Read on Twitter
i've seen repeated claims that when san onofre nuclear power station (california) closed in 2012/13 it "was replaced by gas".in fact, there was a brief increase in emissions intensity. within a year grid emissions intensity had recovered & has continued to fall ever since.
i've heard the same said about #germany… allegedly, when nuclear shut down it "was replaced by gas".
[no question: if they had *not* shut down nuclear they'd have much lower emissions.]
but if gas replaced nuclear, emissions intensity would have increased.
it hasn't.
![i've heard the same said about #germany… allegedly, when nuclear shut down it "was replaced by gas".[no question: if they had *not* shut down nuclear they'd have much lower emissions.]but if gas replaced nuclear, emissions intensity would have increased.it hasn't.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Erm52cuVcAAY7dw.jpg "i've heard the same said about #germany… allegedly, when nuclear shut down it \"was replaced by gas\".[no question: if they had *not* shut down nuclear they'd have much lower emissions.]but if gas replaced nuclear, emissions intensity would have increased.it hasn't.")
[no question: if they had *not* shut down nuclear they'd have much lower emissions.]
but if gas replaced nuclear, emissions intensity would have increased.
it hasn't.
yes, #germany is using more gas than they were a few years ago… but if gas was replacing exiting nuclear & coal 1:1, the top of this chart would be flat.
it isn't.
the argument that nuclear exits lead to higher emissions is flawed.
great example of how intuition can fail us.
it isn't.
the argument that nuclear exits lead to higher emissions is flawed.
great example of how intuition can fail us.
