| ▲ | pyrale 9 months ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows. > If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottleneck is money. We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project. > You didn't even try to counter-argument. Why would I try when we're at the point where you don't even acknowledge raw data? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | natmaka 9 months ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> the declining share is nuclear OMG, is it a joke? Consumption is stable, OK? Nuclear produced less, OK? Therefore renewables compensated for nuclear declining production, OK? Therefore burning more fossil fuels was not necessary, OK? Therefore renewables replaced them, OK? > the bottleneck is money My point is solid even given this perspective: the way public money is used is of paramount importance: government recently ordered new nuclear reactors, and also subsidizes renewables in order to compensate past huge subsides to nuclear. More money here, less money there. > We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project. Read above. > you don't even acknowledge raw data Raw data, as explained, shows that renewables enabled France to avoid burning more fossil fuel. This is a fact, like it or not. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||