Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
With what? This is reliable baseload that needs to be replaced with reliable baseload, and they can't get gas from Russia....so coal?
|
Yes 6% is not a ton. It wouldn't be easy, but their mix shifts by more than that yearly as the chart shows. I agree it's stupid because it would probably increase coal further but I'm simply saying the remaining plants closing wouldn't be catastrophic. Heck, their electricity consumption dropped by more than 6% in a year due to demand destruction and efficiencies. I simply don't think it's a big issue.
Again, ending nuclear was and continuing it is stupid. My point is simply that these last 3 are not a big part of the mix anymore and keeping them open or closing then ain't that much of a deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
Lol, only 6%? In the worlds 4th largest economy, where they are desperate for any time of energy these days, that's pretty huge. Especially when there's no obvious replacement for it...apart from more coal and wood.
Also, why the hell would they want to replace it at all? Is that nuclear energy just too damn stable and efficient for them?
|
Why? I dunno. It is stupid. But "lol only 6%" is the same percentage regardless of size. Their ability to absorb a change by 6% in a year is well demonstrated in these charts. Their electricity consumption is dropping and their mix is constantly changing. It would be stupid, but not a big deal
