Not as long as you might expect. Average lifespan of cars in Europe is 18 years. Sure there are outliers and cars might have a longer life in poorer countries but that is a good starting point. The fossil fuel ban on new cars is set to take effect in 2035. So even if a car is bought on 31.12.2034 it will likely fail by 2053. Just 10% (on average) of cars fall under this category. The other 90% will probaply fail well before that and be replaced with a vehicle that's not using fossil fuels.

https://youtu.be/Gb5B6KlrwAQ

https://youtu.be/DQe1l5EaK6g

https://youtu.be/RzcRfvlhHzM

Although you have to remember that this land is not rendered useless. It can still be used for farming with elevated solar panels, as grazing land or biotopes. And you can use already sealed spaces like parking spaces and houses.

Development of leagues is not solely based on salaries paid. It's about quality of clubs, infrastructure, fan services, attendances and much more.

>The main reason I had Germany below those two however is because of how much Bayern dominates. In Italy you have 6 very competitive big clubs, in Spain you have 3, in Germany you just have Bayern Munich.

That's when you only look domestically. But we have CL, EL, Conference League to look at how they do against each other and even if Bayern wins every domestic title, the other teams in the Bundesliga still do well internationally against Spanish and Italian clubs.

>The best developed leagues are England, Italy, Spain, Germany, France in that order.

What? Italy and Spain over Germany?

>I gave multiple sources for things.

In this whole conversation we've had there's exactly one link to any sources from you. You can even get that right.

>1st I have to google country’s who moved from nuclear to green then I have to find emissions based on megawatt hour. Not only that but charts or I’ll have to read data sheets. It’s not like it’s a fact pushed publicly, like solar good nuclear bad.

Ahh so you'll first have to find the multiple countries you've previously so confidently claimed were there and then you have to confirm what you previously claimed as fact. And all because of the conspiracy where people want to keep nuclear down.

>All the elected officials want is to please the misinformed public to get re-elected. Teaching people facts is the best way to lose power.

Haha. They are all conspiring against you, I'll believe it in a second. Beware they are also putting LSD in your water and mindcontrolling your friends with satellites from Mars.

>I’ll find the sources tomorrow

Of course you will. Right after you've fought off all those secret spies that want to kill you now that you've told me all your secret information.

>I don’t ask you to back up how rivers running low is a major risk for the future :(.

But I've got the sources, not like you. One Two Three

>See I’m nice. It’s just too hard to find everything in the time it takes to go poo.

So you are not only taking a shit you are also talking shit since you don't even know what to quickly google to get the sources for what you talk about. I get it. But keep on rocking that nuclear fandom with zero sources.

You are making the claims so you gotta provide the facts. Otherwise I can go around making claims and not having evidence to back it up too.

>It’s also building them and the land they displace

Land they displace? How much actually ecological valuable land does a wind turbine or solar power park displace? And how much of it is just renewables on already used land, be it sealed by constructions or used for agriculture.

>Also useless when the wind does not blow or it’s dark.

And when the rivers run low NPPs can't run either. And yes this is not only happening now but also a major risk for the future.

>You need to store the power in massive dirty battery’s, or you need other plants to take over.

And with NPPs you don't have to? You are just going to run them 24/7 and let excess energy burn off?

Also dirty batteries?

>The data from places that have swapped from nuclear to renewable see a massive increase of emissions, while places that went hard on nuclear have the lowest emissions.

What places have swapped from nuclear to renewables and have experienced *a massive increase of emission I'd love to hear some actual names. And the places that went hard on nuclear are those currently buying dirty energy from their neighbour because their NPPs don't work, isn't that the case?

>Dams seem to be top dog, but the land loss and you can only build so much of them.

And you don't think it is funny how you mention land loss and you can only build so much of them as downsides of dams but for NPPs they are good.

Okay. So I'll just take a page out of your playbook then. Renewables have a negligible enviromental impact when standing, the only argument against them is "well they look bad". And if you disagree with that, link me sources that disprove me.

>Just search it. I’m at work on my phone so I won’t now, but if you can show me any counter information at all I’ll look it up when I get home.

Make a claim, say the other person has to disprove it, refuse to elaborate. You can't be serious.

>As far as I know nuclear causes the lest amount of waste.

And the only one that has to be stored away for atleast 1000 years in a specially designed waste facility.

>The lest amount of deaths per amount of power made (sorry forgot the measurement they use).

The measurement they use is people dying in connection with the power source. So someone falling of a wind turbine during construction counts towards deaths due to wind energy. And someome getting crushed in nuclear power plant because the forklift operator was drunk is a death due to nuclear energy.

>On top of that the waste is not sent into the environment it’s placed in a location we know of and have control over.

Unless of course we don't anymore. Know a lot of buildings older than 200 years where you'd be willing to bet on their structural integrity?

>Other good reasons like cost.

And that shows me you don't know what you are talking about.

>Once the media started fear mongering we were doomed to leave the best cleanest source of energy we have ever had. This has taken a real toll on the world today.

I mean it is also really expensive. And after all this time 99,9% of countries still don't have a permanent waste storage site. There's also their enviromental impact and dependence, yes eventhough you won't like to hear it, even a nuclear power during normal operation impacts the enviroment.

Have you got proof for any of those statements? Because it does seem like you've been listening to all those people with the "wind power kills all the birds" speeches too much.

And that hole has to be stable for thousands of years. You also seem to be arguing against no one it seems since there's not one person that's arguing fossil vs nuclear.