UK Politics

3248 readers

363 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

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

'Build baby build', says Keir Starmer as he sets out nuclear plan (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 13 hours ago by solarpunkandrobots to c/uk_politics

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 49 minutes ago

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!"