Why have we seen some countries try to revive nuclear? It is not better than alternatives. Old plants are already too old to operate and new ones are expensive and take time. Is it just an excuse to continue mining and keep dangerous materials?
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2026
22 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
10173 readers
900 users here now
News and information from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How is it a problem if something is expensive and takes time if over its life cycle it warrants the costs? Such a short-sighted way of thinking.
In political unstable times, a controversial project taking time gives more opportunity for opposition to delay or cancel the project. It is not my thinking that is short-sighted.
Because fossil fuel companies are lobbying for it. Renewables are cheap and quick to set up, every single solar panel immediately lowers the demand for oil/gas/coal a tiny bit.
Nuclear energy on the other hand takes ages to set up and is far more expensive per kWh than renewables. Every single euro spent on nuclear is one euro taken away from renewables.
Oh, and in countries with nuclear weapons programmes, nuclear energy is a way to stealthily increase the military budget.
False.
Renewable is better for fossil fuels company, as of now solar and wind require high subsidies for fossil fuel power plant to operate. You cannot go 100% renewable as the sun does not produce at night and sometimes there is no wind. You can go 100% nuclear instead, as nuclear works all the time and can be adjusted with demand.
This is changing rapidly, as battery technology improves and cost goes down, but we are not still there yet. Nuclear cost goes down as you build more nuclear. China is on the forefront of renewable energy but also builds the most nuclear power plant in the world for very cheap.
France will need to keep the know-how and improve the technology if they want to keep up with aging power plants.
To abandon nuclear in favor of renewable means building more batteries then we can produce in a cost effective way. France nuclear stabilize the European grid. Without it energy would cost much more.
Not a mystery that country with low energy price in Europe have nuclear and country with high energy price lack nuclear.
France is still quite dependent on nuclear power and I'd be surprised if getting rid of it wouldn't be very expensive and difficult for them despite the relative attractiveness of solar power when starting from scratch.