Sure, but the business case for a nuclear plant straight up doesnt stack up unless you’re weighing some parameter other than the best interests of the public. The facts on the costs and timelines are sitting right there.
Build out renewables - you get faster power on the grid (a couple of years vs a couple of decades) AND the power is cheaper. LOTS cheaper.
There are grid connection delays of 8 to 10 years for lots of renewable energy projects, as the grid wasnt designed to have many small inputs, so its not like there arent issues there too, and thats before you start getting into reliability issues once the percentage of non-dispatachable energy gets higher.
In general both need to be invested in heavily, and structural reforms done, if we have a chance of actually meeting climate goals. Thankfully that seems to be the plan.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Funny enough, the article mentions 54 billion of investment on the national grid is needed over the next 10 years, and hinkley point currently costs 31!
What happens when it’s not windy or sunny? Burning gas. Sure it’s expensive and will be late but nuclear is not in stead of more renewables, it’s in addition to. They also pledged to double the amount of offshore wind (which already makes up around 20% of UK energy) in the same announcement.
Sorry no. France has proven the case for nuclear as a business many times over.
And for all the benefits of renewable. It has one huge disadvantage. We cannot control availability. So either storage (takes more space then the UK has. Or harmful materials for battery’s. Or some form of power plant that can be turned on or of with demand.
Nuclear is by far the cleanest that meets that goal. Until STEP is proven at large scale. (We are now building a full size fusion plant so post 2040 that looks likely).
If we’re not doing anything that the Tories mismanaged over the past 15 years the list of things to do is going to be very short.
Sure, but the business case for a nuclear plant straight up doesnt stack up unless you’re weighing some parameter other than the best interests of the public. The facts on the costs and timelines are sitting right there.
Build out renewables - you get faster power on the grid (a couple of years vs a couple of decades) AND the power is cheaper. LOTS cheaper.
There are grid connection delays of 8 to 10 years for lots of renewable energy projects, as the grid wasnt designed to have many small inputs, so its not like there arent issues there too, and thats before you start getting into reliability issues once the percentage of non-dispatachable energy gets higher.
In general both need to be invested in heavily, and structural reforms done, if we have a chance of actually meeting climate goals. Thankfully that seems to be the plan.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Funny enough, the article mentions 54 billion of investment on the national grid is needed over the next 10 years, and hinkley point currently costs 31!
What happens when it’s not windy or sunny? Burning gas. Sure it’s expensive and will be late but nuclear is not in stead of more renewables, it’s in addition to. They also pledged to double the amount of offshore wind (which already makes up around 20% of UK energy) in the same announcement.
Sorry no. France has proven the case for nuclear as a business many times over.
And for all the benefits of renewable. It has one huge disadvantage. We cannot control availability. So either storage (takes more space then the UK has. Or harmful materials for battery’s. Or some form of power plant that can be turned on or of with demand.
Nuclear is by far the cleanest that meets that goal. Until STEP is proven at large scale. (We are now building a full size fusion plant so post 2040 that looks likely).
It really is the best option.