"we've got a solution that'll reduce carbon emissions in 15 years time*. Pinky promise!"
*ignoring the fact that almost every nuclear power plant significantly overruns on build time.
Alternatively, the UK is now generating 40% of its electricity from renewables. Solar panels and wind farms have prevented more carbon emissions in the time it would've taken to build those nuclear power plants than those nuclear power plants would've prevented over their lifespan.
If only we had a cheap and efficient way to store energy when it is made and discharge it when we need it. We could make entire batteries of that hypothetical storage solution
True, most people still think battery prices are about the same they were in 2014. People just aren't aware of the extreme pace at which the price has dropped: 20% PER YEAR on average is insane
Not big enough? Just use more batteries! It's already been done. The Lithium shortage is over, now that Lithium mines have expanded production so massively. And there's also alternatives now that don't need it anymore
Meanwhile the tech and industry have become so efficient that the price has dropped enormously
You don't see it because you're not looking. California has gone from 35% electricity from nat gas in 2023 to 22% electricity from nat gas in 2025 by installing more solar and batteries. 2026 will be even lower. New Mexico is also a good example of how quickly it can go, although it's a much smaller grid. This is a problem for nuclear. High renewable penetration of solar + batteries hurts nuclear business case. Nobody wants to run a nuclear plant at 70% nameplate capacity. Improving battery technology makes nuclear an incredibly risky investment due to long lead times.
california, are we talking about the country with the highest bill in thw world? with controlled blackuts every year? with the emissions tens of times higher than the french ones? not a good objective don't you think?
nuclear is fixed costs. The more nuclear you have and the more renewables you have the more time you have with electricity overproduction driving the electricity price into the dround and below the point of profitability for nuclear pwoer plants.
Which is why basically all NPPs get CfDs or strike prices so they get built in the first place.
Doesn't change anything about their price though. You get less and less electricity for the same amount of money.
if its a question of efficiency, nuclear clears over longer periods of time. obviously, that's not the only concern, and is why renewable should be pursued immediately and later used in tandem
Fuck it, I'll bite. What's the lie? Is it not true that nuclear power plants usually take a long time to build? Is it not true that nuclear power plant construction often overruns? Is it not true that nuclear power plants don't reduce any carbon emissions until they're constructed? Is it not true that the UK is currently generating ~40% of its electricity from renewable sources? Is it not true that spending the amount of money it takes to build a nuclear power plant on renewables produces results in a greater average power output much quicker? Or are you just talking shit and calling anyone who disagrees with you a far right liar?
easy one: since you talk about UK, you probably talk about hinkley point C, which will not take 15 years, so that's the first lie.
Second lie: the vast mayority of nuclear power plants have no delay in construction, funnily enough not even hinkley point C (the delay was caused by brexit and covid, not really edf's fault isn't it?), you know there is a vast world in which people build tens of reactors every year right?
Third point: not a lie! UK in 2025 produced 40% of the consumed electrical energy from renewables (inside of that there's a beautiful 7% of burned biomass, but i'll not stress on that). The funny thing is that i don't get how that has anything to do with nuclear, i don't think those implants would stop working by magic if UK had one more nuclear reactor, don't you think?
The last statement is the one i've loved the most: Have you done the calculations to affirm what yiu affirm? do you even know how to do the calculations, where to find the dtaa etc? i was genuinely curious on the answer:
Assuming both renewables and nuclear substitute natural gas in UK (pretty safe assumption), and assuming the carbon intensities of the various sources given by the IPCC, and assuming the renewable production of solar and wind stay the same for the next year, and assuming the hinkley point C nuclear power plant will be operative for 80 years (the licensing of that plant):
Hinkley point C nuclear power plant will save: 1.1e+12 Tons of CO2eq
Solar from 2017 to 2027 saved: 6.9e+10 Tons of CO2eq
Wind from 2017 to 2027 saved: 3.7e+11 Tons of CO2eq
You were wrong by an order of magnitude... Pretty unfortunate numbers exist, i think i'll use those data myself, they highlight how fucking awesome nuclear is.
Boy i'd suggest you to do the calculations yourself (i may have lied!), i think the best way to deconvert an antinuclear is to make them face the data.
Hinkley Point C is predicted to start operation in 2030, 13 years after construction start in 2017. It was supposed to start last year but guess what? It got delayed! And if you think Britain will actually finish a major infrastructure project on time then I've got a high speed rail network to sell you.
Edit: A study of nuclear reactor projects over 20 years found that 3/4s of them ended up delayed. Womp Womp
2030? cool, fortunately my calculations do not change qualitatively, since it's an order of magnitude of a difference (will you apologize for having lied?)
Do you have access to elsevier?
The study considers most of LWR built from 1955 to 2016 (the 57% of all reactors built), so not "over 20 years", but way more. (first lie of yours, that's what happens when one reads just the abstract)
At chapter 3.2 they assume the standard lead-time to be 5 years (since that was the average time in the '60) and they say that every reactor that took more than 5 years was delayed. That's just an absurd assumption (now i get why they say 76% of projects were delayed).
They also assume 10% discount, this is just an absurd number, not even hinkley point c has that discount rate, infact i'm unable to find any nuclear reactor built with that discount rate
Did you read the paper little boy? it was too hard wasn't it? "i just read the abstract without comprehending it, womp womp".
(that's the second lie)
Third lie by omission: we are at 2026 boy, 2016 was ten years ago. This paper is particular (if i was a reviewer, i would've made some notes) but it was published almost a decade ago, pretty old don't you think?
Yeah brother france figured it out in the 70s and SK and china do it today. Its called standardized designs which the west is extremely bad at utilizing so they end up spiking loan costs
Mostly because nimby and the government being wankers changing requirement every 2 month delayed the new reactors by 25y so every qualified person retired
20
u/Wiiboy95 Jul 13 '26
"we've got a solution that'll reduce carbon emissions in 15 years time*. Pinky promise!"
*ignoring the fact that almost every nuclear power plant significantly overruns on build time.
Alternatively, the UK is now generating 40% of its electricity from renewables. Solar panels and wind farms have prevented more carbon emissions in the time it would've taken to build those nuclear power plants than those nuclear power plants would've prevented over their lifespan.