Britain should bet more on renewables and less on nuclear

An independent advisory commission to the British government is questioning the nuclear projects and suggests to lean more towards renewables :

An energy system based on low-cost renewables and the technologies required to balance them may prove cheaper than building further nuclear plants, as the cost of these technologies is far more likely to fall, and at a faster rate,” the commission said.

The National Infrastructure Assessment therefore cautions against a rush to agree government support for multiple new nuclear power stations, and proposes that after Hinkley Point C in Somerset the government should agree support for only one more nuclear plant before 2025,” it added.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-infrastructure/curb-new-nuclear-plants-and-back-renewables-government-advisers-say-idUKKBN1K00Q7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said:

An independent advisory commission to the British government is questioning the nuclear projects and suggests to lean more towards renewables :

An energy system based on low-cost renewables and the technologies required to balance them may prove cheaper than building further nuclear plants, as the cost of these technologies is far more likely to fall, and at a faster rate,” the commission said.

The National Infrastructure Assessment therefore cautions against a rush to agree government support for multiple new nuclear power stations, and proposes that after Hinkley Point C in Somerset the government should agree support for only one more nuclear plant before 2025,” it added.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-infrastructure/curb-new-nuclear-plants-and-back-renewables-government-advisers-say-idUKKBN1K00Q7

We can largely thank that war criminal Tony Blair for the position we are in now from an energy perspective.

While I am broadly supportive of renewables, for cold climates they simply don't stack up to a 100% reliable supply unless you have loads of Hydro or Geothermal as you need reliable base load throughout the winter months.

Personally I don't even think gas can adequately meet this from an energy security perspective as its too difficult to store in the sort of quantities needed in the event Russia turns its pipelines off or Iran blocks Hormuz.

The annual fuel load for a large nuclear power station takes up the space of a double decker bus. Coal can simply be piled up alongside the station. You can stores years worth of fuel in advance.

After we commissioned Sizewell B in 1995 we should have then had a programme of commissioning a new PWR every couple of years. Something like:

Sizewell C - 1998

Bradwell B 2000

Bradwell C 2002

Oldbury B 2004

Oldbury C 2006

Wyfla B 2008

hatlepool B 2010

Which would have given us another 8 GW of reliable PWR  baseload out to about 2060 build far more cheaply than Sizewell B (which was first of its kind in the UK)

 

What did we get instead?

Dash for gas to piddle our own  gas resources up the wall at $20 a barrel equivalent

Completely lost our own ability to build Nukes - now have to go begging to the French / Chinese / Koreans

A structural balance of payments deficit to pay for a perpetual import of gas, increasingly so from Qatar and Russia.

A lost opportunity to buy up decades worth of low cost Uranium fuel over the last 10-15 years.

A deal with the French that involves a strike price of £92.5 / mwh index linked for 40 years (a gift from god to French electricity consumers)

 

 

 

 

Edited by NickW
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Germany that has put on place the incredibly expensive energiewende that did cost by now like 400 billion euros, generates only 6% of all the primary energy and has increased the wood, gas and oil imports?

yeah, sure right.

The problem isn't that nuclear power is obsolete is that PWR, and BWR are obsolete, liquid metal and molten salt breeder reactors are a much better ideas with a lead-bismuth alloy you can pull down a lot of the safety stuff that is used indirectly because the water inside a reactor has to be pressurized.

The problem is that the western countries had kinda stopped nuclear innovation, while ruskies and chineses are exploiting ideas and concept that did originate from western countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Like Germany that has put on place the incredibly expensive energiewende that did cost by now like 400 billion euros, generates only 6% of all the primary energy and has increased the wood, gas and oil imports?

yeah, sure right.

The problem isn't that nuclear power is obsolete is that PWR, and BWR are obsolete, liquid metal and molten salt breeder reactors are a much better ideas with a lead-bismuth alloy you can pull down a lot of the safety stuff that is used indirectly because the water inside a reactor has to be pressurized.

The problem is that the western countries had kinda stopped nuclear innovation, while ruskies and chineses are exploiting ideas and concept that did originate from western countries.

Are PWR's obsolete? 

You place a lot of faith in designs that have only ever been run as experimental reactors. 

I understand BNFL had lots of fun with the Fast Breeder Reactor at Dounreay worrying about whether or not they might make western Europe uninhabitable. 

This is 3rd Gen PWR with lots of passive safety systems built in. First commercial model went live in June this year in China. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0