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 12 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

[–] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 7 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Flax_vert 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Nuclear is better for the environment than renewables tbh

[–] ALiteralCabbage 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It absolutely is. Nuclear waste is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as millions of tonnes of carbon.

The main issues people have that I've seen are:

What do you do with nuclear waste?
What if it explodes?

(And the ever present 3rd option: I don't want it near my house, and I don't want pylons on my land)

[–] Flax_vert 2 points 6 hours ago

You recycle nuclear waste. The bits you cannot recycle are so small, you can keep it in an underground bunker.

Nuclear explosions only happen if you extremely mismanage a power plant.