2 ms·
> Extremely drastic change is needed to avert climate emergencies. Good, than nuclear is nothing we have to think about because it's construction times are ri
by Krasnol 7y ago
> Extremely drastic change is needed to avert climate emergencies.
Good, than nuclear is nothing we have to think about because it's construction times are ridiculously long while renewable energy is getting better and cheaper rapidly.
> Our nations have plenty of money it's just all concentrated at the very top. We used to fund advanced reactor projects [1]
We've been throwing ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on that for decades. Show is over. Time to give the money to technologies of the future not ones of the past.
Even France sees this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astrid/france-drops-plans-to-build-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactor-idUSKCN1VK0MC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri...
- natmaka 7y agoFrance, often cited as a sound nuke-advocate (world tally: second nation in raw amount of grid electricity produced by nuclear plants, and first by the part of it) is in fact... ... escaping from it! A law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. 2 years later the government (lacking funds and unable to cope) reported it to 2025, then 2 years later to 2035 ("programmation pluriannuelle de l'énergie"). However the political and strategical orientation is perfectly clear, just don't believe France is on the nuke camp.