My “foolishly” was about giving it up whilst still reliant on Russia Wasn’t Fukushima largely due to the earthquake and tsunami. Germany is not near tectonic plates so I can’t get on board with abandoning it for that reason especially to basically leave yourself hooked up to Russia I was not aware the west had an increased reliance on Chinese nuclear technology. That is definitely not good
Couldn't agree more re abandoning nuclear power after Fukushima, Three mile island and Chernobyl plus the rising cost and dangers of decommissioning and waste disposal. A new power strategy is needed, being part of the world's biggest trading block would have helped.
The 2 new reactors at Hinkley Point C are being jointly financed by EDF (French, mostly state-owned), and CGN (wholly owned by the Chinese state).
Have to say I completely disagree with your nuclear opinion. Nuclear power is THE answer to climate change & global fossil fuel usage. Modern technology makes it incredibly safe and miles better for the environment than other methods. As a trained electrical engineer I have seen a lot of people underestimate the complexity & importance of the national grid. To think that wind and other sources of renewable energy can adequately replace what we have is laughable imo. Cutting off Russia and Saudi Arabia’s oil power is the cherry on top.
This is such a stupid tweet . Why is he comparing wearing a mask to protecting the physical property of the government?
You would replace reliance on Russia and Saudi with reliance on China, fair enough. Nuclear is only safer and better for the environment as long as no accident takes place. The EPR technology is still very new and relatively unproven, and while it is theoretically much safer than fast-breeder reactors, you still have the problem of waste disposal, which basically means you are exchanging short-term benefits for a problem which succeeding generations will have to manage. The long-term solution is not nuclear power. A combination of energy conservation, insulation, more energy-efficient house building and so on has been calculated to save more energy than Hinkley Point C will ever generate in its projected 60 year lifetime, in a report commissioned by the government. If you factor in much more widespread use of renewables such as wind and solar power, the unit cost of which are much cheaper than nuclear if the build costs are included, nuclear and fossil fuels become much less attractive. The UK government should be encouraging, by the use of grants and feed-in tariffs, domestic power generation by solar panels, as well as grants for air-source and ground-source heat pumps.
Because a mask is used to protect, just as the gates are. If it is safe to remove one protection, it is safe to take away the other. You don’t do irony, do you.
ASHP's cannot provide instant hot water so are not a like-for-like replacement for a gas combi boiler. I'm struggling to see any alternative for those.
Again, I respectfully totally disagree with all of this. I’m not sure why you equate China with nuclear power? Nuclear fuel can be found in many other places - Kazakhstan for one. Innovation in the nuclear power industry has been totally stifled by governments worrying and people with zero engineering experience weighing in on policies. The truth is Chernobyl was decades ago using rubbish technology and in a political system light years behind us. If the western world truly incentivised nuclear energy and threw money at it, we would rapidly see flourishing innovation and solutions to safety and energy problems alongside a much more reliable grid.
We’re going to have to find alternatives, of that there is no doubt. Ground source is much more efficient and effective but not suitable for all homes.
I’m equating nuclear power with China because China are building nuclear reactors 40 miles down the road from my house as I write. Once Hinkley C is up and running, 33% of the payments for the electricity it generates will go to the Chinese government. And as you’re probably no more qualified to talk about reactor technology than I am, and please correct me if I’m wrong, your optimism is pretty much pure speculation.
Having spent a career in measurement, control and safety systems engineering in the petrochemical, pharmaceutical and other process industries including briefly nuclear I'm well qualified to say costs and dangers outweigh the benefits. See Chilcs reply re the financial costs.
I’m not specifically qualified to talk about reactor technology, however I spent most of my early career working at a nuclear facility on control & instrumentation specifically designed for radiation safety. It wasn’t a power plant though. But I can honestly say that I learned from all my work there and my training not to fear radiation, and that a lot of the fear of nuclear power is massively overblown. For me, right now, the risk v reward of nuclear energy is skewed so strongly toward nuclear power that it’s an easy decision to make. I am hopeful that thanks to people like Elon Musk at Tesla, new technologies will emerge which make solar/wind etc. more viable. But the truth is right now it’s an impossibility to run the grid with solar/wind. There would be a substantial electrical shortage. Do we really want an unreliable electrical grid? Imagine hospitals losing power even for one minute. The damage would be incalculable. But right now I am very worried that energy shortages are going to get much worse before they get better. And it’s hard to understate the effects of the horrendous energy cost increases on the poor and vulnerable. Combine these ridiculous energy policies with Putin’s political games and we have a recipe for interesting times.
Sorry I can’t share your enthusiasm! At least we can agree that renewables are desirable. And they’re doing pretty well in terms of the share of power being produced from different sources in the UK. Every little helps.
It’s obviously a controversial topic, and with no easy answers. I used to feel the same as you, but especially more recently with the rising cost of energy I feel that the risk v reward has swung again. There is a very interesting book by Alex Epstein called “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” which questions a lot of the major narratives around fossil fuels and energy creation/consumption. The general message (which I agree with) is: Yes, fossil fuels are bad and we need to move to renewable energy if we can; but we have to be spectacularly careful and clever whilst we do that, because it would be very, very easy to mess up society. And I think there is a good chance that the renewable energy policies are already doing that. It’s quite difficult to ascertain one specific reason why energy prices are soaring, but I think that there’s at least a chance that moving to renewables too quickly could be contributing to it.
Just a flippant nugget; The reactor from a "Trafager" class Submarine could power a city the size of Swindon and for about 25 years without refueling.
