3 ms·
The company never had to exercise those mining rights, they chose to take down the wind farm and mine coal. I am not mixing things up, you are very clearly miss
by Geisterde 3y ago
The company never had to exercise those mining rights, they chose to take down the wind farm and mine coal. I am not mixing things up, you are very clearly missing the point; they decided mining for coal would be more profitable, it was never your decision in the first place, no one cares about anyones feelings here, its economics.
If you take cheap nuclear energy out of the equation then of course energy prices rise. You are taking off supply, that pushes cost up to meet demand.
You clearly dont care enough about the environment to question the strategy used in protecting it; if you want people to tolerate green energy it has to be cost effective.
- _ph_ 3y agoIf you had read my answers you would have spottet, that I wrote that the company continuned the mining due to profits. Not because it benefits the community or the envorionmen. That nuclear is cheap is a lie. It is that simple. And if more people understand that they are told lies about cheap nuclear, they will ask for green energy.
- Geisterde 3y agoI operated nuclear reactors for 6 years, I am well aware of what is required. Their being nearly regulated out of existence has nothing to do with reactor safety nor environmental protection, youve been had by the fossile fuel industry.
- _ph_ 3y agoAh we have arrived at conspiration theories :) The prices of nuclear power are well known. Look to the UK what a new reactor costs.
- Geisterde 3y agoRight, I lived in this industry, all you have is looking at the sticker price, the true disparity in our respective prespectives shines forth.