6mo ago

'Build baby build', says Keir Starmer as he sets out nuclear plan

www.bbc.co.uk

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.

42 comments

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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
  
  As I understand it, reactors are built with a lot of spare overhead, so for a long time, we just need to keep adding uranium to increase the output, until it reaches its absolute maximum.
  We need a new wind turbine each time to increase capacity.
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.
- If we are talking non nuclear 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.
  
  Wind is intermittent. Why can't we go all in on wind AND geothermal?
  
  On a good day wind produces ~50% of our electricity at the moment, and there's a new offshore development as part of the Dogger Bank wind farm
  
  Geothermal doesn't need unstable crust conditions anymore.
- 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.
Are we just hearing / seeing the emotional headline of “nuclear”, but actually it just creates busy work for everyone for the next ~19 years.
By that time the other solutions (wind, geothermal, solar, sea, etc) have proven themselves and the gov just take the credit and show themselves as saving our planet by another 10 years of busy work decommissioning the power stations before the nuclear fuel is actually brought in...?
- Keynsian economics? Kenyan economics?
  something like that
Southwold in Suffolk twinned with Fukushima, Japan. l look forward to holidaying there and enjoying the irradiated winds and acid beaches. Look forward to reading nuclear-polluted veg from the area, too.
- Yeah the risk of earthquakes is really high in Suffolk, I'm glad I don't live there
  
  Or living next door for the next 25,000 years living next to the radioactive waste.

42 comments