Great British Nuclear - UK's Push To Include Nuclear Energy

Freefaller · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:02

The issue with wind is that it is effectively "clipped" by too much wind, and we can't store excess currently - furthermore, they can be an eyesore to some, and can be an issue for birds.
Solar is not that efficient and again excess is not able to be stored (although it's great for a home environment, hence why so may of us have PVs and batteries).
Tidal is quite reliable and useful but it is hugely disruptive to local flora and fauna and is not cheap or quick to deploy.

And SMR takes a lot less time to deploy and commission, and doesn't need to be refuelled very often - furthermore off the back of them you could also create red hydrogen which could be quite interesting.

Blackjack Davy · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:04

StriderX said:
Build a reactor in Mayfair or don't bother because we know it's going to be killed off by NIMBY's.

It'll be govt sponsored and pushed through nimby's won't get a look in. Unless it spoils the view from Tory MP's windows in which case it won't happen a la onshore wind power

All for nuclear power, it's the best thing we have right now. All well and good waiting for something better but we need something for the foreseeable future.

You mean like windpower than can be up and running in a year if it wasn't perpetually tied up in red tape and doesn't cost billions to decomission? Cheap nuclear is a non sequiter but its seen as prestige tech so govt's love it it projects a "we're important" image to the world.

deusexlumina · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:19

This is about 20 years too late.

MrRockliffe · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:37

deusexlumina said:
This is about 20 years too late.

I completely agree, but surely it's better to be late than not at all?

Begbie · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:40

Freefaller said:
The issue with wind is that it is effectively "clipped" by too much wind, and we can't store excess currently - furthermore, they can be an eyesore to some, and can be an issue for birds.
Solar is not that efficient and again excess is not able to be stored (although it's great for a home environment, hence why so may of us have PVs and batteries).
Tidal is quite reliable and useful but it is hugely disruptive to local flora and fauna and is not cheap or quick to deploy.

And SMR takes a lot less time to deploy and commission, and doesn't need to be refuelled very often - furthermore off the back of them you could also create red hydrogen which could be quite interesting.

Wind also fails, causes havoc with radio/radar, and has potential upkeep costs in materials with very little reuse for them (so far)

CaptainRAVE · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:43

deusexlumina said:
This is about 20 years too late.

This, should have been invested in years ago ready for the inevitable short fall. At the very least it bridges the gap until renewable technology and infrastructure is ready to takeover.

StriderX · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:43

Wind fails locally, but over the entire planet? It's blowing air somewhere.

Freefaller · 15 Mar 2023 at 16:43

Begbie said:
Wind also fails, causes havoc with radio/radar, and has potential upkeep costs in materials with very little reuse for them (so far)

Interesting - thanks for that.

I mean don't get me wrong I'm really pro sustainable energy (hence why I spent some money on solar and batteries and hot water diverter), I consume less and take the train as much as I can to do my bit (albeit negligible in the grand scheme of things). However multiple smaller easier to maintain, harder to fail, SMRs dotted across the country would really help buy us some time and let the technology mature for better sustainable solutions which don't interfere with the local ecosystem.

As others have said this is now x years too late, but we might as well crack on with it and then focus on what we can do to not be reliant on gas and coal ever again,.

Quartz · 15 Mar 2023 at 17:46

deusexlumina said:
This is about 20 years too late.

Apparently - I think I read it on here - Nick Clegg had the opportunity over a decade ago but canned it because it would take 10 years to come to fruition. IOW it wouldn't be ready in time for the next election.

Terminal_Boy · 15 Mar 2023 at 17:59

Room temperature superconductor cables + Iceland = Europe’s energy problems solved.

Tom_ed1987 · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:02

The green movement & their opposition to nuclear energy over the past...60+ years... bare a large responsibility for the energy emissions & insecurity nightmare we now find ourselves in.

m@rty · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:03

Freefaller said:
The issue with wind is that it is effectively "clipped" by too much wind, and we can't store excess currently

Yes we can, I store and release excess wind all the time!

StriderX · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:04

Tom_ed1987 said:
The green movement & their opposition to nuclear energy over the past...60+ years... bare a large responsibility for the energy emissions & insecurity nightmare we now find ourselves in.

The government(s) could easily have ignored that, they didn't because the money from Oil/Gas was just too comforting.

radderfire · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:12

MrRockliffe said:
What makes you say that?

Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima ... the list goes on.

StriderX · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:15

radderfire said:
Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima ... the list goes on.

Does the list go on?

How many chemical spills have there been in the same timescale?

Minusorange · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:24

SPG said:
Nuclear is nothing but kicking the can down the road for 10 generations.

10 generations is a very long time to advance tech to a point where nuclear waste won't be an issue

200sols · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:40

radderfire said:
Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima ... the list goes on.

Do some research, nuclear is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy production.

MrRockliffe · 15 Mar 2023 at 18:40

radderfire said:
Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima ... the list goes on.

I agree - these are some of the most publicised events in history.

The most recent of which was more than 10 years ago, caused by poor design and a natural disaster.

In the US, in excess of 100,000 coal mining related deaths have occurred in the last century.

There has been one death related to the Fukushima disaster, by comparison.

While I do understand your point of view, and appreciate your opinion, I fear it has been distorted by the fact the media have covered more nuclear-related incidents compared to other forms of energy, due to the fact it sells better.

radderfire · 15 Mar 2023 at 19:00

200sols said:
Do some research, nuclear is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy production.

Nuclear power generation is not safe or clean when the numerous accidents that have happened leave areas of the planet where humans can no longer live. This is to say nothing of the extremely toxic nuclear waste that is routinely generated and requires extremely expensive long-term storage, which is prone to failures. "Green" and nuclear should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

Chuk_Chuk · 15 Mar 2023 at 19:08

radderfire said:
Nuclear power generation is not safe or clean when the numerous accidents that have happened leave areas of the planet where humans can no longer live. This is to say nothing of the extremely toxic nuclear waste that is routinely generated and requires extremely expensive long-term storage, which is prone to failures. "Green" and nuclear should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

There have been around 11 incidents that have resulted in actual loss of life in 71 years. That is a pretty impressive track record for nuclear energy.

What long term storage sites have failed?