Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(27,947 posts)
3. Do you have a link for that? Because none of it is correct.
Mon Sep 29, 2014, 12:42 PM
Sep 2014

Germany decided many years ago that they were not going to build any more reactors, the decison didn't coincide with an "experiment" in solar ... nor was the initial solar target "three nuclear plants".

More importantly, they only just recently exceeded the annual output of three new reactors last year (giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's what you meant by "plant&quot . They're nowhere close to "nearly ten!" reactors worth of generation.

And, of course, they paid far more for the solar they've built so far than the cost of three reactors...even ignoring the cost of replacing those solar panels a couple times before the reactors wore out... and, of course, ignoring the cost of other generation that's necessary to back up solar power when the sun isn't cooperative.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Nuclear Free»US Nuclear Agency Hid Saf...»Reply #3