3 ms·
Yes if you didn't include externalities it was relatively quite expensive compared to fossil fuels. Very competitive or even significantly cheaper if you did th
by qwytw 4y ago
Yes if you didn't include externalities it was relatively quite expensive compared to fossil fuels. Very competitive or even significantly cheaper if you did though.
Of course climate change and pollution weren't huge concerns back in the 80s especially. Especially for the so-called "green" parties in Germany and other countries...
- RandomLensman 4y agoAlso very expensive compared to solar or wind.
- qwytw 4y agoYes. It is now. I'm mainly talking about the 80s and 90s.
- RandomLensman 4y agoBtw., why are you suggesting pollution was not a topic for the greens in Germany in the 1980s? I'd agree they had others topics, too, but not being concerned about pollution?
- qwytw 4y agoI suppose it was. But well clearly halting nuclear expansion was a higher priority so even if they didn't say it directly, they implicitly support increased reliance on fossil fuels which is what matters.
- RandomLensman 4y agoIf you believe only climate related pollution matters - yes.
- qwytw 4y agoNo, not at all. Why would you even say that? Actually the opposite at least where coal is concerned per kWh it emits "only" 2x more CO2 but (according to estimates) causes 10x more deaths than natural gas. 20-30 thousand people die every year due to pollution from coal power plants in the EU alone. That's basically 2 to 8 "free" Chernobyls every single year...
- RandomLensman 4y agoBecause you seem to have not looked at the policies of the German greens in the 1980s and the pollution landscape of the time.