Fester,

I visited the ACF’s website just moments ago for the first time in my life, so it is amusing to see you suggest that I’m just mindlessly parroting what they say.

If the ACF say the same things as me, then that’s because that’s what the science says, as my many scholarly, peer-reviewed links have demonstrated.

//As for cherry picking, that is yet another dishonest accusation from you as my challenge to you has been to give the positive example of wind and solar, something you have as yet failed to do.//

So, my accusing you of cherry-picking (and demonstrating it with examples, by the way) is “dishonest” because you have challenged me to give “the” (a?) positive example of wind and solar and I have apparently failed to do this?

What little sense your statement makes amounts to a non-sequitur. The two parts to the statement are unrelated to each other.

It’s also not true.

Your so-called “cold hard fact” is yet another oversimplification. Burning biomass can emit more CO2 per unit of energy than coal, but biomass is part of the carbon cycle - the CO2 released is offset by the CO2 absorbed during plant growth. Coal, on the other hand, releases carbon that’s been locked away for millions of years, adding to atmospheric CO2.

Germany’s energy mix includes wind, solar, and other renewables that don’t emit CO2. Biomass is just one part of this mix and is intended to be used sustainably. Your suggestion that Germany’s biomass emissions are equivalent to going 100% coal is absurd.

Germany’s phasing out of nuclear was done due to safety concerns, particularly after Fukushima, it wasn’t solely due to pressure from the Green Party. Nuclear power might be low in CO2 emissions, but, as you should well know now, it comes with significant environmental and safety risks.

The "hundreds of billions of Euros" spent by Germany is an investment that aims to reduce fossil fuel dependence, enhance energy security, and lower long-term CO2 emissions. Your cold hard furphy misrepresents Germany’s energy transition and the role of biomass.

I’ve just taken a look through all the pages on the ACF’s website about nuclear power and
there’s nothing there that resembles what I’ve said “pretty much verbatim”. This was the closest I could find:

http://www.acf.org.au/six-reasons-why-nuclear-is-bad-for-australia

But the information there is just a fraction of what I’ve said, and a trimmed down version of it at that.

I’m guessing the idea was to again make it appear as though I’m incapable of thinking for myself, while presenting denialism as a virtue.

I’m also guessing you were counting on me not seeing that reply, given how carefully timed your posting of it appears to have been.

Cast in whatever light you please, but there is nothing wrong with forming opinions by basing them on reliable data. In fact, it’s a far better way to form an opinion, and it’s certainly more character building, than staking out a position in advance and then sorting through the data for evidence that supports your position while dismissing the data that contradicts it.

"Your suggestion that Germany’s biomass emissions are equivalent to going 100% coal is absurd."

No John, unlike your ramblings it is a fact. Germany generates at least 25% of its electricity from biomass. Coal generation has 25% the CO2 emissions of biomass, so yes, Germany would generate the same amount of CO2 from 100% coal as it does from biomass alone.

"Germany’s phasing out of nuclear was done due to safety concerns, particularly after Fukushima, it wasn’t solely due to pressure from the Green Party."

Far from bipartisan and tinged with dishonesty:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/german-greens-minister-robert-habeck-under-fire-over-2022-nuclear-shutdown/

"I’m also guessing you were counting on me not seeing that reply, given how carefully timed your posting of it appears to have been."

Perhaps that could be a point of discussion between you and your medical practitioner? In the meantime you might look for some real world examples to validate your claims. Perhaps the ACF can inform you as soon as they find something?

And the destruction of Germany's nuclear power plants has been a disaster for its transition to low carbon energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

"While nuclear power was gradually phased out of the German power mix, Germany increased its use of fossil fuel energy by 7% over the period 2002–2022, with a massive increase in usage of natural gas and only modest reductions of coal power and oil power.[9] By some estimates, Germany could have achieved a 73% reduction in its carbon emissions by retaining nuclear power during the period 2002–2022 and could have saved €696 billion on its energy transition.[9]"

The Germans were conned John.

"The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642#abstract

As for the ACF similarity, I only raised the matter after seeing a letter from the organisation in the AFR. I then had a look about the site and thought how similar its opinions were to yours. If you disagree then give an example of how the ACF view on nuclear and Australia's wind and solar transition differs to your own. Simple enough to do I would think.

Fester,

You're still oversimplifying the situation and relying on selective data.

No, Germany doesn't generate at least 25% of its electricity from biomass. The actual percentage is much lower than that. Your claim that "coal generates 25% of the CO2 emissions of biomass" is also wrong. Again, the lifecycle of biomass offsets much of the CO2 released during combustion.

Again, the decision to phase out nuclear power was based on more than just pressure from the Greens. Safety concerns post-Fukushima and broad public sentiment played a big role, too. The bureaucratic process may have been far from perfect but to suggest that the Greens conned Germany into a disastrous policy is partisan rubbish. The link you provided offers no evidence that nuclear power would have solved all of Germany's energy challenges, especially in the face of a global push to move to renewables.

The study you linked to makes very big assumptions about costs, technological capacity, and political feasibility that don't hold up, and its hypothetical investment in nuclear power is just that - hypothetical. In the real world, nuclear projects face massive delays and cost overruns. Comparing the limited output of Germany’s remaining nuclear capacity to a future filled with large-scale nuclear investments ignores the hurdles Germany would have faced.

Then you bring up the ACF again. It's becoming a tiresome trope of yours - trying to discredit me by association rather than addressing the points I raise, which a fallacy known as the ‘association fallacy’. It's pathetic. The ACF shares similar views to me because we both base our opinions on science, not dogma. You continue to conflate disagreement with dishonesty, too, which is yet another hallmark of denialism.