• 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.