[bayesian_horse]

Those coal plants aren't operating at peak capacity, or at all, in some case. The suggestion they are replacing nuclear power 1:1 is a highly convenient lie.

The idea that coal power is less safe is bullshit. Nuclear power carries tail-heavy risk, coal plants have much more predictable risk. Nuclear power is only safer if you assume nothing happens that didn't happen in the past few decades and nobody actually deliberately blows up a nuclear power plant. Once you can't assume both, all risk calculations for nuclear power are meaningless.

[rhn_mk1]

Operating at less than peak capacity doesn't make burning coal any more healthy, and doesn't make the decision to not retire them any more safety-oriented.

[bayesian_horse]

You still don't understand. A coal power plant that doesn't run doesn't produce harmful emissions. And at lower capacity they produce less emissions, proportionately.

And you are still lying about coal being the only replacement for nuclear.

[rhn_mk1]

That's right, plants which don't run don't produce emissions. But they don't produce energy either.

But read the article and look at 2020-2022: coal energy generation increased while nuclear decreased:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...

This is a situation incompatible with a policy of increasing safety. Increasing safety means shutting down unsafe sources while keeping or rolling out safe sources, which is the opposite of the short-term trend. So the short-term policy goal was something other than safety.

[bayesian_horse]

You can't prove a long term trend via short term observation. That's kindergarden level...

[rhn_mk1]

Let me spell out what short term phenomenon I'm addressing:

"the short-term policy goal was something other than safety"

[dang]

You broke the site guidelines egregiously and repeatedly in this thread. Doing that will get you banned on HN. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35717960.