With the ever-ongoing ‘progress’ of the proposed UK nuclear power plants, I wonder if this is the best course of action (not just in the UK, but across other nations also)?
With the ever-ongoing ‘progress’ of the proposed UK nuclear power plants, I wonder if this is the best course of action (not just in the UK, but across other nations also)?
I see, so you believe it’s regional dependent, and we should be focussed on the least harmful methods/plan?
Wind, solar and geothermal. Nuclear is far too expensive per kilowatt to even compare. Geothermal is the best idea given newer drilling technology and simplicity. That said nuclear is always brought up when corporations can make taxpayers “contribute” via tax dollars with no real savings to those taxed. Corporations love those deals and politicians love the campaign contributions.
Don’t suppose you have the statistics to back that one up, do you?
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2025_LCOE_report.pdf
Yes, and again, with redundancy, so that does mean probably a nuclear plant connected to tap into any part of the grid, even if it’s not normally used. Same with wind and solar, they should help with reducing nuclear power use in nearby grids if they’re overproducing past their typical storage plan. An example of what happens when you try to run a separate grid without that capacity is Texas.
And continued work to reduce the impact of all of these. Better nuclear designs (some places have thorium in the works, and of course there’s always fusion in the future), also improving wind and solar in their materials and construction, something often not talked about. They need to be far more “renewable” recyclable than they are, and less toxic to create. One reason solar is so cheap is because its outsourced to places that don’t have strict rules on where to dump byproducts of their production, and of course cheaper labor. That needs to get better.