153
Green party drops longstanding opposition to nuclear power (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The motion, adopted at conference, removes a “blanket opposition to nuclear fission” and instead commits the Green party of England and Wales to assessing nuclear projects alongside other low-carbon technologies.

Its electricity generation policy still prioritises offshore wind, onshore wind and rooftop solar as the primary sources of electricity, but allows elected representatives to support new nuclear reactors on a case-by-case basis.

This was one or the few areas I didn't align with the Green Party before, as I believe that a bit of nuclear is kind of necessary to help round out less consistent energy sources as things stand. I think this is a reasonable stance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 month ago (12 children)

This was one or the few areas I didn’t align with the Green Party before, as I believe that a bit of nuclear is kind of necessary to help round out less consistent energy sources as things stand. I think this is a reasonable stance.

Not to be too much of a dick but this is pretty typical of the pro-new nuclear mindset.

You "believe"? You don't have to believe, there is plenty of hard data showing that new nuclear is a massive waste of money now renewables and storage are so cheap.

I think this is a reasonable stance.

It's not, unless you want to pay more for electricity for absolutely no reason other than because you feel like you should.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 month ago*

    I might just be behind the times.

    I look over at France, who have managed to keep their energy prices low and keep their independence thanks to their large amount of Nuclear energy, and I'm jealous.

    Maybe we have fixed the energy storage issue now, and I'm just not aware of it. It's not my area of expertise.

    I genuinely want us to have more renewables, but I was still under the impression that you needed a "base" energy source to round things out. I don't want that to be coal or gas, so nuclear seems like the lesser evil.

    But if that's no longer an issue, then great!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    nuclear is a massive waste of money now renewables and storage are so cheap.

    And how cheap are renewables when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

    Renewables and batteries are awesome and we need more. But they aren't suited to all weather in all countries at all times. The UK has periods where there is not enough wind or sun or battery storage to sustain demand. Nuclear is not my first choice but it is a practical choice that can be helpful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    And how cheap are renewables when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?

    That's why I included storage in my comment. Wind and solar are very predictable across a longer time frame.

    The UK has periods where there is not enough wind or sun or battery storage to sustain demand.

    Really? Can you provide a source for this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute

    The wikipedia article itself has many sources, I won't pretend I have read them. Pretty sure I first heard of this in a modo energy video, but I couldn't find it. Regardless it is a well researched phenomenon and is a real challenge we need to overcome.

    Technically you could do it with enough battery storage but those batteries would be doing nothing most of the time when the weather is normal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    It's right there in the article, "To ensure power during such periods flexible energy sources may be used, energy may be imported, and demand may be adjusted."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    flexible energy sources may be used

    What do you think a flexible energy source is?

    It also says:

    Events that last more than two days over most of Europe happen about once every five years.

    To be clear, I am in favor of importing electricity across borders but if most of Europe is affected by Dunkelflaute then I don't think it would be sufficient. Lets hope for the best and plan for the worst.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    What do you think a flexible energy source is?

    NG or hydrogen peaker plants, hydro, tidal, flywheels, etc.

    To be clear, I am in favor of importing electricity across borders but if most of Europe is affected by Dunkelflaute then I don’t think it would be sufficient. Let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

    That's why this looks like a great idea:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco%E2%80%93UK_Power_Project

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    there is plenty of hard data showing that new nuclear is a massive waste of money

    Care to share some of it? Opinion seems pretty mixed from what I can tell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    This is a decent place to start:

    https://www.lazard.com/media/kcfconhf/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf

    Solar PV + Storage—Utility - $61-$156

    U.S. Nuclear - $175-$255

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •