30
Planned UK nuclear reactors unlikely to help hit green target, say MPs
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
30 points (91.7% liked)
United Kingdom
4087 readers
102 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, 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.
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That argument is so old that you could have built three generations in that time. If you never start, it will allways be late.
Just when gas prices were spiking and countries that were heavily invested into nuclear were making massive profits and their citizens spared the worst of the price increases, I was reminded of Cameron cancelling the new generation of nuclear power plants in ~2010 as they wouldn't be ready until 2022.
Yeah, and then you ask which industry might have profited from it. I swear to God, if nuclear hadn't been a real threat to the coal and petroleum industry 50 years ago, it would never have gotten the reputation it got. Imagine where we could have been.
Oh and what's a few meltdowns between friends?
Are we still yammering about Tsjernobyl in 2024? Ask France how they are doing, or USA.
If you're genuinely worried about radiation According to estimates by the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the world’s coal-fired power stations currently generate waste containing around 5,000 tonnes of uranium and 15,000 tonnes of thorium. Collectively, that’s over 100 times more radiation dumped into the environment than that released by nuclear power stations.
Nuclear energy still has caused much less irradiation and deaths than coal.
How much death and irradiation have renewables caused? I mean, I get it, coal is shite. Nobody wants coal. But that's absolutely not an argument for nuclear.
It depends on the method here's a chart:
To be clear I don't oppose renewable green sources, I just feel the benefit of nuclear merit it to be used along side renewables.
The real issue for governments is that it takes longer than one election cycle for them to be built.
They are worried that they might spend all that money and then not be in power to reap the political benefit.
I swear this happened before "We won't bother building them, as they wouldn't even be online until 2020!"
Meanwhile in 2024, we'd quite like some power, please.
Considering our current track record with building infrastructure, even if construction starts there’s a good chance it would never be completed.
New nuclear power would likely attract a far greater degree of the sort of budget scrutiny and NIMBYist political opportunism that’s already derailed HS2.
These projects never get started because they never make sense. SMRs are simply not a mature technology at all so investing in them when safer and cheaper alternatives already exist is irrational.
Nuclear power plants are top 2 in area footprint for energy generation. It's clean, safe and a reliable baseload source. Personally I'd rather have nuclear power plant in the outskirts of my city than littering our nature with noisy bird killing windmills. Solar is cool, but won't work as a baseload source.
SMR won't mature without investments, it's the sort of short sightedness that has made us burn coal and gas for 50 unnecessary extra years.
"IT'S NOT PERFECT SO WE SHOULD NEVER USE IT GRRRRRRR ATOMIC ENERGY BAD COAL GOOD"
Is what I hear/read every time someone whines about how it's not developed enough.
It's not developed enough because shits like that never let them get improved upon.
Imagine how much better the world would be if people didn't still deep throat fossil fuel propaganda from the 50s and 60s.
I mean, the entire purpose behind SMR's is pretty much to circumvent the political opposition to built-in-place reactors. If companies/nations could build conventional nuclear they would.