| Sizewell C 20:01 - Jun 10 with 3739 views | OldFart71 |
The Government has pledged 14.2 billion for Sizewell C and that will cut bills in 10 years time. At least I know I will be warm by then. Those bloody crematoriums don't half throw out some heat. |  | | |  |
| Sizewell C on 08:48 - Jun 11 with 834 views | DJR |
| Sizewell C on 08:14 - Jun 11 by BanksterDebtSlave |
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/10/whats-behind-keir-starmers-d
What do big tech companies have to do with it?
Driving Britain’s nuclear renaissance is the tech industry’s appetite for nuclear power. Starmer unveiled plans for a once-in-a-generation nuclear expansion earlier this year alongside an open invitation to tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon to invest in AI datacentres in Britain, which could be powered by small modular reactors.
This is because the world’s biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence.
This is because the world’s biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence.
Earlier this month Meta struck a deal to keep one nuclear reactor of a US utility company in Illinois operating for an extra 20 years, to help supply the company’s datacentres with low-carbon power. It follows a similar deal from Google to supply its datacentres with nuclear power from half a dozen small reactors built by a California utility company. Microsoft has paid for the restart of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the most serious nuclear accident and radiation leak in US history.
“They are very keen to get the datacentres in and they’re very alive to the fact that the power is a big issue,” Starmer said. |
I wonder if joined up government has considered the risks of more nuclear power stations, including small modular reactors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_facilities_to_attack
https://www.powermag.com/an-under-appreciated-threat-from-airborne-attacks-on-la |  | | |
| Sizewell C on 08:53 - Jun 11 with 813 views | blueasfook |
| Sizewell C on 08:37 - Jun 11 by bluelagos |
We should definitely look to limit our consumption of unnecessary sh1te to help limit the environmental damage we are doing.
Whether that is online, the latest fashion or just buying cr*p we don't need is a mute point.
I wouldn't especially target the cloud or any other technology - am not a luddite (although am crp with technology) - but I do have an issue with over consumption, absolutely. |
We just need to harness clean energy and then we dont need to worry about consumption. The major contributors to greenhouse gases are CO2 producing older technologies such as combustion engines, fossil fuel burning power stations etc. [Post edited 11 Jun 8:53]
|  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 08:55 - Jun 11 with 801 views | baxterbasics |
It's the right decision and unfortunately governments have been kicking this can down the road since at least Blair. Would have been much cheaper to do it back then too.
The Chernobyl disaster still doing damage today given it ground too many nuclear plans to an unnecessary and harmful halt. So here we are still relying on fossil fuels from far away places which aren't always friendly.
As for the idea it damages an area of natural beauty - as an occasional visitor to the area I don't see a huge impact from the installations currently at Sizewell, I actually quite like the sight of the place on the landscape amongst all that countryside. It's hardly a soviet-era carbuncle. It's still a nice spot and hopefully will continue to be so.
However when it comes to claims about reducing our energy costs - colour me sceptical, given how the energy market is structured. |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:00 - Jun 11 with 780 views | chicoazul |
| Sizewell C on 08:37 - Jun 11 by bluelagos |
We should definitely look to limit our consumption of unnecessary sh1te to help limit the environmental damage we are doing.
Whether that is online, the latest fashion or just buying cr*p we don't need is a mute point.
I wouldn't especially target the cloud or any other technology - am not a luddite (although am crp with technology) - but I do have an issue with over consumption, absolutely. |
The trouble with this is that the crap you are referring to is produced by hundreds of millions of the working class all over the world. That’s how they earn the money to feed their families. |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:00 - Jun 11 with 778 views | textbackup |
Does this mean houses in Aldeburgh will now only be worth £183949287 instead of £183949500? |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:21 - Jun 11 with 721 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Sizewell C on 08:14 - Jun 11 by blueasfook |
The irony of bemoaning the power consumption of technology on an Internet forum. |
.....and yet has not knowingly stored any data in a cloud or used A.I. |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:23 - Jun 11 with 710 views | blueasfook |
| Sizewell C on 09:21 - Jun 11 by BanksterDebtSlave |
.....and yet has not knowingly stored any data in a cloud or used A.I. |
Do you have a mobile phone? If it's fairly modern then it will do both. | |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:24 - Jun 11 with 702 views | Pinewoodblue |
I know it is clean energy but the carbon footprint for the construction phase must be off the scale.
Dim question. Originally they talked of Sizewell C & Sizewell D. The future images show two new reactors, are they both now being referred to as Sizewell C ? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sizewell C on 09:26 - Jun 11 with 700 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Sizewell C on 08:53 - Jun 11 by blueasfook |
We just need to harness clean energy and then we dont need to worry about consumption. The major contributors to greenhouse gases are CO2 producing older technologies such as combustion engines, fossil fuel burning power stations etc. [Post edited 11 Jun 8:53]
|
"We just need to harness clean energy and then we dont need to worry about consumption."
Lol....stuff to infinity and beyond! | |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:32 - Jun 11 with 688 views | DJR |
| Sizewell C on 09:00 - Jun 11 by textbackup |
Does this mean houses in Aldeburgh will now only be worth £183949287 instead of £183949500? |
For me that's not really the issue, and I can't be accused of NIMBYism because I don't live there.
https://www.suffolkwildlifetrust.org/news/sizewell-c-update-october-2021#:~:text
Having said, that the matter was so far down the line, there was probably no alternative but to go ahead. It just seems to me that it would have been better to find a site in not quite such an environmentally important area. [Post edited 11 Jun 9:45]
| | | |
| Sizewell C on 09:33 - Jun 11 with 686 views | blueasfook |
| Sizewell C on 09:26 - Jun 11 by BanksterDebtSlave |
"We just need to harness clean energy and then we dont need to worry about consumption."
Lol....stuff to infinity and beyond! |
So what's your solution for moving the world from carbon-based power generation? Please share. | |
| |
| Sizewell C on 09:54 - Jun 11 with 665 views | DanTheMan |
| Sizewell C on 09:21 - Jun 11 by BanksterDebtSlave |
.....and yet has not knowingly stored any data in a cloud or used A.I. |
Cloud computing isn't all that bad environmentally compared to what it replaced: every company running its own hardware and still having to cool it anyway.
Think of it as public transport vs. everyone having their own car.
AI is a different matter of course. |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 10:32 - Jun 11 with 625 views | DJR |
If we have to keep on increasing energy production to cope with things like electric cars, AI data centres and crypto mining, it is perhaps for consideration whether we will ever be able to give up fossil fuels, because we will be always trying to catch up. [Post edited 11 Jun 10:35]
| | | |
| Sizewell C on 11:52 - Jun 11 with 593 views | WeWereZombies |
| Sizewell C on 08:14 - Jun 11 by blueasfook |
The irony of bemoaning the power consumption of technology on an Internet forum. |
Isn't the TWTD forum powered by our own hot air ? |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 12:36 - Jun 11 with 565 views | GeoffSentence |
| Sizewell C on 20:46 - Jun 10 by EdwardStone |
In 10 years time renewables and battery storage will be way cheaper than nuclear
And we will still be paying squillions for a giant polluting white elephant with toxic levels of radioactivity that will blight us for the next 2500 years
The great dream of cheap nuclear power was always just a fantasy.... "Too Cheap To Meter" was the dream
"Too Expensive to Contemplate" is the sad reality |
Even now it would be much cheaper to generate the same amount of electricity as sizewell will but with renewables.
There are other factors to take into consideration though, not least that big old turbines as used in large power plants make it easier to maintain a steady voltage on the grid through inertia, and also renewables take up a lot of space. |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 12:50 - Jun 11 with 542 views | DJR |
Interesting to note that small modular nuclear reactors are not as small one might think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62614wejk5o
Hands up who wants one of them, and the accompanying data centre, at the back of their garden? | | | |
| Sizewell C on 12:50 - Jun 11 with 541 views | giant_stow |
| Sizewell C on 12:36 - Jun 11 by GeoffSentence |
Even now it would be much cheaper to generate the same amount of electricity as sizewell will but with renewables.
There are other factors to take into consideration though, not least that big old turbines as used in large power plants make it easier to maintain a steady voltage on the grid through inertia, and also renewables take up a lot of space. |
Batteries / storage for clean energy is still a bit of a pisser I believe - isn't nuclear's purpose these days to provide a reliable baseline supply? |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 13:00 - Jun 11 with 511 views | DanTheMan |
| Sizewell C on 12:50 - Jun 11 by DJR |
Interesting to note that small modular nuclear reactors are not as small one might think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62614wejk5o
Hands up who wants one of them, and the accompanying data centre, at the back of their garden? |
People don't want to build anything anywhere so not sure that's a great argument.
Whether it's fossil fuels, nuclear or green energy, people moan. | |
| |
| Sizewell C on 13:02 - Jun 11 with 500 views | DJR |
| Sizewell C on 13:00 - Jun 11 by DanTheMan |
People don't want to build anything anywhere so not sure that's a great argument.
Whether it's fossil fuels, nuclear or green energy, people moan. |
That's true but a far-from-small nuclear reactor seems to me a whole new ball game. [Post edited 11 Jun 13:05]
| | | |
| Sizewell C on 13:07 - Jun 11 with 492 views | Meadowlark |
10 years? 20 more like as long as we can still get the Uranium and as long as the rising sea levels haven't washed it away.
What a waste of money! |  | | |
| Sizewell C on 13:32 - Jun 11 with 459 views | stonojnr |
| Sizewell C on 08:55 - Jun 11 by baxterbasics |
It's the right decision and unfortunately governments have been kicking this can down the road since at least Blair. Would have been much cheaper to do it back then too.
The Chernobyl disaster still doing damage today given it ground too many nuclear plans to an unnecessary and harmful halt. So here we are still relying on fossil fuels from far away places which aren't always friendly.
As for the idea it damages an area of natural beauty - as an occasional visitor to the area I don't see a huge impact from the installations currently at Sizewell, I actually quite like the sight of the place on the landscape amongst all that countryside. It's hardly a soviet-era carbuncle. It's still a nice spot and hopefully will continue to be so.
However when it comes to claims about reducing our energy costs - colour me sceptical, given how the energy market is structured. |
In terms of damages an area of natural beauty, the buildings as theyll end up, ignoring the decommissioning part Sizewall a for instance might not be gone completely till 2090... but the structures no not an impact.
What people are talking about there is the amount of landscape destruction in the area they've done already and will continue to do to facilitate the construction, alot of it done purely to make the construction more profitable for EDF and easier for them. Cos cutting corners & making profit is the best way to build nuclear power plants obviously.
But we're talking entire forests being cut down, areas basically from the a12 to the coastline being cleared, the landscape permanently altered, all that plant life which is good for the environment remember, all that wildlife gone, lost for generations it could take 50-60 years just to recover some of the forestry after they've finished and will probably end up being akin to Rendlesham which isn't the best ecology environment to have
And we could lose permanently parts of heathland as the balance is tipped, the very heathland that's supposed to be protected in AONB, because it's rare habitat.
There are ways to build these things, and im in favour of more nuclear power stations btw, but without such wanton destruction of the local area in the process.
I saw it best described as the nation lost its mind when the Sycamore gap tree was cut down, it was one tree, they're cutting down thousands of trees around Sizewell | | | |
| Sizewell C on 15:29 - Jun 11 with 370 views | Meadowlark |
| Sizewell C on 20:11 - Jun 10 by SitfcB |
All the people that were moaning about it on Anglia News this evening will all be dead by then as well so not sure why they’re wasting the energy they have left. |
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit! | | | |
| Sizewell C on 15:48 - Jun 11 with 338 views | J2BLUE |
| Sizewell C on 07:56 - Jun 11 by chicoazul |
It’s funny how many avowedly left wing people are so conservative when it comes to energy, transport, infrastructure etc |
Lefties are only happy when they are really unhappy. |  |
| |
| Sizewell C on 15:55 - Jun 11 with 327 views | JimmyJazz |
| Sizewell C on 09:32 - Jun 11 by DJR |
For me that's not really the issue, and I can't be accused of NIMBYism because I don't live there.
https://www.suffolkwildlifetrust.org/news/sizewell-c-update-october-2021#:~:text
Having said, that the matter was so far down the line, there was probably no alternative but to go ahead. It just seems to me that it would have been better to find a site in not quite such an environmentally important area. [Post edited 11 Jun 9:45]
|
Sadly one factor when considering Sizewell B in the 80's over other sites, was the amount of opposition each site would likely generate. Sleepy Suffolk obviously scored low on that front |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
