6 ms·

Given the state of Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3 if Germany had chosen nuclear instead of renewables they would still be running close to 100% fossil fuels toda

Given the state of Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3 if Germany had chosen nuclear instead of renewables they would still be running close to 100% fossil fuels today. Yes, coming from the oil crisis in the 70s France chose energy independence through nuclear while Germany at the same time chose coal. Today nuclear is a black hole of cost while Germany is building the future. So what are you even arguing about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

gobip 3y ago
Yes. France relies only on Flamanville 3, and only Flamanville 3 powers the entire country. Germany keeps polluting. Nature cares about co2, nature doesn't care about your economical strategy. Co2 is what matters the most, and your renewable, while being 75% of your electricity, doesn't help at all. Also, you forget to mention why Germany really gave up on nuclear. Enjoy Russian's blood money, Schröder, people are willing to defend your treason act, even in 2023.