this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
229 points (93.5% liked)

World News

38500 readers
2734 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Spain is already phasing out nuclear energy currently and Sweden wants to do it after sufficient renewables are built. Among many other states.

Nuclear is just not profitable compared to renewables. France is exporting at a loss if one would consider all associated costs (privatization of profits and socialization of losses is creating bad incentives).

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If you add a bunch of non-tangible costs on to one side of a comparison and not the other it makes that side look worse yes. You could make exactly the same argument saying if you considered generation reliability, land use and the need for grid updates and storage then renewables are far more expensive than nuclear, but that would be equally one sided.