Interesting gamble the government is taking here. Unusually the environmentalists are right to be cautious, SMRs have been designed since the 90s and not a one of them has ever come to anything.

Also not completely sure why we’d need it. By the governments own plans we can expect our wind power to jump from 10gw to 50gw by 2035, which would mean being 100% renewable powered for months at a time.

Which will make it very very expensive, the research I’ve seen recently says nations that manage that transition can expect electric price falls of a quarter to a half, and that Hinckley plant is already going to be selling at over twice the unit price of any other source. I would expect SMR plans to collapse for that reason by itself.

  • bob
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Right, but you haven’t really answered the question. Why isn’t it a long term solution? Sure geothermal is great, but there’s space for both, amongst others.

      • bob
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Sure nuclear waste is a problem, but there are ways to dispose of it. I can’t see why it can’t be a long term solution.

        There’s problems and solutions for every type of energy production.