4 ms·

I am very interested in this topic and I assure you that nobody complains about Poland. I've seen even praise for their decision to prolong this situation and b

I am very interested in this topic and I assure you that nobody complains about Poland. I've seen even praise for their decision to prolong this situation and build nuclear plants. On the other hand, a country very much in deserve of praise like Germany is a constant target of criticism by various nuclear lobby groups, astroturfers and the like. You can see the effect even here on HN, it's a very common topic that "Germany replaced nuclear with coal", which is just simply false.

fsflover 3y ago
I do praise Poland for building nuclear plants. This is the only existing solution to the climate catastrophe. Also, it's one of the the most safe energy sources. This is not "simply false". This is effectively true, even though it might not be the intention. There are many similar discussions about it on HN. See for example this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870.
- locallost 3y ago
  So Germany uses less coal continuously and plans to stop using it 2030. You say: terrible and too slow. Poland uses a lot more coal, has no real plan to reduce it, and wants to continue at the same level for the next 15 years or so. You say: awesome job. You can't be serious.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    I said I praised Poland for building nuclear plants. I didn't say they did everything perfectly.
    - locallost 3y ago
      There is no difference between building plants and producing the vast majority of your electricity from coal for the next 15 years. The latter is the consequence of the former.
      - fsflover 3y ago
        You seem to imply that building nuclear takes forever. This is wrong.
        locallost 3y ago
        There is no need to imply when we have data. Building nuclear takes forever.
        fsflover 3y ago
        Yes, because of government regulations that force safety to a much, much higher standards than those for coal.
        locallost 3y ago
        So at least we agree it takes forever and is thus harmful when it comes to emissions.
        fsflover 3y ago
        Harmful are stupid regulations helping coal, and also people who don't get that damage from coal is so strong that even ancient nuclear reactors are safer, including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
        locallost 3y ago
        Whataboutism. Nuclear's long build times help coal plants stay open and are thus bad for emissions. Here [1] an article about Poland deciding to build nuclear plants FOUR YEARS AGO. During that time they did not displace a single molecule of co2 from their worst in Europe electricity production. The construction didn't even begin yet, and when it does it will again take years in the best case. If it takes as much as it did in other European countries recently, we are talking about 20 years easily. Those that praise this strategy are either naive, misinformed, or funded by the nuclear lobby. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-18/poland-moves-ahead-with-60-billion-nuclear-power-project https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-18/poland-mo...

fsflover 3y ago

I do praise Poland for building nuclear plants. This is the only existing solution to the climate catastrophe. Also, it's one of the the most safe energy sources. This is not "simply false". This is effectively true, even though it might not be the intention. There are many similar discussions about it on HN. See for example this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35819870.

locallost 3y ago
So Germany uses less coal continuously and plans to stop using it 2030. You say: terrible and too slow. Poland uses a lot more coal, has no real plan to reduce it, and wants to continue at the same level for the next 15 years or so. You say: awesome job. You can't be serious.
- fsflover 3y ago
  I said I praised Poland for building nuclear plants. I didn't say they did everything perfectly.
  - locallost 3y ago
    There is no difference between building plants and producing the vast majority of your electricity from coal for the next 15 years. The latter is the consequence of the former.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      You seem to imply that building nuclear takes forever. This is wrong.
      - locallost 3y ago
        There is no need to imply when we have data. Building nuclear takes forever.
        fsflover 3y ago
        Yes, because of government regulations that force safety to a much, much higher standards than those for coal.
        locallost 3y ago
        So at least we agree it takes forever and is thus harmful when it comes to emissions.
        fsflover 3y ago
        Harmful are stupid regulations helping coal, and also people who don't get that damage from coal is so strong that even ancient nuclear reactors are safer, including Chernobyl and Fukushima.
        locallost 3y ago
        Whataboutism. Nuclear's long build times help coal plants stay open and are thus bad for emissions. Here [1] an article about Poland deciding to build nuclear plants FOUR YEARS AGO. During that time they did not displace a single molecule of co2 from their worst in Europe electricity production. The construction didn't even begin yet, and when it does it will again take years in the best case. If it takes as much as it did in other European countries recently, we are talking about 20 years easily. Those that praise this strategy are either naive, misinformed, or funded by the nuclear lobby. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-18/poland-moves-ahead-with-60-billion-nuclear-power-project https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-18/poland-mo...