Spoken like someone who truly knows nothing about nuclear power or really any kind of power generation.
It's probably the only environmentally friendly base load option other than overbuilding renewables and building lots of battery storage.
Nuclear is probably cleaner than building that many batteries...
The micro reactors aim to (hopefully) reduce the main issues with traditional nuclear power.
overbuilding renewables and building lots of battery storage.
I'm not convinced that we need much battery storage. If there's enough being generated, less storage is needed. It's another fossil fuel argument intended to sow doubt.
Nuclear is probably cleaner than building that many batteries...
Even if it is cleaner, we need the funding directed at renewables. This isn't even debatable; renewables now, other stuff later once the emergency is under control.
The micro reactors aim to (hopefully) reduce the main issues with traditional nuclear power.
Again, this doesn't help us now and actively hinders our ability to address global heating.
You either need batteries or a Europe wide energy grid. It's quite possible for it to be still (not windy) over the whole of the UK for example.
There can easily be enough renewable energy generated here for 100% of our needs 100% of the time. In fact much moreso.
Any suggestion otherwise comes from nuclear, oil and gas industry misinformation.
Batteries as they are now are not going to help. They are too costly, environmentally damaging, human exploiting, and only make Mr X even more wealthy.
We don't need them and we certainly don't want any of that or him. They are all lying so that we don't make renewables. Every time there is doubt, they are winning. Every time there is a debate, they are winning. When anything delays the move to renewables, they are winning.
I don't want them to win.
I want us to win.
In the time it takes to get these up and generating, we could have had lots of renewables up and generating. And for less cost. And less environmental damage and clean up, down the line.
Exactly, thank you.
The cross-post seems to see this as a zero-sum game - nuclear or renewables. Personally I'm in favour of throwing everything at the problem inclusing nuclear for some base load.. If these smaller reactors can be built more swiftly than regular ones, good.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I've been looking at that same position for a while now; do everything we can and use all the tools.
Nuclear is proposed as part of that blanket but the reality is that we have run out of time for it to be viable. Maybe if the programme was initiated in the 70s/80s and we had lots of nuclear now, but we don't. Maybe if we survive long enough to limit climate change effects, but right now we need all the funding for our energy needs to be directed into renewables. It's not even debatable and the only reason anyone thinks it is, is because of lobbying, fearmongering and the deliberate spreading of misinform by the nuclear and oil industries.
Wow, looks like we truly are all fucked. If even people on here think this way, we are not surviving. I'm sad for the young and the poor who will bear the brunt, as usual.
Enjoy the last of it, those who follow us are not going to. The next few generations will be powerless against the effects of global climate heating. The enormous loss of life and extreme conditions will be a fitting end to our pitiful apathy.
I'm glad I won't be around to witness it but neither will you, which annoys me somewhat.
A pox on you all.
Mate, if you want to convince people that your point of view is better than theirs you might start by not cursing them with poxes.
Maybe stop moaning at them and people might want to listen?
Heh, the curse came after the down votes. Interestingly, the thoughtful comments engaging with the OP came after that and I've replied accordingly.
If you want to engage with that then please do, I'm all ears.
Nuclear energy is much much cleaner than gas. If we can replace our reliance on gas with nuclear then that's a step in the right direction. If, for any reason whatsoever, nuclear is a more viable option than renewable, even if that reason is corporate greed, then we take it and then phase nuclear out later as we increase the renewable load. The situation is too urgent to quibble over which green energy to use. We just need to get shut of gas and coal.
Some facts:
Nuclear energy is not a contributor to greenhouse gases.
Nuclear power plants are safe.
I'm not disputing the cleanness or the safety of nuclear. I think it's very telling that much of the response here has aimed at those points when they haven't been made.
It shows just how effective the nuclear and oil industries have been in spreading their lies and misinformation. It's very worrying.
It's too late for nuclear now. The cost of nuclear is too great for now.
We don't have the time and the funding must be directed at renewables. Anything else will be a big mistake.
If we get out of this and manage to give ourselves a future, explore all the nuclear and other technologies you want. Have at it. But now is not the time, and time is running out.
Do you think we will be able to create or import enough renewable energy to fill the hole left by gas in the time it would take to build these reactors? How? And what is your response to the legitimate concern that renewable energy technology at its current maturity does not provide a stable power base?
Do you think we will be able to create or import enough renewable energy to fill the hole left by gas in the time it would take to build these reactors?
If we want to, we could easily generate far more than we currently use, and far more than needed in the future as well. The build time of the new reactors is too far away to be relevant and the funding is needed now.
How?
By directing funding and resources from everything that would otherwise reduce or impede the expansion of renewables.
And what is your response to the legitimate concern that renewable energy technology at its current maturity does not provide a stable power base?
Mature it quickly. There will be more than enough if we stop faffing about.
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.