UK Politics

3257 readers

225 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 5 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

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

Well your comment is too, reactors do not always run at maximum capacity, that's silly.
But they do have a lower SMRC than renewables.
I don't think you're an expert in the economics of nuclear reactors, and I know I'm not. I clearly made a mistake in the understanding of scaling them up. But, as ever on the internet, you have picked a side and therefore you're not a reliable interlocutor. If and when I want to know more about this subject, I will get my information from a neutral source.

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

Maybe the terms I used were too absolute, but they always aim to run at their highest sustainable output for the reasons I gave.

I'm not an expert in nuclear economics, but this is knowledge accumulated from reading articles over the years by people who are. Apart from the economics, I'm pretty pro-nuclear, but the economic (and the related time-scale) arguments kill it for me.

I think with the situation we're in, we're much better going all in on technologies that replace fossil fuels today, but in smaller chunks that add up to big numbers over time. Nuclear will take bigger bites out of fossil fuels, but those step changes will take 10-15 years and we're stuck on fossil fuels for all that time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Fair play to you. I guess that this decision is the result of the nuclear lobby having a bigger say than they should. It's an old story, where the facts are obfuscated by energy companies, for profit. I think the argument that nuclear has an important place in a robust energy grid is hard to debunk. But we should have started building decades ago.