> Germany gave nuclear a chance, even spent billions on a thorium reactor. They learnt that nuclear is expensive and not compatible with their democracy. The currently running plants were built in 80s and will be shut down after running for decades. Much of the cost, i.e. the waste storage will be socialised. The first long term storage site has already failed. There is no public support for building new reactors, nuclear cannot be part Germany's ongoing decarbonisation.

Yeah, it's totally cool to misinform public, and then claim "public does not support nuclear power" . . . NOT.

Current German "decarbonisation" results in more carbon per kWh produced, so job well done I guess. Oh and "nuclear is expensive" - nice, so Germany has cheap energy after turning green? http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/... NOT

But nuclear energy plants cheaper then coal plants. And can not even understand how decarbonization relate to nuclear.

Even in the US with less regulation and more subsidies, nuclear is more expensive than coal.

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Keeping old nuclear plants online for a few extra years is not a solution to climate change. If some other western democracy can show how to build and operate nuclear plants cheaply and safely, great, do it.

So far the examples of recent new builds are slow and expensive. See VC Summer, Vogtle, Flamanville, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley point. From where I sit it looks like the German decision in 2001 to phase out nuclear was the right one, but only time will tell. (Merkel really did make a big mess in 2011 though)

Edit: Finish names are hard to spell.