Menu

Post image 1
Post image 2
1 / 2
0

# The case for small reactors: why "less nuclear" might mean more nuclear

DEV Community·Bravin kulei·about 1 month ago
#jp08lmP0
Reading 0:00
15s threshold

If we want clean energy that actually works at night, the answer might not be bigger reactors. It might be smaller ones built like airplanes, not cathedrals. The world runs on too much energy, and most of it is dirty. Fossil fuels heat the planet. Coal plants poison the air. We talk about renewables like solar and wind as if they've already won, but they haven't the sun goes down, the wind drops, and battery technology, while improving fast at companies like BYD and Tesla, isn't yet ready to carry an entire grid through a still winter night. So what about nuclear? The standard reaction is to flinch. Nuclear means Chernobyl, Fukushima, radiation, waste, and giant concrete silos that take a decade to build and run billions over budget. But that picture is mostly outdated and even where it's accurate, it's describing a specific kind of nuclear that we don't actually have to keep building. First, let's clear up nuclear's reputation Nuclear reactors don't pollute in the climate sense.…

Continue reading — create a free account

Join HashtagPLUS to read full articles, follow hashtags, vote, and join the conversation.

Read More