Ecologically-friendly nuclear

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If Cromby's distance counts, and "ignoring the much closer Cromby" is part of your reasoning, then you can't use the 20% figure which completely ignores distance. Do you see that?

UT - provided were three different ways to calculate your electricity sources. The first assumed all adjacent plants first provide your electricity. Second is to assume all nearby plants provide your electricity. Third is to assume electricity is fungible - that the entire grid provides your electricity. In each case, your electricity is no where near to 100% or 87% nuclear. By now, that should have been obvious.

Using the perspective of distance, or by assuming electricity is fungible: either way, your electric sources are predominately fossil fuel. Facts provided with numbers too large and one sided to challenge if using logic.

How many times can you just ignore the numbers and ignore other adjacent (and closer) fossil fuel plants? You ignore numbers when it is convenient? Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove love that type of reasoning. It explains why lies about weapons of mass destruction are believed and why The Lancet study of 98,000 dead Iraqis due to the American invasion is repeatedly denied (even after Schroninger's Cat spend so much time to explain it). Selective reasoning or simply ignoring inconvenient numbers? Which is it? Your electricity is not 100% or 87% generated by nuclear. At this point, the denial must be humor.