this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
82 points (98.8% liked)

United Kingdom

4094 readers
126 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear is not renewable energy.

It’s not even green energy.

Renewables are the superior choice in price and effect.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s not a zero-sum game and we are in a climate emergency.

As I type this, wind is only making up 13% of grid demand, down from well over 50% last week - which means that gas generation is sitting at over 62% http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Nuclear is a reasonable lower carbon way of serving base-load when wind/solar aren’t delivering . I just wish, as with all things climate-related, we had committed to this 30 years ago.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And renewables are quicker, cheaper, and lower footprint.

Its a no brainer. People need to let go of ‘50s nuclear romanticism.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And once again - it's not a zero-game and we are in a climate emergency. Nuclear is a useful adjunct to renewables and some people need to let go of their 1970s nuclear doomerism.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.

And it’s not doom, it’s common sense. Renewables are better long term and quicker and cheaper to setup today, why take the worse option during an emergency?

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

But we don’t, there is zero benefit to building nuclear today over renewables.

What are your practical proposals for generating 25 Gigawatts over a sustained period on a day like today when there is not much wind and negligable solar generation?

[–] Naich@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There needs to be a mix of sources, and unfortunately nuclear is the best way to provide a reliable source that can be ramped up or down instantly to plug gaps in supply from renewables.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ramping up nuclear is not instant and is not ideal because it causes more waste by altering the working lifetime of the fuel.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Even then it's preferable to gas

[–] Naich@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They should have been ramping it up 20 years ago. Short-termism fucks us again. Better late than never, I suppose.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Gas is not a renewable or green.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

... So what do you when there's no wind or sun?