note that cooling issues also affect traditional fossil fuel plants

given how stable and effective nuclear is at providing baseload power, I think it's wrong to generalize based on this article, or specific reactor technologies

that's very interesting, but note that large scale solar is not always viable in northern europe, solutions for one place don't always meet the needs of another

wind power is great in the UK, but running out of suitable sites, and the grid is not designed for distributed energy generation

renewables have hard limits, and are not necessarily made of recyclable materials, large battery tech is unproven for national energy grids, nuclear is proven, reliable, lower levelized cost of energy compared to fossil fuels.

we collectively need to decarbonise faster and nuclear is a good option.

debt that gets written off isn't really "debt", the principal debt is meaningless, it's essentially a graduate tax

I think this is really bad as it's important to be able to switch careers in the modern age, discouraging people from doing so hurts worker productivity and therefore the economy

We have plenty of solar and wind available, the problem is intermittency of these sources, nuclear fission is a reliable, non CO2 emitting source that could provide a good baseload, especially in UK.

To rely completely on renewables requires energy storage such as gravity batteries or pumped hydro.

eventually you would want to use local resources to secure energy independence anyway, why not do the hard challenge of starting a nuclear industry now - and create jobs that need the technical expertise

it's not like you would be actually starting from scratch, reactors are a mature technology now

how is it the 4th largest producer of uranium doesn't possess and industry that uses it?

Nuclear is extremely cheap compared to fossil fuels over long periods of time: youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?...

the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the 2nd best time is right now

I think a third runway is better in the long run, we need better infrastructure to support the transition to net zero

the big issue with air travel is the emissions from jet fuel, not runway construction itself

But surely if you actually mine uranium locally nuclear is pretty viable compared to fossil fuels at least.

Renewables still have limitations as well, no large energy grid can yet effectively run off any one source alone.

private enterprise must accept risk, like with any investment, subsidising poor management choices only builds a false economy

this just proves how foolish the idea of privatising critical infrastructure is, if it requires state funding to function, it probably needs to be owned by the state

playing both sides is a dangerous game, you risk falling between the cracks

Exactly. There are now 7 forms of renewable energy that are cheaper than or competitive with fossil fuels. And as they get cheaper, fossil fuels get more expensive due to decreasing demand and the need to exploit more expensive sources. 🧪🔌💡☀️💨🔋

the issue is that the reduction in local emissions is offset by the CO2 generated by imports

so this isn't the complete picture of the UK's carbon footprint

the longer a reactor is operating the more cost effective it becomes

there's a limit to renewable capacity, nuclear can be built anywhere and has a smaller footprint per kWh

nuclear is far better than a fossil fueled energy grid most countries rely on