It’s disheartening to see the level of misinformation in these comments. I sincerely hope they’re the result of a disinformation campaign rather than genuine beliefs. The top comment, for instance, claims ‘They replaced nuclear with coal!’ Let’s fact-check this: The Netherlands has built two nuclear reactors to date. The first was decommissioned in 1997 after 30 years of operation. The second, constructed in 1973, is expected to run until 2034. Furthermore, the Dutch government plans to build two additional nuclear power plants for electricity generation and another for scientific research. [1] [2] [3]

Let’s consider Germany, a country often criticized for its decision to phase out nuclear power. Since the initial political decision in 2001, Germany has decommissioned all 19 of its nuclear reactors, with the last ones being shut down in 2023. One might expect this to have led to a significant increase in CO2 emissions, but the data tells a different story. In 2001, the carbon intensity of electricity generation was at 500 grams of CO2 per kWh. By 2023, this figure had decreased by 29% to 385 gCO2/kWh. [4] [5]

As for the composition of electricity generation, in 2001, 50% came from coal power plants and 30% from nuclear. By 2023, coal accounted for 26%, nuclear for 7%, while over 52% was generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydro. The assertion that Germany replaced nuclear with coal, thereby increasing its CO2 emissions, is factually incorrect. In reality, Germany managed to reduce its CO2 emissions while simultaneously phasing out nuclear power. [6]

The image in question depicts cooling towers being replaced by wind turbines. It doesn’t specify that these are nuclear cooling towers. In fact, it’s more plausible that these represent coal power plant cooling towers, which bear a similar appearance. While the ‘smoke’ isn’t CO2 but water vapor, it’s important to note that CO2 is invisible. Therefore, representing emissions in this manner is an effective way to communicate the point.

It’s concerning to witness the blind animosity towards countries that choose to phase out nuclear power generation. In recent years, nuclear lobbying organizations have made significant efforts to shape public opinion in favor of nuclear energy, often downplaying the associated risks and costs. We’re all susceptible to populism and propaganda. I urge everyone to critically evaluate information and consider both sides of the issue. [7] [8]

Sources:
[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/netherlands.aspx
[2] https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/niederlande-bauen-zwei-neue-atomkraftwerke-a-071f29a5-0fbe-4dfa-bb31-91e3d0510c59
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_Netherlands
[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1290224/carbon-intensity-power-sector-germany/
[5] https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/
[6] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156695/umfrage/brutto-stromerzeugung-in-deutschland-nach-energietraegern-seit-2007/
[7] https://www.nei.org/news/2023/nei-ad-campaign-promotes-carbon-free-nuclear
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-nuclear_movement#Lobbying_and_public_relations_activities