Hardcore chud source, read this with a huge grain of salt because there's a massive anti-Green bias at play there and it's not because the Greens are also zionist NATO ultras.
It's pretty believable though, the German greens never liked nuclear power, to the point where I as a German am like "Yea, obviously they would, who cares?"
That doesn’t really matter by the time thousands of either are built in 10-20 years time and have to be shutdown because there isn’t enough cool water for the steam turbines.
Emissions need to be reduced now. 2024. Life as we live it is completely and utterly incompatible with where need to be to. We need to stop pretending there is some techno fix to change that.
they shut down already built and generating plants, that's not some academic opinion on the viability of nuclear, it directly increased emissions because the greens irrationally hate the technology
I understand how that’s looks really shit but in the grand scheme of things the demand for fossil fuels still eclipsed the effect of the nuclear plants, still would and likely still will. Look at China’s development of nuclear energy and see how little it really adds up to replacing coal and gas there.
Even extreme degrowth still requires enormous power production across the entire planet, and while renewables are getting much better they still struggle with handling base loads at scale. If you're looking to power a city just about anywhere not on a massive fault line, there aren't many options better than fission.
Germany's failing to meet its targets mostly because they got rid of their nuclear power plants. They were on pace to be the only imperial core country to do it, even more than France, and they threw it away.
Hardcore chud source, read this with a huge grain of salt because there's a massive anti-Green bias at play there and it's not because the Greens are also zionist NATO ultras.
It's pretty believable though, the German greens never liked nuclear power, to the point where I as a German am like "Yea, obviously they would, who cares?"
Is nuclear as a significant source of energy even viable at the rate climate change is going?
It's sure a hell of a lot better than all the coal power plants that were built to replace the already existing nuclear plants that were shut down.
That doesn’t really matter by the time thousands of either are built in 10-20 years time and have to be shutdown because there isn’t enough cool water for the steam turbines.
Emissions need to be reduced now. 2024. Life as we live it is completely and utterly incompatible with where need to be to. We need to stop pretending there is some techno fix to change that.
they shut down already built and generating plants, that's not some academic opinion on the viability of nuclear, it directly increased emissions because the greens irrationally hate the technology
I understand how that’s looks really shit but in the grand scheme of things the demand for fossil fuels still eclipsed the effect of the nuclear plants, still would and likely still will. Look at China’s development of nuclear energy and see how little it really adds up to replacing coal and gas there.
Even extreme degrowth still requires enormous power production across the entire planet, and while renewables are getting much better they still struggle with handling base loads at scale. If you're looking to power a city just about anywhere not on a massive fault line, there aren't many options better than fission.
Germany's failing to meet its targets mostly because they got rid of their nuclear power plants. They were on pace to be the only imperial core country to do it, even more than France, and they threw it away.