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.

  • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    The rest of the world are about to go all in on geothermal and we’re just about to start going in on the stop-gap solution. I wish Starmer had more imagination, we could be world leaders in geothermal and that would generate revenue for decades.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I don’t, but we’re seeing growing investment in geothermal. Admittedly, it could just be the RSS feeds I’m subscribed to. Nuclear only shifts problems down the line.

    • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      12 hours ago

      If we are talking mononuclear renewables, I understand that the UK is in an enviable position regarding wind, being one of, if not, the windiest nations in Europe. If I haven’t misremembered maybe we should prioritise wind generation. Leave geothermal to places like Iceland, or maybe the nations around the Pacific Rim.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        So on both points:
        Recent studies have shown that the intermitency of wind and solar means countries with a high reliance on it are especially prone to gas price shocks, that issue dissapears if the country has a good amount of nuclear or hydroelectric in the mix.

        Regarding geothermal the UK, particularly parts of Scotland, are actually rather suited to more modern types of geothermal with a lot of hot dense rock at depths we previously couldn’t drill too but are now much more able to.

        • C A B B A G E
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          There’s new geothermal being implemented in the southwest too for what it’s worth - so it’s not like it’s not happening in the UK, it’s just going to be at the extreme south and north.

      • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Because nuclear isn’t a long-term solution. It shifts problems down the line. Geothermal on the other hand is a clean and neverending resource.

        • bob
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 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
              6 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.