• r1veRRR@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.