• Mihies@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Sure, I agree that it helps, but only as long as you are emitting co2 as an alternative. Not sure whether comparison to USA is a good one since they ditched new nuclear plants after Three Mile Island accident. Try comparing against France though - they are the greenest and most reliable energy producer out there (maybe Scandinavian countries are better, but they have excellent predispositions). And then we have Germany, which went diehard renewable with the side effect of becoming one of the biggest European polluter.

    • houseofleft@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Germany definitely has a tonne of renewables, but then is still like 25% coal which is why it has high energy emmisions. It has much cleaner energy than it did before adopting renewables though, so still seems like a reason to think renewables are a positive?

      It’s 100% untrue that Germany’s recent pursuing of renewables is the reason it pollutes so much per KW.

      Then France has a similar amount of renewables to the UK but with a much cleaner mix after that (basically more nuclear and less gas).

      I’m wondering if I’ve misunderstood your initial point because I’m not seeing any reason to suggest increasing renewables doesn’t reduce emissions? Only that there’s more to CO2 per KW than just categorising stuff as “renewable” vs “non-renewable”, which I don’t think anyone is doubting?

      Sorry to go so hard on this, but this stuff really matters. We don’t have a lot of time left to reduce the most extreme impacts of global warming, and nobody benefits from muddying the waters on the clear benefits of renewables.