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.
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
64 points (97.1% liked)
UK Politics
3314 readers
263 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
Why is private sector doing nuclear energy? It'll take large amounts of subsidies anyway since the private sector doesn't do anything if they don't forsee profits. Might as well have it in the public sector which doesn't have to worry about monetary profits.
I don't think much is happening in UK with regards to anything productive like wind or nuclear so long as the Government doesn't do stuff. Starmer is servile to finance capital interests. He is more interested in seeing the line go up.
Nuclear plants are, unfortunately, mostly megaprojects that are tricky to finish inside a 5 year election cycle.
This means that they either end up in purgatory, or proceeding at a snails pace as changing governments change the goalposts/funding to suit themselves.
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.
Your understanding is incorrect.
Reactors always operate at maximum capacity. It's the only way they are economic to run. Fuel isn't the primary cost for running a reactor. It's staffing and maintenance. These don't become cheaper when you run lower outputs. They are constant. If your costs are constant, generating half the power makes that power cost twice as much per kWh.
Just look at any of the grid dashboards out there. Look at how little nuclear output changes. We only change the output when we power down whole reactors for refuelling or other maintenance.
This is also why partnering nuclear with highly variable source of power like wind doesn't make any sense. Nuclear can't realistically vary it's output in response to what the weather is. Even if it could, it wouldn't make economic sense to do so.
Well your comment is too, reactors do not always run at maximum capacity, that's silly.
But they do have a lower SMRC than renewables.
I don't think you're an expert in the economics of nuclear reactors, and I know I'm not. I clearly made a mistake in the understanding of scaling them up. But, as ever on the internet, you have picked a side and therefore you're not a reliable interlocutor. If and when I want to know more about this subject, I will get my information from a neutral source.
Maybe the terms I used were too absolute, but they always aim to run at their highest sustainable output for the reasons I gave.
I'm not an expert in nuclear economics, but this is knowledge accumulated from reading articles over the years by people who are. Apart from the economics, I'm pretty pro-nuclear, but the economic (and the related time-scale) arguments kill it for me.
I think with the situation we're in, we're much better going all in on technologies that replace fossil fuels today, but in smaller chunks that add up to big numbers over time. Nuclear will take bigger bites out of fossil fuels, but those step changes will take 10-15 years and we're stuck on fossil fuels for all that time.
Fair play to you. I guess that this decision is the result of the nuclear lobby having a bigger say than they should. It's an old story, where the facts are obfuscated by energy companies, for profit. I think the argument that nuclear has an important place in a robust energy grid is hard to debunk. But we should have started building decades ago.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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
view more: next ›