Have you considered that what you're paying for isn't just energy now, but energy security in the future?
My weekly supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese, eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip.
Parmesan Cheese is around ~£22-£45 ($30-$60) per kg compared to the US $7–$24+ per kg.
Just because we've got, if the government isn't supporting it's pretty much wasted. The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms. Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no.
> End 2024 installed electricity generating capacity was 105 GWe: 35.0 GWe natural gas; 32.8 GWe wind; 18.3 GWe solar; 7.4 GWe biofuels & waste; 5.9 GWe nuclear; 4.8 GWe hydro (including 2.9 GWe pumped storage) and 1.3 GWe oil.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy.
Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?
It's not the stupidly of the reactor producing. I don't agree with it personally, but hey whatever, it's a thing. The stupidly of it is that we are small island.
Claim what you wish about how safe they are but like anything: errors and malfunctions. Cyber sabotage and all that.
If an reactor were to implode we're eff'd. We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK and the waste we do currently produce has to be shipped elsewhere; sold for dark money.
> Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?
My preference would be my hand with a gun pointed at my temple and myself pulling the trigger. To dark?
Yes, we do. It really doesn't make that much space to store the waste. The biggest problem is people being irrationally scared of it.
Another problem is the urgency (due to the impacts) combined with the difficulty of modifying power plants as required by "lessons learned," in other words, bug fixes. Modifying or repairing solar panels or wind turbines is easier than working on a reactor and results in a smaller reduction in the plant's output. The effects of this are significant.
The number of victims (and more generally, the health impacts) of nuclear power depends on the method of analysis, which is controversial. This is true for Chernobyl and Fukushima, where the evacuation triggered by the nuclear accident officially caused 2,202 deaths (2019 count), and 2,313 according to the International Nuclear Association.
Even the maximum potential impact of an accident is debated.
The full impact of nuclear power will at best only be known after all dismantling is complete and the last cold waste is disposed of (before this deadline any mishap or stray waste can be costly), in a few thousand years.
Nuclear still has higher capacity factor than any VRE.
Evacuation numbers for Fukushima are accounted in the stat. But it's also worth mentioning Japanese govt acknowledged most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed, but govt ignored the data it had to enforce them. The panic against nuclear caused them, not radiation.
> capacity factor
So what? Capacity factor (or another similar quantity such as physical efficiency, operating life, etc.) is a salient criterion in the case of equipment consuming materials or fuel without recycling them, or producing waste in quantity or in the long term that is dangerous... therefore does not concern nuclear power but hardly concerns renewables.
A low yield makes deployment more expensive but, considered alone, is not prohibitive: a mix of renewables producing adequately (quantity, permanence, impacts, total cost including recycling, etc.) is a good solution whatever its yield.
> most of the deaths are caused by extreme evacuation measures that werent needed
This is disputed and the real amplitude of the threat was not known during the nuclear accident. The tiny evacuation ordered was minimally cautious as experts predicted, during the accident, that the worst cast would imply evacuating up to 50 millions persons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#In_media
Nuclear fuel can be recycled, just like renewables. It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables
The danger was known based on multiple data points. Japanese govt ignored them. And they acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented
Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need
Indeed, but nothing comparable to the spills at Chernobyl or Fukushima.
> Nuclear fuel can be recycled
Only once, and France, an industrial leader in this area, only manages to recycle 10% of its reactor fuel this way.
> It's mostly not done because it's cheaper not to, just like in renewables
No, that's completely false. Closing the fuel cycle was considered the Holy Grail as early as the 1950s, because everyone knew that uranium deposits would greatly limit the expansion of nuclear power. The industrialization of reactors of the most promising architecture (fast neutron-breeders, sodium-cooled) as well as others, attempted at great length and expense in many countries, failed everywhere ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto... ), there is no ready-to-deploy model of such reactor, and this approach has been virtually abandoned, replaced by the pursuit of fusion.
> The danger was known based on multiple data points
Before the major nuclear accident at Fukushima, the formulas for calculating seismic risk (the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake) were incorrect because they neglected very old earthquakes. The cause was an inability to properly assess the risk. This inability was not universal, as some (for example, Y. Hirai in the case of the Onagawa nuclear power plant, which was closer to the earthquake's epicenter and withstood the earthquake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20...) did take the necessary precautions.
> They acknowledged evacuation was not necessary in the way it was implemented.
Arms-chair tacticians are verbose after the fact, but nowhere to be found when the problem was an ongoing challenge and experts described the worst-case scenario. The testimony of the prime minister at the time, referenced above, is perfectly clear.
> Capacity factor is important to understand how much firming you need.
No value is prohibitive, as there are many other pertinent parameters.
mate, I dunno what your smoking, but it deffo does. I'm about 50% "paid off" and I had an expensive setup. Installed now the equivalent costs about 50% of what it did.
> Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no.
National grid say "holy shit I need to build more cables" then local people say "ewwww pylons" and shit gets more expensive. There is a bottleneck between england and scotland, which is partially being solved by https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade
The whole boo england, poor scotland/wales thing gets tired super quick. its being solved, is it being solved fast enough? no, but thats because we have a raised a shit generation of empty politicians from across UK and NI. (and the co-dependent pundit class)
> The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms.
Mostly pension funds. but yes, private. However given the high turnover of (useless) polticians, and a civil service that has had all is expertise hollowed out and replaced by consultancy firms, I don't think public funding, without structural reform is a good idea (look at railways for example)
1 https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-uks-record-auction-for-o... )
2030 is four years away & the next election is in 2029. The Labour party is unlikely to get in again, and if they do it'll be a miracle. Far-Right or Fascist Right.
Reform UK won't get enough seats to sit in parliament this election but if in the future, it's a dystopian vision I don't want to think about. Trump-XL, tax the EU, climate change doesn't exist, kick out asylum seekers, higher taxation to further screw Scotland and Wales. Heavily back pocketed by the US oil and tobacco industry, Nigel is foul MAGA of the UK.
Conservatives, sponsored by oil and pharmaceutical. Exxon, Esso, BP et cetera. They got their wish with Brexit, they made a bucket load of cash from that and they're the ones who scrapped the renewable industry in the first place. One of their aims is to scrap the NHS and make it privatised.
No it doesn't. Maybe if you are shopping at Waitrose. It is more expensive. But it isn't £45 for basics. I did an entire shop which will last me the week for £30 (in Aldi).
Everyone has their super market preference. ASDA would be cheaper still. You can't disagree that prices have sky rocketed, shrunk in quantity and now lower quality.
The vast majority of the public doesn't understand what causes inflation or that there is a difference between monetary and price inflation and energy is part of that.
What cheese? A misspelling?
thats per pound (lb).
Given that you can't make parmesan in the UK AND its historically expensive (see samual peypes) it seems an odd choice to pin your argument on.
> We sold ourselves short during the GW/Blair Neo-labour era.
I mean we really didn't it was a period of great productivity and a massive boost in living standards almost universally.
> I mean we really didn't it was a period of great productivity and a massive boost in living standards almost universally.
A huge amount of wealth was also created under Thatcher but also a huge amount of wealth inequality. Blair didn't really change anything initially and continued their policies.
Remember that period ended with the Global Financial Crisis and an large increase of deficit spending.
There is also other problems with the Blair government. There was our involvement in the war in Afghanistan/Iraq, some of the iffy terrorism legislation amongst other things.
So like with a lot of things it was a mixed bag.