i suppose you're also thinking that's because we need steady output?
which is a fallacy; we had constant generation in the past so consumption adapted and became constant; consumption would not naturally be constant, it would be higher in the daytime.
Well yes there is a very good argument against nuclear and that is that it replaces solar energy.
solar energy might have been expensive in the past but now it's the cheapest form of energy in history. we needed an absence of nuclear in the past to have a motivation to develop green, safe, efficient energy. and solar is the best way to do that.
i also ask you to consider the future. solar energy gets cheaper the more is deployed of it, so it will get even cheaper in the future. we have seen enormous price drops for transistors (computers) in the past, and solar panels are semiconductors, just like transistors are semiconductors. who says that we wouldn't also see similar price drops for solar energy in the future? maybe solar panels will be cheap as paper in the future.
Thankfully planning and maintaining the electricity network isn't done by people commenting on Lemmy. (btw i agree with you)
that's a very whacky argument though
usually i would agree to the "increase supply to lower the cost" story, but in the case of energy it's a bit different, because the Energy market uses the merit order principle, which means that whenever the nuclear reactors run, electricity is just as expensive as if nuclear reactors were the only source of electricity, and if they don't run, only then prices drop.
so, you're only getting cheaper prices by not needing nuclear energy. but, for nuclear plants, building them is a huge part of the cost, and they're typically heavily subsidized by taxes, which means an (unnecessary if not used) burden on the taxpayers.
in retrospect, i understand France's long-held stance around 2000 that it wants to rely mostly on nuclear. it wasn't clear, back then, how long fossil fuels would be available (it was predicted they would last another 40 years) so they thought "oh well, uranium will be available for a longer time. renewable energy wasn't an (economic) possibility at that time. now that we have cheap solar energy, i suspect the last nuclear power plant worldwide will be shut down sometime around 2040.
I suspect that we will utilize a gas peaker plants for the last 5% for a long time; i couldn't think of a much better option.
well yeah i agree that giving companies time to move back would have been better.
I agree that a plan is needed. Still, what would be the other parts of the plan? Tariffs are the only really impactful measure, it seems to me. Tariffs on import and subsidies on export.
Also, maybe Trump is so "on-off" with the tariffs to give companies a warning to bring back manufacturing to the US, and them lifting them again to not cause a recession, giving them a few years to set up the infrastructure, and then re-install the tariffs. One needs to look for the "good outcome", sothat one steers in that way.
because one specific kid was unruly
Edit: There wasn’t even an unruly kid.
Well, outsourcing labor was a mass phenomenon in the last 50 years.
40 years ago knowledge workers were in high demand, and IT was booming. Now, IT is enshittifying, so what do the workers do next? Where do they go?
tell that to the workers
Well just to be fair - and i know people like shitting on Trump but hear me out - the complaints from workers against out-shoring labor to other countries has been very loud for many years.
Everytime the newspaper reports "Company X has moved its factory to China" you can be sure that lots of people are gonna complain about it. But tariffs are the only thing that actually forces companies to put the factories back to the USA. Or do you have a better idea?
thank you for that idea, that kinda calms me down a bit (actually a lot more than just a bit) 
The crazy thing that still makes my head spin and that I fail to process properly is that Europe would still be under Nazi regime today had they not attacked Russia ... despite all the crimes. How do you deal with that? idk
He’ll be remembered as the man who united the world…against the US. Lol
i've had this talk with a close colleague yesterday... they said something along the lines of "war is the father of all things, it brings progress",
and i replied: " well, if the US starts a war, it might well bring progress alright, but that progress would likely be to get rid of the tyrant that the US has become."
finally some good news
i see that as putting animosities aside and cooperating.
what do you mean? storms can kill people
You make the mistake of assuming that pension plans have to be paid by the next generation. Why not use a wealth tax instead?
fear of decline
