> Well, that was a quick turnaround! Just a post ago there was no evidence for this, now you claim it is "always" the case. Which is it? Or both at the same tim

> Well, that was a quick turnaround! Just a post ago there was no evidence for this, now you claim it is "always" the case. Which is it? Or both at the same time? Is it in a quantum superposition? What I meant was that there are always excuses. Not that there is growth. > But glad you don't deny the obvious evidence. There was no evidence. There were wishes, pledges, political propaganda. Nothing that would outweigh the whole trend. > Oh, and nuclear is cheaper than renewables. See France vs. Germany. Last time I looked, Germany wouldn't have to support every Watt of their energy with taxpayer money the way France does with tarif bleu. Did you even know about this because that claim is ridiculous. Nuclear energy is nowhere on this planet cheaper than renewables. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl... I don't understand why you keep on linking to some conspiracy op-ed on google docs. How is someone supposed to take that seriously? Don't you have anything serious? > Oh, evidence for your claim? The statista link (paywalled, not accessible) appears to be something on the widespread support of nuclear by the French public. The article was not about the public, specifically: Our nuclear industry has been weakened by a war waged for decades by a cabal of green politicians, civil servants, and activists." This "article" is nothing but unsourced conspiracies and opinions. The fact that this seems to you more credible than actual facts speaks for itself. > Of course, the reason the French public likes their nuclear is because it's been providing cheap, reliable and green electricity for decades now. They've actually been lying to their population by spending their taxpayer money to simulate a cheap energy price. Linke Tasche, Rechte Tasche. ...and the only green thing about nuclear is the glow on Simpsons. > . Oh and it only took them 10 years to do it. The German Energiewende has been ongoing for 20+ years now, and our electricity is ~7x dirtier and more expensive. Turns out: if you plan to nuke the world, money flows faster. Today, it takes them 10+ years to build a single reactor. Much success. PS. the reason Germany still produces "dirt" is related to jobs in areas which are already struck with unemployment and the fact that the previous Government did nothing for 16 years. Other than that, Germany is well off. Thank you. We replaced what we lost with nuclear years ago with renewables. Despite the previous Government. > And we fired up more of our coal power stations. We shut them down after a few weeks already and continued to shut down even more of them. We're still on plan to phase out coal completely. > However, they are smart enough not to remove their nuclear fleet. Instead, they are expanding it. Massively. Of course, they're not removing their nuclear fleet. They need that for a coming war....and no, they're not expanding massively. I've shown you that with my links which you didn't read, as you have shown several times over here. > And also an old one with Russia, from 1988. You are not reading my links...what is this? > The Gazprom-Energiewende was problematic completely separately from the geopolitical problems due to the simple fact that gas is a fossil fuel and emits a lot of greenhouse gases So do you think I might forget that Rosatom vs. Gazprom thing now with that? > What does Nuscale have to with anything? You might know if you'd have read anything around that debacle. Instead, you are not reading anything which might even smell like it would make nuclear look bad, even in a discussion here. Instead, you keep on parroting statements you caught on social and leave everything out where you don't have a statement ready. This is not a discussion. You are preaching, and I don't pay Kirchensteuer anymore, so I don't need that. Please come back when you've actually read what I wrote in the comment above. Including my sources.