The real issue for governments is that it takes longer than one election cycle for them to be built.
They are worried that they might spend all that money and then not be in power to reap the political benefit.
Comment on Planned UK nuclear reactors unlikely to help hit green target, say MPs
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 months ago
However, in examining the role of SMRs, the EAC heard that a final investment decision on the first station in the UK is not expected until 2029. The timeline means it is unlikely to contribute to the 2035 target, or Labour’s pledge to run the grid on clean energy by 2030.
That argument is so old that you could have built three generations in that time. If you never start, it will allways be late.
Darkard@lemmy.world 8 months ago
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 8 months ago
I swear this happened before “We won’t bother building them, as they wouldn’t even be online until 2020!”
Meanwhile in 2024, we’d quite like some power, please.
Diplomjodler@feddit.de 8 months ago
These projects never get started because they never make sense. SMRs are simply not a mature technology at all so investing in them when safer and cheaper alternatives already exist is irrational.
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 months ago
Nuclear power plants are top 2 in area footprint for energy generation. It’s clean, safe and a reliable baseload source. Personally I’d rather have nuclear power plant in the outskirts of my city than littering our nature with noisy bird killing windmills. Solar is cool, but won’t work as a baseload source.
SMR won’t mature without investments, it’s the sort of short sightedness that has made us burn coal and gas for 50 unnecessary extra years.
Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 8 months ago
“IT’S NOT PERFECT SO WE SHOULD NEVER USE IT GRRRRRRR ATOMIC ENERGY BAD COAL GOOD”
Is what I hear/read every time someone whines about how it’s not developed enough.
It’s not developed enough because shits like that never let them get improved upon.
Imagine how much better the world would be if people didn’t still deep throat fossil fuel propaganda from the 50s and 60s.
Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
I mean, the entire purpose behind SMR’s is pretty much to circumvent the political opposition to built-in-place reactors.
thehatfox@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Considering our current track record with building infrastructure, even if construction starts there’s a good chance it would never be completed.
New nuclear power would likely attract far greater degree of the sort of budget scrutiny and NIMBYist political opportunism that’s already derailed HS2.
Womble@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Just when gas prices were spiking and countries that were heavily invested into nuclear were making massive profits and their citizens spared the worst of the price increases, I was reminded of Cameron cancelling the new generation of nuclear power plants in ~2010 as they wouldn’t be ready until 2022.
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 months ago
Yeah, and then you ask which industry might have profited from it. I swear to God, if nuclear hadn’t been a real threat to the coal and petroleum industry 50 years ago, it would never have gotten the reputation it got. Imagine where we could have been.
Diplomjodler@feddit.de 8 months ago
Oh and what’s a few meltdowns between friends?
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 8 months ago
Are we still yammering about Tsjernobyl in 2024? Ask France how they are doing, or USA.
If you’re genuinely worried about radiation According to estimates by the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the world’s coal-fired power stations currently generate waste containing around 5,000 tonnes of uranium and 15,000 tonnes of thorium. Collectively, that’s over 100 times more radiation dumped into the environment than that released by nuclear power stations.
FireTower@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Nuclear energy still has caused much less irradiation and deaths than coal.