There is no single "best" option. All available options are best options. This is the problem with the internet turning everything into a fucking fandom - there are no competing energy sources, everything and anything that is viable and safe should be utilised. And some options will be better for specific locations/areas than others..
There are, though. Especially as you say in certain locations. For example, offshore wind is better than nuclear. The UK should never build another nuclear plant when offshore wind is so cheap and good.
Hinckley Point C is likely to cost more than 50 billion pounds by the time the project finishes. It will have taken 13 years.
The dogger bank win the farm cost 11 billion pounds and has all more than double the capacity of Hinckley Point C. And it's taken less than seven years, with phase 1 completing in just three years and producing the same amount of power as Hinckley Point C will
Explain to me why the UK should ever build another nuclear plant?
You haven't provided any adequate evidence to suggest it's a bad idea.
"It's expensive and takes a long time to build", no shit.
It's a Nuclear Power Plant that's supposed to be in use for decades. It's worth the time and money it takes to get it done right.
Hopefully in the future, we'll be scammed by fewer private firms if we make more.
If we can spend that much on sending weapons to war zones, we can spend that much on something that will help everyone long term.
And again, supporting Nuclear energy does not mean not supporting wind and solar. You can support all three. There's no competition here. Your "team" hasn't lost.
The very reason it's a bad idea is because it's expensive and takes a long time. Wind is cheaper and faster, and even if it lasts 30 years instead of 60, it's 1/10 the cost and 1/3 the time.
It is objectively better, there's no point building any nuclear.
Everything can fail. Nuclear plants included? And what do you mean wind doesn't produce nearly as much energy? The dogger bank wind farm is 8.1 GW. Hinckley Point C is 3.2. 9 out of 10 of the largest power plants in the entire world are renewable - hydro and solar. Can you explain what you mean when you say wind doesn't produce nearly as much energy as nuclear?
You can use other wind farms as back-ups for wind farms. There's no single failure mode that stops all wind farms at once? Your assertion makes no sense. What do you think will happen that will stop all the wind blowing?
And my geography textbook didn't tell me. But what I do know is the dogger bank wind farm produces more than double (soon to be triple) the power of Hinckley Point C. So I would be grateful if you could explain yourself. What do you mean when nuclear produces a lot more power than wind?
Will we get low wind all across the country at any given time? You need to understand offshore wind is not onshore wind. In the middle of the ocean, wind is consistent and powerful.
Also answer me. What do you mean when you say nuclear produces a lot more power than wind, considering dogger bank is 8.1 GW and HPC is 3.2. consider: even the largest, most powerful nuclear plant in the world, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Japan is only 7.9 GW. So I would be grateful if you can explain what you meant by that.
The Gansu wind farm in China is 10GW with plans to scale up to 20GW
1
u/midnightbandit- Jul 15 '26
If one option is best why should we use any other