Designs chosen for mini nuclear reactors - Feddit UK
feddit.uk
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/5912949 [https://lemmy.ml/post/5912949] > EDF, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International LLC, Holtec Britain Limited, NuScale Power, Rolls Royce and Westinghouse Electric Company UK Limited have been chosen for the next stage of the process. > > The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition is part of the government’s plan for up to a quarter of all UK electricity to come from nuclear power by 2050.

Xpost from UK Energy.

Are we never going to stop this madness?

Nuclear will not help us with immediate energy needs, it will not help with climate change and it is worse for the environment, and it costs more than renewables.

The only people who benefit are the shareholders of nuclear companies and the government shit stains who pocket their brown envelopes and take the “consulting” jobs offered by the industry for services rendered.

And all this time, effort and money, OUR MONEY, is not being spent on renewables that can do what we need NOW.

We cannot continue to accept this or any other option that is not renewable.

Any and all opposition against renewable energy is generated and spread by the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.

Nothing I’ve said here is even controversial, there isn’t any hiding from it.

We have to fight this and we have to win.

  • DoomBot5@lemmy.worldEnglish
    61·
    1 year ago

    Spoken like someone who truly knows nothing about nuclear power or really any kind of power generation.

  • Nighed@sffa.communityEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    It’s probably the only environmentally friendly base load option other than overbuilding renewables and building lots of battery storage.

    Nuclear is probably cleaner than building that many batteries…

    The micro reactors aim to (hopefully) reduce the main issues with traditional nuclear power.

  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    The cross-post seems to see this as a zero-sum game - nuclear or renewables. Personally I’m in favour of throwing everything at the problem inclusing nuclear for some base load… If these smaller reactors can be built more swiftly than regular ones, good.

  • FatLegTed@feddit.ukEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    In the time it takes to get these up and generating, we could have had lots of renewables up and generating. And for less cost. And less environmental damage and clean up, down the line.

    • mannycalavera@feddit.ukEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Mate, if you want to convince people that your point of view is better than theirs you might start by not cursing them with poxes.

      Maybe stop moaning at them and people might want to listen?

    • crapwittyname@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear energy is much much cleaner than gas. If we can replace our reliance on gas with nuclear then that’s a step in the right direction. If, for any reason whatsoever, nuclear is a more viable option than renewable, even if that reason is corporate greed, then we take it and then phase nuclear out later as we increase the renewable load. The situation is too urgent to quibble over which green energy to use. We just need to get shut of gas and coal.

      Some facts:
      Nuclear energy is not a contributor to greenhouse gases.
      Nuclear power plants are safe.

        • crapwittyname@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Do you think we will be able to create or import enough renewable energy to fill the hole left by gas in the time it would take to build these reactors? How? And what is your response to the legitimate concern that renewable energy technology at its current maturity does not provide a stable power base?