Nuclear isn't the worst option if it pushes us to net 0 fast, especially if investment is made in spent fuel processing facilities (government owned).
It is very much a stopgap, but at this point some kind is likely needed.
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3248 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
the thing is that it actually has to get built and operational, which is where it gets iffy..
"bah fuck renewables, let's just build nuclear plants! Hm, oh dear, it seems we've ran into some issues with the construction, gonna have to delay them a few years.. Oh no gonna be a few years longer still.. Ah shit we ran out of budget, we'll only build half as many. Wow haha okay so this is awkward, we'll only be able to finish and get online 3 plants, guess we'll just have to stick with fossil fuels since they work so well!"
I guess this is justified by the fact nuclear has a high initial cost, but a very low cost if and when demand increases, whereas most renewables are the opposite?
If we're doing a grid that has a base load, then I'd much rather have that base load supplied by nuclear than by coal, oil or gas. It's a straight swap. Nuclear is clean and safe. And it'll be these same big nuclear companies that pivot to fusion if and when it happens.
Ideal scenario is 100% renewable. I'll take a shift to nuclear from fossil fuel as a positive step even if it's not perfect.
I guess this is justified by the fact nuclear has a high initial cost, but a very low cost if and when demand increases, whereas most renewables are the opposite?
I don't understand that thinking.
Nuclear has a very high incremental cost when demand increases. You need to build another nuclear power station. You're then set for a while.
Wind has a very small incremental cost. You need to build another wind turbine, but that won't last you very long. Maybe you build a wind farm rather than individual turbines. Still a lot cheaper / quicker.
Nuclear is better for the environment than renewables tbh
I'd say we don't understand enough about secondary and tertiary effects of supply chains to know which is better environmentally. Certainly both are far better than fossil fuels, but our supply and construction worlds are so dependent on fossil fuels we can't really tell the impact of constructing them.
What you can absolutely say is that the time scale of nuclear is too slow. Wind power in the UK has basically gone from ~0 to 80TWh annually in 15 years. 32 megatonnes of CO2 didn't get emitted because of wind generation last year (Vs combined cycle gas generation). When Dogger Bank comes on line this year that will be closer to 100TWh and 40 MT of CO2. I haven't even considered the 5 MT saved from solar.
(Loose annual numbers based off grid.iamkate.com)
Hinckley point C is looking at a construction time of 13 years (2017-2030). That'll generate 28TWh annually. It'll save 11 MT of CO2 annually Vs gas, but up until 2030 it's saving a big fat zero. All whist our other nuclear plants age out and we have to resort to gas for the shortfall.
People can say we should of / would of / could of done things better with nuclear in the past, but we didn't. Renewables are saving CO2 emissions today because they can be brought on-line bit by bit. Nuclear is all or nothing and a long way in the future.
It absolutely is. Nuclear waste is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as millions of tonnes of carbon.
The main issues people have that I've seen are:
- What do you do with nuclear waste?
- What if it explodes?
(And the ever present 3rd option: I don't want it near my house, and I don't want pylons on my land)
You recycle nuclear waste. The bits you cannot recycle are so small, you can keep it in an underground bunker.
Nuclear explosions only happen if you extremely mismanage a power plant.
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.
The rest of the world is going all in on geothermal?
Do you have a source for that?
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.
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.
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.
Wind is intermittent. Why can't we go all in on wind AND geothermal?
Why is it stop-gap?
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.
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.
Uranium supplies aren't particularly abundant, and make you reliant on the same old superpowers.
Nuclear creates waste that we can't dispose of
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.