this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
725 points (99.1% liked)

World News

39395 readers
2137 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

France’s Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor, its most powerful at 1,600 MW, was connected to the grid on December 21 after 17 years of construction plagued by delays and budget overruns.

The European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), designed to boost nuclear energy post-Chernobyl, is 12 years behind schedule and cost €13.2 billion, quadruple initial estimates.

President Macron hailed the launch as a key step for low-carbon energy and energy security.

Nuclear power, which supplies 60% of France’s electricity, is central to Macron’s plan for a “nuclear renaissance.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee -4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Could you compare it to land used for livestock or car parks or low density housing?

If we went 100% solar is that even noticeable compared to mentioned above.

You just making excuses.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Could you not compare unrelated stuff? What you just did is called "whataboutism".

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

"Land use is the main contributor to biodiversity loss"

Is that not a quote from what is being talked about.

How much of land use that is contributing to biodiversity loss is solar panels and wind? How much is energy in total?

It's fuck all. So yea that is relevant.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am not making any excuse, I'm providing additional points to consider.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pointless points. It's a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. You're just a fossil fuel shill.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Why do you have to reduce a discussion to chilling? What a sad attitude.
I guess you're not in a listening mood, but in case you are, let me state my opinion: I am in favor of all solutions that will help reduce the ecological crisis, which means reducing dependency of fossil fuels, raw materials extraction, and land usage among other things. I think both nuclear and renewables are good solutions for that, but they both have issues, so let's use what is most appropriate for every use case.