3 ms·

> It's objectively a terrible idea until a single coal power plants is still running anywhere in Europe (well approximately anyway...). That's not an explanati

> It's objectively a terrible idea until a single coal power plants is still running anywhere in Europe (well approximately anyway...). That's not an explanation or rationale. You just repeated a personal belief. Do you have any rational basis to support that belief? Repeating "because I said so" doesn't make nuclear power more of an option, nor does it eliminate any of it's many problems. > Unless that is you consider the value of human lives to be insignificant. 20-30 thousand people die in the EU alone because of coal, slowing down climate change is just a "free" bonus.. It should be good news to you then that Germany is also phasing out coal power along with nuclear then, with 2028 set as the deadline. > Not building more nuclear plants before renewables became economically viable was a awful idea (...) Reality does not agree with you, as proven by the fact that nearly half of Germany energy needs already come from renewable sources while Nuclear is already on its way out. It makes no sense at all to try to spin this problem as some clerical issue, specially now when renewables are a tremendous success.

epups 3y ago
How many people to you estimate will die because of coal reactors until we hit this 2028 timeline?
qwytw 3y ago
> That's not an explanation or rationale. You just repeated a personal belief. Are you implying that burning coal results in about as 100-1000 as many deaths as nuclear for the same amount of power generated? I assumed that was common knowledge, sorry.. > It should be good news to you then that Germany is also phasing out coal power along with nuclear then I guess. They could have already done so by now if not a decade or two ago. > Reality does not agree with you, as proven by the fact that nearly half of Germany energy needs already come from renewable sources while Nuclear is already on its way out Yes and? What about share of renewables in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005? I never said nuclear would be a good option now, it's way too late for that now. However switching to nuclear the same way France did back in the 80s would have resulted in significantly less pollution and CO2 emission (or will you try to argue with that by saying the word "reality" a lot and saying?). Had this happened worldwide we would be already 10-20 years ahead in the fight against climate change (also prevented thousands if not millions of unnecessary deaths). Obviously jumping straight to renewables back in the 80s and 90s would have been ideal. Nuclear was the second best option. Sticking to fossil fuels was obviously the worst (even though it was the cheapest, at least if we ignore the externalities, option back then).

epups 3y ago

How many people to you estimate will die because of coal reactors until we hit this 2028 timeline?

qwytw 3y ago

> That's not an explanation or rationale. You just repeated a personal belief. Are you implying that burning coal results in about as 100-1000 as many deaths as nuclear for the same amount of power generated? I assumed that was common knowledge, sorry.. > It should be good news to you then that Germany is also phasing out coal power along with nuclear then I guess. They could have already done so by now if not a decade or two ago. > Reality does not agree with you, as proven by the fact that nearly half of Germany energy needs already come from renewable sources while Nuclear is already on its way out Yes and? What about share of renewables in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005? I never said nuclear would be a good option now, it's way too late for that now. However switching to nuclear the same way France did back in the 80s would have resulted in significantly less pollution and CO2 emission (or will you try to argue with that by saying the word "reality" a lot and saying?). Had this happened worldwide we would be already 10-20 years ahead in the fight against climate change (also prevented thousands if not millions of unnecessary deaths). Obviously jumping straight to renewables back in the 80s and 90s would have been ideal. Nuclear was the second best option. Sticking to fossil fuels was obviously the worst (even though it was the cheapest, at least if we ignore the externalities, option back then).