That’s completely beside the point. You said, renewables were only cheaper because they’re subsidized. I proved you wrong and showed that nuclear is subsidized. That has nothing to do with companies being for-profit.

You argued against an argument I didn’t make. That’s the definition of a strawman.

Your one and only fact-related statement was literally

but nuclear energy isn’t as dangerous as some make it out to be.

But sure, you weren’t talking about dangers lol.

You’re right, you shouldn’t have stepped in. At least,you shouldn’t have stepped in and build a strawman. The discussion you entered is about costs, not dangers.

Nuclear is more expensive than the others only if the others get subsidies but Nuclear doesn’t.

That is straight up wrong, the opposite is true. England’s Hinkley Point C for example has a Contract for Difference, the british government pays a guaranteed price per kWh so their citizens pay less.

LCOE of solar is lower than nuclear for eleven years now. Wind has had lower LCOE than nuclear for 14 years now. See figure 52.

Building a new nuclear power plant takes 9-12 years on average. Hinkley Point C in southeast England was announced in 2008 (16 years ago) and is projected to be finished in 2028, with costs now being estimated around $40 billion. These long realisation times are not a european issue alone, as Korea’s Shin-Hanul-1-2 faces similar problems.

Safely storing nuclear waste is expensive, too.

Yeah, sometimes the pro nuclear bubble feels a bit like crypto bros lol

Nuclear power is still the most expensive way to produce electricity by a large margin.

Racist AND misogynistic at the same time, that’s a bingo.

I don’t discriminate. I say the data protection of all of these services is terrible and you shouldn’t use them.