> Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? The people care.

The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price.

But let’s ignore the price.

There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste.

And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants.

I don’t hear much worries in wars that rockets could hit a WEC.

Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from?

BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave

▲

someotherperson an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price.

Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. The point is that the price isn't worth it.

> There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste.

This is a non-argument, just like it was last year.

> And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants.

2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above.

> Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from?

There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it.

> BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave

The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.

	▲	croes an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. Compared to nuclear energy wind and solar are cheap. For reliability we need energy storage > This is a non-argument, just like it was last year. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a problem and it isn’t solved. Or let me use your logic: it’s a problem like it was last year. > 2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above. Yeah sure, safety isn’t an argument. >There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it. Another safety issue plus environmental damage for mining. > The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. A membership fee is literally giving up money. PV put power in the hand of people. That is participation and independence. > It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet. Nuclear energy is backwards. Why invest in something that is dangerous, slow, expensive and creates centralized energy sources?

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But let’s ignore the price

I mean, European energy policy in a nutshell.

	▲	croes 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Quite the opposite. That‘s why Russian gas was such a big factor. More like let’s ignore the long term consequences