'Build baby build', says Keir Starmer as he sets out nuclear plan
'Build baby build', says Keir Starmer as he sets out nuclear plan
The government wants to make it quicker and easier to build mini nuclear power stations in England and Wales.
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
In 20+ years when the first reactor is ready to start delivering power. After how much cost over runs?
Oil, coal and LPG ain't the answer either, before the pro-nuclear crowd get their nickers in s knot.
In terms of nuclear power, lessons need to be learned - the first few plants are going to run over both budget and time because they're not going to take any risks. Better it runs over than it's done shoddily.
Remember, the UK power grid is ancient - it's going to need to be rebuilt from the ground up to integrate renewables (a project more than 20 years in the making). Especially so with such "rapidly" fluctuating power as wind.
Again, it's a stopgap that should be used while actively developing grid changes to better shift the load to wind.
But it's not just the first few that take much longer to build and get more expensive, it's all of them. Every recent nuclear project that I'm aware of had these issues, even in countries that keep building them.
I mean, the alternative is you just accept regular grid failures over 1--3 decades while you speedrun towards wind. This sounds great on paper, till you realise UK homes are shifting to electric heating, and those power failures are going to be violent ones doing a lot of damage.
You could mandate lower power use, but that's a recipe for being voted out. Back to fossil fuels you go.
You could tax energy intensive industry, but the UK is trying to revive its manufacturing centers, not kill the survivors off. Likely this will generate enough friction to shift power again.
You're effectively handing the anti-green lobby a golden ticket, which may even mean the issues last more than 3 decades as UK politics flipflops around. In essence, a stopgap is needed due to the sheer state of British energy infrastructure.
I mean, the alternative is you just accept regular grid failures over 1–3 decades while you speedrun towards wind.
No, I reject your premise that only nuclear can prevent grid failures, especially since any reactor will take 2-3 decades to come online. Wind can provide stable power today using storage. Why should we accept regular grid failures for 2-3 decades?
I thought we were fairly behind the curve on storage (ironically, most is stuck in planning or is over budget, or is delayed).
Also, I never said only nuclear could do it. Simply that it's not the worst option.
As much as I'd like to switch everything to renewable today (if only because my bills would drop), it's just not possible with the infrastructure we have.
I thought we were fairly behind the curve on storage (ironically, most is stuck in planning or is over budget, or is delayed).
If this is true (and I haven't come across evidence that it is, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) it doesn't mean this can't be improved. What is the trajectory, is this "behind the curve" getting worse or better? For nuclear, it's steadily getting worse, so even if it didn't improve it might still be more effective compared to nuclear.
As much as I’d like to switch everything to renewable today (if only because my bills would drop), it’s just not possible with the infrastructure we have.
But building nuclear won't help you, since it will take 2-3 decades to build and it's far more expensive than renewables (also more expensive than renewables + storage, which is becoming cheaper at an increasing rate, while nuclear is getting even more expensive). I'm not saying that everything but renewables should be torn down right now, but building more nuclear capabilities simply doesn't make sense.
I think, at this point, we're both stood out on very very long planks. There's more "what if" involved than is healthy.
You've made some good points, I can't comment on trajectory (a lot of that is going to be based on future energy usage patterns which are almost impossible to predict). It may well be that the infrastructure for renewables gets put together faster than I anticipate.
On the other hand, nuclear options might arrive faster than your projected timelines and will play a key role in the journey to 100% renewable. It's tough to say what lessons are being learned and how much of an impact on timeline they'll have.
Either way, thanks for the discussion, it's given me some more thinking points.
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!"
They're building renewables as well, this isn't a delaying tactic for fossil fules.