UK Politics

3257 readers

230 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

[email protected]

'Build baby build', says Keir Starmer as he sets out nuclear plan (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] FooBarrington 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I thought we were fairly behind the curve on storage (ironically, most is stuck in planning or is over budget, or is delayed).

If this is true (and I haven't come across evidence that it is, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) it doesn't mean this can't be improved. What is the trajectory, is this "behind the curve" getting worse or better? For nuclear, it's steadily getting worse, so even if it didn't improve it might still be more effective compared to nuclear.

As much as I’d like to switch everything to renewable today (if only because my bills would drop), it’s just not possible with the infrastructure we have.

But building nuclear won't help you, since it will take 2-3 decades to build and it's far more expensive than renewables (also more expensive than renewables + storage, which is becoming cheaper at an increasing rate, while nuclear is getting even more expensive). I'm not saying that everything but renewables should be torn down right now, but building more nuclear capabilities simply doesn't make sense.

[–] HexesofVexes 1 points 4 days ago

I think, at this point, we're both stood out on very very long planks. There's more "what if" involved than is healthy.

You've made some good points, I can't comment on trajectory (a lot of that is going to be based on future energy usage patterns which are almost impossible to predict). It may well be that the infrastructure for renewables gets put together faster than I anticipate.

On the other hand, nuclear options might arrive faster than your projected timelines and will play a key role in the journey to 100% renewable. It's tough to say what lessons are being learned and how much of an impact on timeline they'll have.

Either way, thanks for the discussion, it's given me some more thinking points.