this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
59 points (98.4% liked)

UK Politics

3257 readers
219 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Interesting gamble the government is taking here. Unusually the environmentalists are right to be cautious, SMRs have been designed since the 90s and not a one of them has ever come to anything.

Also not completely sure why we'd need it. By the governments own plans we can expect our wind power to jump from 10gw to 50gw by 2035, which would mean being 100% renewable powered for months at a time.

Which will make it very very expensive, the research I've seen recently says nations that manage that transition can expect electric price falls of a quarter to a half, and that Hinckley plant is already going to be selling at over twice the unit price of any other source. I would expect SMR plans to collapse for that reason by itself.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 days ago (3 children)

The rest of the world are about to go all in on geothermal and we're just about to start going in on the stop-gap solution. I wish Starmer had more imagination, we could be world leaders in geothermal and that would generate revenue for decades.

[–] TheGrandNagus 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The rest of the world is going all in on geothermal?

Do you have a source for that?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 days ago

I don't, but we're seeing growing investment in geothermal. Admittedly, it could just be the RSS feeds I'm subscribed to. Nuclear only shifts problems down the line.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (4 children)

If we are talking mononuclear renewables, I understand that the UK is in an enviable position regarding wind, being one of, if not, the windiest nations in Europe. If I haven't misremembered maybe we should prioritise wind generation. Leave geothermal to places like Iceland, or maybe the nations around the Pacific Rim.

[–] scholar 2 points 3 days ago

On a good day wind produces ~50% of our electricity at the moment, and there's a new offshore development as part of the Dogger Bank wind farm

[–] WhatYouNeed 1 points 4 days ago

Geothermal doesn't need unstable crust conditions anymore.

[–] CheeseNoodle 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

So on both points:
Recent studies have shown that the intermitency of wind and solar means countries with a high reliance on it are especially prone to gas price shocks, that issue dissapears if the country has a good amount of nuclear or hydroelectric in the mix.

Regarding geothermal the UK, particularly parts of Scotland, are actually rather suited to more modern types of geothermal with a lot of hot dense rock at depths we previously couldn't drill too but are now much more able to.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

There's new geothermal being implemented in the southwest too for what it's worth - so it's not like it's not happening in the UK, it's just going to be at the extreme south and north.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Wind is intermittent. Why can't we go all in on wind AND geothermal?

[–] WhatYouNeed 3 points 4 days ago

How dare you. Think of the poor nuclear lobbyist. How are they supposed to exploit a country with people like you meddling in their pitch.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Because nuclear isn't a long-term solution. It shifts problems down the line. Geothermal on the other hand is a clean and neverending resource.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Right, but you haven't really answered the question. Why isn't it a long term solution? Sure geothermal is great, but there's space for both, amongst others.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

Uranium supplies aren't particularly abundant, and make you reliant on the same old superpowers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nuclear creates waste that we can't dispose of

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Sure nuclear waste is a problem, but there are ways to dispose of it. I can't see why it can't be a long term solution.

There's problems and solutions for every type of energy production.

[–] WhatYouNeed -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Dumping nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia is not a solution.

Edit: as this seemed to upset people. Read Roberto Saviano's book Gomorrah where he talks about the mafia controlled companies that did exactly this, because it was the cheapest way they found to dispose nuclear waste.