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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      216 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        114 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            11 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.