| Hinkley C 09:24 - Jan 24 with 1277 views | EdwardStone |
Given the go ahead in 2016, estimated cost £18 billion
Todays revised estimate £35 billion.....maybe more
That uplift in cost is a whole bunch of wave generators/windmills and pv panels, no?
As the cost of alternative sustainable generation plummets, the chimera of cheap nuclear power seems ever more distant
"Too Cheap to Meter" ???
Too Expensive to Contemplate" would be nearer the mark
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delaye
[Post edited 24 Jan 2024 9:25]
|  | | |  |
| Hinkley C on 09:42 - Jan 24 with 1191 views | nodge_blue |
But back up to green tech which relies on wind or sun is still needed. Very difficult to store electricity as well so it's mainly used in the instant.
And preferable to burning fossil fuels. |  |
| |
| Hinkley C on 09:56 - Jan 24 with 1133 views | StokieBlue |
Baseline energy supply is needed because we simply don't have a good method of storing energy from time where we could create excess green energy.
This is too expensive though, there is not reason why the government couldn't have created a national entity to construct these reactors within the UK both keeping the capital within the country and creating a lot of jobs. We've fallen a long way from creating the first commercial nuclear reactor in 1956.
We could of course pivot and create more storage but the only real ways of doing this at the moment would be:
- Batteries (expensive, short-lived)
- Pumped Hydro (possibly not that many locations for this to be built)
- Gravity storage (raise something heavy with the energy and generate later when released).
None of those are really proven though on a large scale which is what would be needed.
What should have happened is that this money should have been spent on the Severn barrage which would have been predictable in it's generation and able to supply about 5% of the UK's power requirements just from the large change in tide height.
SB |  |
| |
| Hinkley C on 10:01 - Jan 24 with 1111 views | EdwardStone |
| Hinkley C on 09:42 - Jan 24 by nodge_blue |
But back up to green tech which relies on wind or sun is still needed. Very difficult to store electricity as well so it's mainly used in the instant.
And preferable to burning fossil fuels. |
I agree that we don't want to burning fossil fuels
However, the base load could be met by a combination of tidal, wave and hydro generation
The storage could be addressed by improved battery technology, there are some hopeful technologies emerging
But no..... we just plod along squandering money on this busted flush [Post edited 24 Jan 2024 10:10]
| | | |
| Hinkley C on 10:02 - Jan 24 with 1110 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hinkley C on 09:56 - Jan 24 by StokieBlue |
Baseline energy supply is needed because we simply don't have a good method of storing energy from time where we could create excess green energy.
This is too expensive though, there is not reason why the government couldn't have created a national entity to construct these reactors within the UK both keeping the capital within the country and creating a lot of jobs. We've fallen a long way from creating the first commercial nuclear reactor in 1956.
We could of course pivot and create more storage but the only real ways of doing this at the moment would be:
- Batteries (expensive, short-lived)
- Pumped Hydro (possibly not that many locations for this to be built)
- Gravity storage (raise something heavy with the energy and generate later when released).
None of those are really proven though on a large scale which is what would be needed.
What should have happened is that this money should have been spent on the Severn barrage which would have been predictable in it's generation and able to supply about 5% of the UK's power requirements just from the large change in tide height.
SB |
Re. pumped hydro - just a shame that Norwich doesn't lie in a nice deep valley!
If any forthcoming governments are in the least bit serious about the future of the country for which they are taking temporary responsibility, they'll take a nationalised approach to energy and of necessity include nuclear in that. |  |
| |
| Hinkley C on 10:04 - Jan 24 with 1096 views | Meadowlark |
| Hinkley C on 09:56 - Jan 24 by StokieBlue |
Baseline energy supply is needed because we simply don't have a good method of storing energy from time where we could create excess green energy.
This is too expensive though, there is not reason why the government couldn't have created a national entity to construct these reactors within the UK both keeping the capital within the country and creating a lot of jobs. We've fallen a long way from creating the first commercial nuclear reactor in 1956.
We could of course pivot and create more storage but the only real ways of doing this at the moment would be:
- Batteries (expensive, short-lived)
- Pumped Hydro (possibly not that many locations for this to be built)
- Gravity storage (raise something heavy with the energy and generate later when released).
None of those are really proven though on a large scale which is what would be needed.
What should have happened is that this money should have been spent on the Severn barrage which would have been predictable in it's generation and able to supply about 5% of the UK's power requirements just from the large change in tide height.
SB |
Baseline is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear industry.
It has been debunked.
Nuclear power is outdated, expensive, dangerous, polluting, and is not green. The provider is a French government-backed company that would have failed without their support and the uranium comes from Russia. So much for an independent energy supply. |  | | |
| Hinkley C on 10:06 - Jan 24 with 1085 views | NthQldITFC |
| Hinkley C on 10:04 - Jan 24 by Meadowlark |
Baseline is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear industry.
It has been debunked.
Nuclear power is outdated, expensive, dangerous, polluting, and is not green. The provider is a French government-backed company that would have failed without their support and the uranium comes from Russia. So much for an independent energy supply. |
In what sense is baseline a fallacy? | |
| |
| Hinkley C on 10:09 - Jan 24 with 1069 views | StokieBlue |
| Hinkley C on 10:04 - Jan 24 by Meadowlark |
Baseline is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear industry.
It has been debunked.
Nuclear power is outdated, expensive, dangerous, polluting, and is not green. The provider is a French government-backed company that would have failed without their support and the uranium comes from Russia. So much for an independent energy supply. |
"Baseline is a fallacy perpetrated by the nuclear industry.
It has been debunked."
Could you provide some studies showing that? Baseline energy isn't really a nuclear-specific thing, other countries use fossil fuels for the same purpose so it would be strange if it was a fallacy solely perpetuated by the nuclear industry.
"Nuclear power is outdated, expensive, dangerous, polluting, and is not green. The provider is a French government-backed company that would have failed without their support and the uranium comes from Russia. So much for an independent energy supply."
It doesn't have to be those things, for instance, a thorium reactor isn't dangerous, it can't meltdown as requires a constant charge to maintain the reaction and if this stops then the reaction just stops. Third and fourth generation reactors burn the fuel 250 times more than older ones making the fuel much less dangerous at the end of it's cycle.
I'm not a specific nuclear advocate, as I said, these projects should be nationalised and I would have preferred the Severn barrage.
SB | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
