• schroedingershat@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Greens and german people in 2000s: Let’s build renewables and then shut down the nuclear fleet because it’s cheaper than the maintenance we’d have to start now.

    Literal Gazprom employee and “Close friend of Putin” together: Let’s cancel that and buy gas instead, and also shut down the nuclear plants early.

    Emissions: Go down almost monotonically.

    Coal use: Goes down almost monotonically.

    Russia shills, oil shills and nukebros: How could the greens make emissions go up with their renewables! Better cancel renewables like the Gazprom employee tried to do!

    And here’s your “large amount” of between 0.5 and 3%

    You sound comically stupid.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your chart shows that Germany has exported more electricity to France, then it imported from France and that for the last decade and icnluding this year. Obviously not large amounts just 0.5 - 3%.

    • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your reply highlights the point from my first comment. We’re arguing over nuclear Vs renewables instead of trying to have them work hand in hand against fossil fuels. I never talked about cancelling and ripping out renewables for nuclear, juste building them side by side and using as much renewables as possible and falling back to nuclear when necessary.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re presupposing the “necessary” part without evidence when there’s not even a credible case for “helpful” or even “possible”.

        You’re also pretending any reactor under construction or pre-construction doesn’t get used to delay other projects. Just the grid capacity it takes up without using it is a massive emissions source becauseit delays prpjects that could go on this year rather tham 2040.

        You’re also repeatedly making false anti-renewable arguments which are part of a fossil fuel propaganda campaign. So it’s very obvious you’re lying about the side by side part.

        I note also you have abandoned your lie completely rather than acknowledging it after it was dismantled and moved to a new piece of bullshit, weird how that keeps happening.

          • schroedingershat@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The gish gallop about how terrible energywende was for one.

            The tired lie about how geographically constrained pumped hydro is (but apparently fresh water for cooling is infinite).

            The whole stationary storage is impossible schtick (along witb all the other options, battery grid storage is already at double the scale new nuclear achieved in the 80s).

            There’s also the bit where you pretend french uranium all comes from ranger and cigar lake (and milling and conversion are done by the UF6 fairy) rather than filthy coal and diesel powered low grade mines in niger and central asia to smugly quote inaccurate CO2 numbers as if that made a plan that was never followed invalid.

            Basically just an unending hose of shellenberger bullshit.

            • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Please keep it constructive (see instance rules). I agree that these are all tired and long dis-proven talking points of the nuclear lobby, but this lobby was very successful in gaslighting many French like @[email protected] and your style of argumentation is just going to make them defensive.

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You have a point I guess. I find it difficult to consider the possibility of good faith when they roll out the “the greens ruined energywende and committed to gas” dogwhistle, but there is a possibility.

            • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The transition for Germany is catastrophic (expected end of coal by 2038) but that doesn’t mean renewables are bad. Maybe I’m not aware of new ways to retain water high enough for it to generate energy falling down. By experience I know Luxembourg has one high on a hill, I don’t think it would be doable in a country like the Netherlands let’s say, it sounds pretty constrained to me.
              I’m just done arguing with you, you’re just being dishonest and extrapolating my views. Let’s agree to disagree.