5 ms·

> Back that up with nuclear providing the base load and you have reasonable energy security. So you’re saying that we should turn off the nuclear plant? What

> Back that up with nuclear providing the base load and you have reasonable energy security. So you’re saying that we should turn off the nuclear plant? What do we calculate? A generous 50% capacity factor? The new built nuclear power now costs ~40 cents/kWh. It just becomes ridiculously expensive when real world constraints are added.

happymellon 11mo ago
The current "real world constraint" is purchasing gas from Russia. Yeah, nuclear is better than that.
- ViewTrick1002 11mo ago
  Almost all of Europe has stopped buying Russian gas? The exception being nuclear powered France. [1] You also do know that we despite 19 sanctions packages still haven’t been able to sanction the Russian nuclear industry? We’re just too dependent on it. [1]: https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-talks-tough-russian-lng-buys-more-ever-2025 https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-talks-tough-russian-lng-...
  - realusername 11mo ago
    The French gas plants have been built to support renewables, France didn't have almost any gas plants prior 2010. There's no sanctions on the Russian nuclear industry because it's a rounding error financially compared to gas or petrol.
- bauble12 11mo ago
  The thing Ive never quite understood is that the UK has no domestic supply of uranium.
  - cjrp 11mo ago
    Canada, Australia and Germany are all big exporters; without tempting fate, I don't think the UK will have issues importing from those countries.
trebligdivad 11mo ago
Yeh it probably is expensive - but we currently have no other way (other than gas) to cover the low-wind/sun periods; while there are times when the UK can almost run purely off wind, there are other periods where we get ~5% of that wind energy for a week or so; the battery storage is nowhere near useful for that.
- pfdietz 11mo ago
  Hydrogen or low capex thermal. The UK has adequate salt formations for large scale storage of hydrogen.
  - MagicMoonlight 11mo ago
    Hydrogen is the worst possible fuel. It's the least dense material in existence so you need a ton of it. It has to be made from either cracking polluting materials, or using a huge amount of electricity. It is really difficult to store and really flammable. Nuclear is endless clean energy. Why do people like you keep ruining everything? If it wasn't for you, we'd have had full nuclear by 1980. No oil problems, no terrorist states, no dubai.
    - pfdietz 11mo ago
      This would be green hydrogen. Sure, it has low density, but underground storage is pretty cheap at scale. Yes, it's flammable, but that can be handled, and is handled routinely -- the world currently produces and consumes 700 cubic kilometers (at STP) of hydrogen per year. The huge advantage of hydrogen here is that a gas turbine power plant might cost $600/kW, a tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant. So if you have a need for a backup plant whose cost will be dominated by amortization of its fixed cost, hydrogen beats nuclear.
    - lostlogin 11mo ago
      > Nuclear is endless clean energy. The UK hasn’t had any nuclear waste problems? It might be the solution but pretending it’s perfect is how we got here.
  - 11mo ago

happymellon 11mo ago

The current "real world constraint" is purchasing gas from Russia. Yeah, nuclear is better than that.

ViewTrick1002 11mo ago
Almost all of Europe has stopped buying Russian gas? The exception being nuclear powered France. [1] You also do know that we despite 19 sanctions packages still haven’t been able to sanction the Russian nuclear industry? We’re just too dependent on it. [1]: https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-talks-tough-russian-lng-buys-more-ever-2025 https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-talks-tough-russian-lng-...
- realusername 11mo ago
  The French gas plants have been built to support renewables, France didn't have almost any gas plants prior 2010. There's no sanctions on the Russian nuclear industry because it's a rounding error financially compared to gas or petrol.
bauble12 11mo ago
The thing Ive never quite understood is that the UK has no domestic supply of uranium.
- cjrp 11mo ago
  Canada, Australia and Germany are all big exporters; without tempting fate, I don't think the UK will have issues importing from those countries.

trebligdivad 11mo ago

Yeh it probably is expensive - but we currently have no other way (other than gas) to cover the low-wind/sun periods; while there are times when the UK can almost run purely off wind, there are other periods where we get ~5% of that wind energy for a week or so; the battery storage is nowhere near useful for that.

pfdietz 11mo ago
Hydrogen or low capex thermal. The UK has adequate salt formations for large scale storage of hydrogen.
- MagicMoonlight 11mo ago
  Hydrogen is the worst possible fuel. It's the least dense material in existence so you need a ton of it. It has to be made from either cracking polluting materials, or using a huge amount of electricity. It is really difficult to store and really flammable. Nuclear is endless clean energy. Why do people like you keep ruining everything? If it wasn't for you, we'd have had full nuclear by 1980. No oil problems, no terrorist states, no dubai.
  - pfdietz 11mo ago
    This would be green hydrogen. Sure, it has low density, but underground storage is pretty cheap at scale. Yes, it's flammable, but that can be handled, and is handled routinely -- the world currently produces and consumes 700 cubic kilometers (at STP) of hydrogen per year. The huge advantage of hydrogen here is that a gas turbine power plant might cost $600/kW, a tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant. So if you have a need for a backup plant whose cost will be dominated by amortization of its fixed cost, hydrogen beats nuclear.
  - lostlogin 11mo ago
    > Nuclear is endless clean energy. The UK hasn’t had any nuclear waste problems? It might be the solution but pretending it’s perfect is how we got here.
- 11mo ago