem with CO2 emissions and here you are talking about better insulation in homes to reduce power usage. We have a great, direct solution to reduce emissions by orders of magnitude. But no, let's continue to burn gas and coal, just use less of it. This is why I say anti-nuclear isn't a serious position.
  - forty 4y ago
    > Imagine what our past would look like now if instead we had replaced all coal and gas with nuclear back then It's not hard to imagine, I'm French and we did replace most things with nuclear back then ^^ The result is that right now we are purchasing (probably coal made) electricity to our neighbors because around 50% of our theorical nuclear capacity is unavailable either for maintenance or because we don't manage to cool them enough with the current heat :) Nuclear is certainly a good thing overall but not the obvious and only solution to all problems as some would like to believe.