Again, this is baseless, unscientific, fear mongering. Nuclear is the second safest energy source, not far from solar. And still far safer than for ex. hydro, which destroys environments, and in that case it's not an "if".

Honestly,I feel like I'm back in like 2005 arguing against pro-oil people; in this case it's about renewables, but the arguments are still unscientific and usually based around "But tHe ecOnOMy".

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Edit: Here is the mortality rate of different sources of energy in 2012, and here it is in 2022.

Don't know, you'd have to ask the experts; what I do know is that the data shows nuclear is safer than wind and much safer than hydro.

I'm on mobile right now so it's convenient to find and post it, but if you want you can scroll my profile and you should some older comments with the data and sources.

Regarding hydro, the ecological effects upon the area flooded, the impact on migration of species, and risk of poorly designed and maintained dams needs to be considered. Wind? I'm guessing the impact on airborne wildlife - only thing I can think of.

"When nuclear fallout happens"

How would using nuclear as a source of energy (not weapons) result in a nuclear fallout, exactly? A nuclear fallout would result of nuclear superpowers (countries that possess nuclear warheads) initiating a nuclear war; meaning there would be nuclear warheads flying and detonating all over the world. There's no reason a nuclear fallout would result from using fission as an energy source.

Most of the benefits and drawbacks you mention only became a reality after a decade of heavy focus and investment on renewables, with no similar focus on nuclear. It could be argued that if the same investment and focused had been applied to it, then none of those arguments would be true. In fact, back then those were the same arguments used against renewables.

In other words, the arguments of "but money, and look at the economy" are absolute shit, and they are the reason we spent so long on oil. The facts it's now used in favor of renewables and to shut down discussion of other alternatives is quite ironic.

Edit: To add, as I've mentioned somewhere else:

"Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026."

That's half, by 2026, and they are accounting for nuclear. That means the other 50% will still be fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the planet is getting warmer, some places are going underwater, and we are getting extreme weather events more and more frequently. "But-but, the economy!"

Thanks for clarifying that. Here, too much fuss has been made about what was actually a side note. There were apparently already plans to modernize the facility anyway.

Based on the article, it seems more like that's more of a problem of south Sweden just having a big energy deficit in general, not as a result of imports/exports or the actions of Germany particular.

The way I understand it, it's more that a new connection just wouldn't make sense because Germany already has a problem from moving energy from its own offshore wind parks in the north to the south.

I couldn't find a good article explaining the current energy situation in south Sweden, but looking at ElectrityMaps, I'd guess that part of the problem is that there's a huge amount of nuclear energy being produced in South Central Sweden, saturating the grid and making the transfer of cheap hydro and wind energy from the northern Zones difficult.