UK government sets out plans to distract from their looming, devastating election defeat later in the year.
None of their plans have any relevance given how much of it they can implement in the time left in office.
They can’t even build a rail line. This will just be an excuse for public money to disappear into a black hole of private firms
Go away Hexbear, and take your hate and authoritarian propaganda with you.
Tbf there might be something to this though.
There is corruption going on at the heart of the UK government, more so the Tories. They all chummy chummy with all their public schoolboy mates who run consulting firms.
Well if it’s like HS2, then you can expect a single reactor for the price of a whole country’s worth…
Nuclear is overpriced anyway. This is nothing but a boondoggle to tie down the next Labour government.
Neoliberal austerity would prevent anything like this from happening on a large scale. You can see this with all the concerns about “cost”.
The “budget” on these things should be ‘infinite’. Spend whatever amount of labor and resources available to build the plant. Instead they focus on short term profits.
No wonder why China is spending more on renewable energy than rest of the world combined. Because China understands money isn’t real, they are more than willing to give as much as possible for renewable energy.
Nuclear is not renewable energy.
It’s not even green energy.
Renewables are the superior choice in price and effect.
It’s not a zero-sum game and we are in a climate emergency.
As I type this, wind is only making up 13% of grid demand, down from well over 50% last week - which means that gas generation is sitting at over 62% http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Nuclear is a reasonable lower carbon way of serving base-load when wind/solar aren’t delivering . I just wish, as with all things climate-related, we had committed to this 30 years ago.
And renewables are quicker, cheaper, and lower footprint.
Its a no brainer. People need to let go of ‘50s nuclear romanticism.
And once again - it’s not a zero-game and we are in a climate emergency. Nuclear is a useful adjunct to renewables and some people need to let go of their 1970s nuclear doomerism.
But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.
And it’s not doom, it’s common sense. Renewables are better long term and quicker and cheaper to setup today, why take the worse option during an emergency?
But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.
What are your practical proposals for generating 25 Gigawatts over a sustained period on a day like today when there is not much wind and negligable solar generation?
There needs to be a mix of sources, and unfortunately nuclear is the best way to provide a reliable source that can be ramped up or down instantly to plug gaps in supply from renewables.
Ramping up nuclear is not instant and is not ideal because it causes more waste by altering the working lifetime of the fuel.
Even then it’s preferable to gas
They should have been ramping it up 20 years ago. Short-termism fucks us again. Better late than never, I suppose.
Gas is not a renewable or green.
… So what do you when there’s no wind or sun?
No mention of Rolls Royce’s mini-reactors in there seems a bit suspect.
The energy secretary on Sky News just mentioned small modular reactors. That’s the same thing, right?
Their press release does talk about SMRs:
The Civil Nuclear Roadmap will give industry certainty of the future direction of the UK’s ambitious nuclear programme, on top of the government’s historic commitment to Sizewell C and world-leading competition to develop small modular reactor (SMR) technology.
[…]
Following its launch last year, Great British Nuclear (GBN) will drive the UK’s nuclear ambitions forward, including through the game-changing SMR competition which will soon invite short-listed companies to tender.
Unlike conventional nuclear reactors that are built on site, SMRs are smaller, can be made in factories, and could transform how power stations are built by making construction faster and less expensive. Alongside large gigawatt power stations, SMRs will play a key role in delivering on the expansion of UK nuclear capacity.
Does the Cornwall mine even has uranium left in it or do they have to buy all fuel from abroad (hopefully not russia)?
I misread the title as “biggest nuclear power explosion in 70 years” and thought they had a very dark sense of humour for a moment.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ministers published a roadmap on Friday that recommits the government to building a fleet of nuclear reactors capable of producing 24GW by 2050 – enough to meet a quarter of the national electricity demand.
The roadmap echoes plans put forward by the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, in 2022 to “build a new [reactor] every year” to wean Britain off fossil fuel.
“The challenge is the industry has a record of running overbudget and behind schedule, so this does little to increase the UK’s energy security any time soon,” Ralston said.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said: “Every few months the government makes a grandiose public announcement about future nuclear in the hope that a big investor will believe the hype and step up to fund this 20th-century technology, but it isn’t working.
“The energy industry knows that the economic case for slow, expensive nuclear just doesn’t add up, and the future is renewable,” Parr added.
“This vague, aspirational announcement with its unevidenced claims of cheap energy is unlikely to change their minds when there are real reactors overshooting their massive construction budgets and showing them the truth.”
The original article contains 601 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
