3 ms·
You still don't understand. A coal power plant that doesn't run doesn't produce harmful emissions. And at lower capacity they produce less emissions, proportion
by bayesian_horse 3y ago
You still don't understand. A coal power plant that doesn't run doesn't produce harmful emissions. And at lower capacity they produce less emissions, proportionately.
And you are still lying about coal being the only replacement for nuclear.
- rhn_mk1 3y agoThat's right, plants which don't run don't produce emissions. But they don't produce energy either. But read the article and look at 2020-2022: coal energy generation increased while nuclear decreased: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb96cf5f0-dd6f-457e-bc79-2a1b9732dd0f_2450x1724.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_... This is a situation incompatible with a policy of increasing safety. Increasing safety means shutting down unsafe sources while keeping or rolling out safe sources, which is the opposite of the short-term trend. So the short-term policy goal was something other than safety.
- bayesian_horse 3y agoYou can't prove a long term trend via short term observation. That's kindergarden level...
- rhn_mk1 3y agoLet me spell out what short term phenomenon I'm addressing: "the short-term policy goal was something other than safety"
- dang 3y agoYou broke the site guidelines egregiously and repeatedly in this thread. Doing that will get you banned on HN. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35717960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35717960.