this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
358 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2295 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] visnae@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sweden has uranium reserves and produced it's own uranium in the 60-s. Though I think laws currently prevent mining.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm sure they'll take just as much care for indigenous reindeer herders when choosing where to poison thousands of km^2 of land as they did when using them for hostage shield politics to sabotage the wind rollout.

Or is an entire country supposed to run indefinitely on the single year worth of reserves already known?

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anti nuclear sentiment is pro-fossil fuel. You're inventing problems and prolonging dependance on oil.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cancelling low carbon energy and making vague promises of spending 10x as much is definitely not a pro fossil fuel move /s

[–] Rooty@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A low carbon energy source is useless if it cannot cover peak loads, which are now being covered by fossil fuels. Years of greenie obstructionism now means that the nuclear plants that would have been built are now missing, and the solutions offered by the anti-nuclear lobby seems to be "let them have energy poverty, brownouts and outright blackouts are not our problem". This will happen once coal and oil plants shut down, renewables alone cannot cover the demands, especially at peak load.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Good thing your straw man isn't what is being suggested by anyone anywhere.