Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back

jeffw@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 227 points –
Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back
arstechnica.com
155

You are viewing a single comment

Nuclear is only expensive and slow if you're building reactors from 1960-s. Modern micro- and nano-reactors can be put in every yard in a matter of months if not weeks.

I wish you were right, but you are not. Those reactors don't exist.

Except they do exist. Almost. First SMRs were scheduled to be deployed right about, but the pandemic fucked it up. The project is back on track though.

MNR study was finished in 2019, right before the pandemic. Feasibility was also finished during the pandemic and the development grants were awarded.

Nano-reactors are still a future, sadly, but if the investments will keep up it won't be long.

It won't have been long for a long time now. It's not a feasible concept to rely on a maybe. We need massive amounts of clean energy now and the way to do that now is water, wind and solar. If these wonder reactors are one day reality that's great.

The problem is that instead of investing into dumb renewables, we should've invested in nuclear decades ago. Now we have to play catch up.

France is a good example. They invest billions in their nuclear power. Still, their infrastructure is old and they can't seem to build new reactors. It's a money sink while "dumb renewables" are the cheapest most spammable energy source we ever had.