[javagram]

> Many countries are vastly reducing carbon while not investing in nuclear at all

In this case we are talking about shutting down a plant that could potentially run for 4-5 more years without decommissioning. I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/02/01/germany-... “Coal, the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel, now provides more than 42% of Germany’s power according to the International Energy Agency – a proportion that has been growing since the nuclear decision. The result is that Germany’s carbon emissions have been growing, while their neighbors’ has been declining.”

[inflatableDodo]

>I suspect the difference will be made up by coal/gas.

Well, it doesn't seem that it is being offset by coal, given that while it has been offline, the UK has also had the longest run of not burning coal for power since industrialisation.

Hunterston is a 1 GW power station and while it has been offline the UK has installed 2 GW in new capacity of offshore wind, if you are looking for what is making up the difference, perhaps start there.

[javagram]

Was the offshore wind only installed because the nuclear plant was taken offline? I’d assume the wind generation capability would have been installed anyway...

According to https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...

“Although a significant share of coal-powered energy has been replaced by renewable sources such as solar and wind power, the largest power source in Britain remains natural gas, a carbon-emitting fossil fuel.”