this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
946 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59314 readers
5725 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] siririus@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

And because they shut down their nuclear plants, they had to start burning coal again...

Unrelated and a whataboutism.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's completely relevant to a discussion about renewable energy and meeting emission targets. What's the benefit of having a higher renewable mix if your total GHG emissions are consistently going up?

Germany has generated more CO2 than it would have if it had kept nuclear technology, and that's an indisputable fact.

[–] siririus@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's like arguing why take chemo if it only makes you sicker in the short run. 🤔

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

To use your analogy, we don't know if this chemo will actually cure them. It could make them just a little better, but it needs to be worth the suffering.

Our goal at the end of the day is to reach 0 emissions as soon as possible. If the increased coal and gas that Germany is using now because of eliminating nuclear energy results in zero emissions much quicker, I'll happily agree with you. As it stands however, Germany has not proven out a reduction in carbon higher than their recent increases.

There is no climate justification for cutting out nuclear energy. If there was, we'd see a net detriment in France and a net positive in Germany with regards to the justification. If that exists today, I'd be more than happy to read about it. If you're going to argue that it'll exist tomorrow, you'll need projections that are made on reasonable assumptions and that show the difference. Again, I'd be happy to look at those.

[–] Overshoot2648@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It was completely relevant to the discussion. That's not a whataboutism.

[–] siririus@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

He changed the topic from nuclear to coal.