• @[email protected]
    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.

    • @Cryophilia
      link
      English
      17 months ago

      The discussion may not have been nuclear vs coal, but the reality was. That’s the whole problem.

      • @[email protected]
        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
          link
          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.

          • @[email protected]
            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.

            • @Cryophilia
              link
              English
              -17 months ago

              You know what word I didn’t see at all in your response? Coal. Funny about that.