means the other parts will have to INCREASE production. And since they're more dirty than the one you're closing...
Gee, takes a real genius to figure this out, doesn't it?
Update: being the brilliant sort that I am, the link didn't take AND I've lost the article; soon as can find it will add it in. Basically, Germany is discovering that-SURPRISE!- if they get rid of their reactors in, uh, reaction to the problem in Japan from the quake and tsunami they'll have to ramp up ALL their other generation systems, especially coal and gas. Which means more cost AND more of that awful carbon pollution they're so worried about.
Found it! Over at RNS. From the article:
Nuclear power currently supplies 25 percent of Germany’s power, 39 percent of Switzerland’s power, and 20 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S.
“Turning off a single large nuclear power plant could require dozens of coal and gas-fired plants to ramp up production to make up the difference,” says Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decision sciences and engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University.
“These plants use fossil fuels, cost more to operate, and emit pollution that can lead to acid rain and ozone, and CO2, a greenhouse gas.”
The differences could be significant, Fischbeck says. “Replacing the Brown’s Ferry plant in Alabama with a mix of coal and gas power plants would cause CO2 emissions to increase by approximately 24 million tons each year. That’s the same as the annual emissions of over 4 million cars.