UK to put nuclear power at heart of net zero emissions strategy

Good to hear. Britain managed to pull some common sense out of its ass for a change.


UK ministers will put nuclear power at the heart of Britain’s strategy to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in government documents expected as early as next week, alongside fresh details of its funding model. Kwasi Kwarteng, business secretary, is to unveil an overarching “Net Zero Strategy” paper as soon as Monday, along with a “Heat and Building Strategy” and a Treasury assessment of the cost of reaching the 2050 goal. The main strategy will have a heavy focus on Britain’s slow-moving and long-awaited nuclear power programme.

The country’s existing reactors are due to be retired by 2035, with construction on just one large plant, Hinkley Point C, already under way. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was expected to give the go-ahead to the strategy documents at a cabinet “away day” in the West Country on Friday. The creation of a “regulated asset base” (RAB) model will be key to delivering a future fleet of large atomic power stations. The RAB funding model is already used for other infrastructure projects, such as London’s Thames Tideway super sewer. Under the scheme, households will be charged for the cost of the plant via an energy levy long before it begins generating electricity, which could take a decade or more from when the final investment decision is taken. The mechanism is designed to encourage investment by institutional investors, such as pension funds, by guaranteeing steady returns from early on.

Legislation on the nuclear RAB model will be published later this month. However, opponents of the model argue that consumers could be hit with cost of construction overrunning. French utility EDF plans to use an RAB model to finance a new 3.2 gigawatt plant at Sizewell in Suffolk, South East England. In north Wales, US nuclear company Westinghouse is planning to revive plans for a nuclear power plant at Wylfa that was abandoned by Japan’s Hitachi in 2019. Ministers are also backing smaller modular reactors (SMRs) which are being developed by a consortium led by Rolls-Royce. Supporters of SMRs say these could be built in factories and have lower costs and risks than large atomic plants. SMRs were also a key part of French president Emmanuel Macron’s €30bn investment plan announced earlier this week to boost his country’s green and high-tech industries.

Full article Subscribe to read | Financial Times

What an odd place to get common sense from. Is that where yours resides?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backspin

Good to hear. Britain managed to pull some common sense out of its ass for a change.

---

Google Rolls-Royce SMRs, the UK is trying to divorce itself of the Froggie's and Chinks in the nuclear sphere.

I wonder what the anti nuclear bohemian boomers on here think of this:)

if i recall Nev is an anti nuclear bohemian https://teakdoor.com/customavatars/avatar53666_18.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backspin

I wonder what the anti nuclear bohemian boomers on here think of this:)

if i recall Nev is an anti nuclear bohemian https://teakdoor.com/customavatars/avatar53666_18.gif

---

Do try and use the English language, instead of your self appointed childish dictionary.

This is PFI under a different umbrella. Get someone else to pay for an as yet, unproven system, with the issue of expensive and dangerous nuclear waste still unresolved.

Sadly nuclear power is as bad for the environment as burning finite reserves of fossil fuels. A country like UK with its vast coastline and free resources of solar, wind and wave power, should be in an ideal position to exploit unlimited supplies of cheap, renewable energy, with few of the cumulative costs in waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Switch

Do try and use the English language, instead of your self appointed childish dictionary.

This is PFI under a different umbrella. Get someone else to pay for an as yet, unproven system, with the issue of expensive and dangerous nuclear waste still unresolved.

Sadly nuclear power is as bad for the environment as burning finite reserves of fossil fuels. A country like UK with its vast coastline and free resources of solar, wind and wave power, should be in an ideal position to exploit unlimited supplies of cheap, renewable energy, with few of the cumulative costs in waste.

---

I could debunk your ridiculous neo malthusian anti nuclear nonsense line by line. But I won't bother

To say that nuclear produces the same pollution as fossil fuels is like saying 1+1=40.

The point is , they've already decided to go nuclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Switch

Do try and use the English language, instead of your self appointed childish dictionary.

This is PFI under a different umbrella. Get someone else to pay for an as yet, unproven system, with the issue of expensive and dangerous nuclear waste still unresolved.

Sadly nuclear power is as bad for the environment as burning finite reserves of fossil fuels. A country like UK with its vast coastline and free resources of solar, wind and wave power, should be in an ideal position to exploit unlimited supplies of cheap, renewable energy, with few of the cumulative costs in waste.

---

The truth is we got trapped in an outdated nuclear power technology by a military industrial complex that requires breeder reactors for material for their weapons, and a misguided ecological lobby who made the development of new technology too expensive to advance and be approved .
The nuclear waste argument is a red herring,
One because new generation nuclear reactors produce less waste , and some of it can be repurposed for further electrical generation.
And two, they say that nuclear waste will last for Thousands of years, and that would be true if our technology to deal with it remained static for the next thousand years. But anyone who takes two minutes to think about it and has half a brain knows it's not true.
From you past posts I know you have half a brain , so think about it for two minutes. will you? LOL

Good luck powering a passenger aircraft with wind, wave or solar power, switch.

It seems we can add ‘renewable energy’ to the lengthy list of topics about which you have no clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyrille

Good luck powering a passenger aircraft with wind, wave or solar power, switch.

It seems we can add ‘renewable energy’ to the lengthy list of topics about which you have no clue.

---

Isn't most everything on earth powered by solar power? except for things that derive their energy from Geothermal.
So the trick is how to receive that solar energy, store it, and retrieve it from such storage for use by different components requiring energy.
So airplanes, you can either use the solar energy collected by plants and stored in hydrocarbons biologically, or use the energy collected by solar panels and stored in various mediums,one of which might be hydrogen. then .........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyrille

Good luck powering a passenger aircraft with wind, wave or solar power, switch.

It seems we can add ‘renewable energy’ to the lengthy list of topics about which you have no clue.

---

TBF generating hydrogen is energy intensive and not worth the squeeze in the past, but with greater renewable generation where at times the full output is not required the excess power can he used in storage or in hydrogen production which significantly lowers the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Backspin

I wonder what the anti nuclear bohemian boomers on here think of this:)

if i recall Nev is an anti nuclear bohemian https://teakdoor.com/customavatars/avatar53666_18.gif

---

I am not anti-nuclear and I certainly wouldn't describe my lifestyle as Bohemian, so that's a 100% fail rate so far, Backspit. Well done. :)

I think the SMR route is an interesting one and I'd like to see it work. The UK government seems to be supporting it so that's a good start. However, I don't think it will be as easy to roll out as the developers are suggesting but time will tell. Let's see how much objection there is to them being built in different parts of the country.

One thing that makes me laugh a bit is that nuclear power is being touted as clean energy. This is based on it not using fossil fuels and thus SMRs will be generating low carbon electricity. Yes, it is low carbon electricity - and if that's the most important thing, great - but nuclear power is not really clean. Nuclear waste from nuclear reactors will be with us for quite some time. Uranium 235 has a half-life of 700 million years.

I see Canada also has a plan for SMRs. Perhaps Backspin will have one located near him and he will be able to jump industry for a more interesting work-life.

The type of reactor to be used in the UK's SMRs will apparently be pressurised water reactors. What kind of reactors will be used in Canada, Backspin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

One thing that makes me laugh a bit is that nuclear power is being touted as clean energy.

---

True but until we get sufficient renewables that are consistently reliable and can cope with short term reduction in wind generated power it will be a necessary evil. I'm no fan either setting aside my interest in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

I think the SMR route is an interesting one and I'd like to see it work.

---

Been up and running for some time at the RR Vulcan site, all based off the kettles used in the Astute class subs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

but nuclear power is not really clean. Nuclear waste from nuclear reactors will be with us for quite some time. Uranium 235 has a half-life of 700 million years.

---

perhaps barking but with developments in space tech and payload then maybe we'll be able to remove it from earth in the longer term

Renewable energy will never be a satisfactory replacement for the base-load energy the UK needs. The need for a large quantity of constant and reliable generating capacity is why nuclear energy and coal-fired plants have been used for decades. I can't see renewables ever performing that role. All they will ever do is change the balance a bit, IMO. Perhaps renewables will replace the gas-fired plants that popped up in the 1990s now that Britain's gas reserves are reducing.

Ignoring Backspin and his ‘neo Malthusian’ world for a moment, I have to repeat that the finest brains in the world continue to struggle with the nuclear waste issue. Anyone who cares to check will discover that waste has accumulated, and continues to do so, because the problem is thoroughly intractable.
It has been growing since the inception of nuclear power in the 1940s. The most eminent scientists have yet to arrive at a workable solution.
Stockpiles in the USA are sealed in containers that are leaking and degrading after only a few years in storage. No one wants to live with it, but the greatest minds (sit down Cyrille) have yet to find a solution.

Just because something has a life measured in millennia, does not mean we have millennia to resolve the issue. Stocks can only be recycled up to a point, after which, it becomes part of the insoluble storage and waste issue.

Science may well find new ways to store and use renewables, but the biggest issue will still be radioactive waste accumulation. The power source can always be refined and improved, but nuclear power will always produce dangerous waste. Disposal of that waste is nowhere near as easy as some seem to think.

Interesting that the UK government is paying people to remove gas fired boilers, and one of the alternatives is ground source heat pumps. Another renewable to add to the list of Cyrille’s impossible renewable power sources. Aircraft powered by electricity are in the pipeline already you utterly fucking ignorant dinosaur. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neverna

Renewable energy will never be a satisfactory replacement for the base-load energy the UK needs. The need for a large quantity of constant and reliable generating capacity is why nuclear energy and coal-fired plants have been used for decades. I can't see renewables ever performing that role. All they will ever do is change the balance a bit, IMO. Perhaps renewables will replace the gas-fired plants that popped up in the 1990s now that Britain's gas reserves are reducing.

---

I think the Candle Maker's made the same argument against electric lights.

According to a Reuter's? thing I read nuclear is the way forward and they also stated a worldwide grid so that countries with excess etc..
Which puts UK in the forward thinking league with their undersea cable to Morocco

What could possibly go wrong with wind farms and Solar energy in the UK:)

Well, a lot less than could go wrong with nuclear, tbf.

But you have a brain the size of a pea, so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

According to a Reuter's? thing I read nuclear is the way forward and they also stated a worldwide grid so that countries with excess etc..
Which puts UK in the forward thinking league with their undersea cable to Morocco

---

The UK electricity grid is already connected to France, the Netherlands and Ireland.

Ireland recently imported €14m worth of electricity from the UK.

Electricity shortfall forces €14m purchase of emergency power

Quote:

---

Sep 29, 2021

The Republic sought the electricity during a period when wind speeds were low, leaving renewable power generators unable to supply energy. Two gas-fired plants were also out of action.

Low wind speeds and temporary power-plant shutdowns have dogged the Republic’s electricity supplies since the beginning of this year. Regulators have issued eight warnings about stretched capacity since January.

The east-west interconnector, running from Co Meath to Wales, is one of two power lines linking Ireland with Britain through which electricity can be imported or exported. The other runs south-north from Islandmagee in Co Antrim to Scotland.

---

Regarding the undersea cable from Morocco, from what I have read, it won't be connected to the Moroccan electricity grid. The cable will simply connect the UK to the solar farm located in Morocco.

You do seem to want my attention with all the stalking your doing.

Perhaps your Pea brain would like to inform us, How wind and solar would be more efficient for the Uk's needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyrille

Well, a lot less than could go wrong with nuclear, tbf.

But you have a brain the size of a pea, so...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Switch

Interesting that the UK government is paying people to remove gas fired boilers, and one of the alternatives is ground source heat pumps

---

Actually its largely air source heat pumps, most dwellings don't have the real estate for ground source.

Ground source heat pumps are indeed unlikely to take hold in a country with the population density of the UK.

Recycling heat from incineration has potential.

In the pipeline: networks to warm UK homes using surplus heat | Energy industry | The Guardian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyrille

Ground source heat pumps are indeed unlikely to take hold in a country with the population density of the UK.

Recycling heat from incineration has potential.

In the pipeline: networks to warm UK homes using surplus heat | Energy industry | The Guardian

---

Another example of renewable energy. Provided incineration is accompanied by effective filtering for waste gasses produced by this method.
The plants also require effective recycling and removal of toxic wastes.

You're going to suggest we should use cows farts next :)

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Switch

Sadly nuclear power is as bad for the environment as burning finite reserves of fossil fuels. A country like UK with its vast coastline and free resources of solar, wind and wave power, should be in an ideal position to exploit unlimited supplies of cheap, renewable energy, with few of the cumulative costs in waste.

---

and this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Switch

I have to repeat that the finest brains in the world continue to struggle with the nuclear waste issue. Anyone who cares to check will discover that waste has accumulated, and continues to do so, because the problem is thoroughly intractable.

It has been growing since the inception of nuclear power in the 1940s. The most eminent scientists have yet to arrive at a workable solution.

Stockpiles in the USA are sealed in containers that are leaking and degrading after only a few years in storage. No one wants to live with it, but the greatest minds (sit down Cyrille) have yet to find a solution.

Just because something has a life measured in millennia, does not mean we have millennia to resolve the issue. Stocks can only be recycled up to a point, after which, it becomes part of the insoluble storage and waste issue.

Science may well find new ways to store and use renewables, but the biggest issue will still be radioactive waste accumulation. The power source can always be refined and improved, but nuclear power will always produce dangerous waste. Disposal of that waste is nowhere near as easy as some seem to think.

Another renewable to add to the list of Cyrille’s impossible renewable power sources. Aircraft powered by electricity are in the pipeline already you utterly fucking ignorant dinosaur. :)

---