Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions.
So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the “good citizen”, but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
No, at least in the case of Germany, keeping them running was simply not an economically viable option. They were ANCIENT, so would’ve needed a fuckton of work, which would’ve taken forever AND cost a fortune. This is the opinion of the energy industry THEMSELVES, not from bleeding heart liberals.
There’s basically no universe where building nuclear is a better option RIGHT NOW than just building more renewables and batteries and a smarter net.
There’s basically no universe where building nuclear is a better option RIGHT NOW than just building more renewables and batteries and a smarter net.
Straw man argument.
The question in Gernamy was not to build more nuclear power plant. The question was how much COAL AND GAS plants to build, and that number got inflated by the shutting down of nuclear plants.
The energy industry doesn’t give a flying fuck about climate. If coal and gas was cheaper than maintaining nuclear, then it was their best solution.
While we’re there, coal plants generate more radiations and cause way more deaths than a maintained nuclear plant does.
1.No. Most of the time they just reduce their power level, without shutting down completely. This is not a technical limitation of the plant. It’s to avoid heating too much the water locally, that would impact wildlife. But granted it will only get worse over time.
2.All water boiling based PP will have issues under extreme heat. Their efficiency depends on a difference of temperature with the outside. That’s valid for nuclear, gas and coal plants.
3.I’m not saying nuclear is the best ever solution. What I’m saying is given the urgency of climate change, shutting down nuke while installing more coal was absolutely criminal. If you wanted to get rid of nuclear, you should still have started by replacing coal and gas with renewable sources before replacing nuclear with renewable.
4.I’m pissed by that decision, but Germany is not even a bad actor compared to other countries.
Regardless how you see it, keeping nuclear plants running would have considerably reduced the need for coal and gas, which should be the damn absolute priority.
One actually infuriating thing is, the EU set targets and penalties over installed renewable capacity, not over emissions. So while Germany is generating considerably more emissions that most of western Europe, they were the “good citizen”, but France had to pay penalties for not having installed enough renewables.
You can see how much sense it makes at any time:
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes
That’s what I call a cynical policy written by people who want to score points but don’t give a flying fuck about climate.
No, at least in the case of Germany, keeping them running was simply not an economically viable option. They were ANCIENT, so would’ve needed a fuckton of work, which would’ve taken forever AND cost a fortune. This is the opinion of the energy industry THEMSELVES, not from bleeding heart liberals.
There’s basically no universe where building nuclear is a better option RIGHT NOW than just building more renewables and batteries and a smarter net.
Straw man argument.
The question in Gernamy was not to build more nuclear power plant. The question was how much COAL AND GAS plants to build, and that number got inflated by the shutting down of nuclear plants.
The energy industry doesn’t give a flying fuck about climate. If coal and gas was cheaper than maintaining nuclear, then it was their best solution.
While we’re there, coal plants generate more radiations and cause way more deaths than a maintained nuclear plant does.
I will stop here. I’ve said my piece enough.
France has to shut down NPPs every summer because the rivers used for cooling overheat.
1.No. Most of the time they just reduce their power level, without shutting down completely. This is not a technical limitation of the plant. It’s to avoid heating too much the water locally, that would impact wildlife. But granted it will only get worse over time.
2.All water boiling based PP will have issues under extreme heat. Their efficiency depends on a difference of temperature with the outside. That’s valid for nuclear, gas and coal plants.
3.I’m not saying nuclear is the best ever solution. What I’m saying is given the urgency of climate change, shutting down nuke while installing more coal was absolutely criminal. If you wanted to get rid of nuclear, you should still have started by replacing coal and gas with renewable sources before replacing nuclear with renewable.
4.I’m pissed by that decision, but Germany is not even a bad actor compared to other countries.