• @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    47 months ago

    Germany could have eliminated coal a decade or more ago. That’s an important point to bring up.

    I agree it’s too late now for nuclear to make sense, but that was a lost decade of coal emissions.

    • @hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

      It would be of the discussion was nuclear vs coal - which it isn’t.

      You’re bringing up the straw man because you want turn away the discussion from renewables.

      There’s good discussion to be had on the (complex) situation in Germany but it’s immediately flooded by the nuke-bots.

        • @hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          07 months ago

          2 x No it isn’t. I know you love your precious precious nuclear to death and back and you really really need to discuss coal to better shill for it. Nobody cares about your religion and your straw man.

          • @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            07 months ago

            “Nuh uh!”

            Okay whatever lol. Deny reality all you want. More nuclear = less coal, it’s very simple math. Anyone not blinded by “scary nuclear!” can see it.

            • @hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Nuclear just means massive potential radioactive pollution as there is no secure storage for the radioactive waste. You are now going to claim there is proven safe storage, there just a couple of mishaps really.

              Also, more importantly, there isn’t even enough fission material to sustain demand for significant time if Germany and others were to switch. But sure lets’s just skip and ignore renewables. Renewables pollute so much.