• matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

      • matlag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        43 minutes ago

        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.