• eleitl@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Anyone who checked the plans with a calculation knew that. It’s too bad in our uneducated and innumerate times that so few do.

  • pedz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    With no hydrogen plants available as backup, coal power will likely be needed to fill the gap

    I guessed it before even reading the article.

    So they will continue to dig their giant holes and demolish villages in order to avoid nuclear, while waiting for a miracle solution that will probably never come.

    Good job Germany. Sehr grüne!

    • eleitl@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nuclear electricity is not a solution to loss of cheap, abundant fossil hydrocarbons. You are correct that this results in coal as the only option left.

      • pedz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Studies show that ash from coal power plants contains significant quantities of arsenic, lead, thallium, mercury, uranium and thorium. To generate the same amount of electricity, a coal power plant gives off at least ten times more radiation than a nuclear power plant.

        Oh well!

        • eleitl@lemmy.mlOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Far more relevant is that coal can’t be used for agile power production, and domestic reserves are rapidly running out. And it can’t substitute for lack of cheap oil and gas for the same reason nuclear and renewable power can’t.

          I’m leaving out greenhouse gas emissions because their actions show that nobody cares. At most it’s PR for the gullible.