(Very quiet) Hooray for beginning more nuclear power

[SerendipityJane]

Lots more please. Should never have stopped building them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87w5ld0p80o

There's really no need to be so rude and sharp. I engaged really openly further up the thread and gave lots of information about my experience.
If you didn't want a reasonable, polite discussion why did you start this thread?

I said nobody has been killed YET. That's a fact.
My point is that if it goes wrong the potential is catastrophic.

You would notice Hinckley C if it spent 13 years being built in your area.

Agreed. Nuclear power is not green and producing tonnes of radioactive waste that will be poisonous for generations and generations to come is a terrible legacy for our children. Especially Especially it would be cheaper to just invest in tidal/wind/solar!

Also uranium needs to be mined at human and environmental cost.

Won't make our energy cheaper but create more costs

Doesn't make economic or environmental sense but gets government subsidies cos of lobbying...

And I would be grateful for the jobs it provided, the energy it will provide and the freedom from having to deal with murderers like Putin, or the repressive regimes of the middle east.

What about it being built with Chinese money?
Or being the target of terror/attack by repressive regimes?

IF we can get someone else to pay for it, why not ? If you believe MN that's how half the country live anyway.

And things being a target for criminals should never be a reason for not acting. Especially when it's for the benefit of all (assuming you like electricity). I have a rather "don't let them win" approach to such things. But maybe I'm odd ?

Strange to take money from a country that the UK considers a serious security threat though.

I have a 'if there's a feasible and potentially less disruptive and dangerous alternative don't put yourself in harms way' approach to things.

We obviously have very different opinions on this. My view is a personal one based on a lifetime of living near a nuclear power station and a decade of close proximity to the construction of a new one.

I hope they build the next one near you as you seem excited about it and my bit of the world has done our bit.

Only in the sense that the sun is a nuclear chain reactor, but so what?

Er, are you sure about that ?

Can you explain what you mean by "And 99.9% of renewables are nuclear powered anyway. 100% if you are a pedant" then if you think @Summerhillsquare is wrong?

Is nuclear power not getting more expensive and subject to long construction delays when renewable power is getting faster to deliver and cheaper all the time?

Almost all renewable energy comes from the nuclear fusion our sun is pretty good at (no chain reactions involved).

I'm happy to concede that some geothermal energy comes from the gravitational compression of the earth due to the sun (which I guess means it's still solar in a way 😀). Also there is radioactive decay in the earths core which produces heat.

999:1 was a thumb in the air split - don't quote me 😆

So @Summerhillsquare was right.

If you are willing to combine gravitational energy and energy from a nuclear reaction then yes.

I'm afraid I will never be convinced.
I remember the Chernobyl meltdown well. And there are still concerns regarding the proximity of military strikes in the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
Waste products from nuclear power remain dangerous for thousands and thousands of years.
I also worry about nuclear power plants being targets.
It's a no brainer for me that something that could cause such devastating ecological consequences is not the way forward when we're meant to be trying to protect the planet.

Good question. When I retired, I happened to check out nuclear power station safety records with my Art History course with the Open University.

Here's some statistics (admittedly from AI):

"Nuclear energy is significantly safer than natural gas, with fatality rates 97.6% lower than gas. Nuclear produces nearly zero greenhouse gases and has a lower total mortality rate (including accidents/air pollution) compared to fossil fuels. While gas is cheaper to build, it causes far more air pollution and climate-related health risks.

Safety Comparison Key Points:

• Death Rates: Nuclear energy results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal, 99.8% fewer than coal, 99.7% fewer than oil, and 97.6% fewer than gas.
• Air Pollution & Health: Fossil fuels, including natural gas, cause significantly more premature deaths annually due to air pollution.
• Accidents vs. Routine Risk: While nuclear accidents are high-profile (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima), they are extremely rare. Gas-powered electricity causes consistent, ongoing deaths from pollution and operational hazards.
• Environmental Impact: Nuclear is a low-carbon, zero-emission source, whereas gas produces significant greenhouse gases.
• Waste Management: Nuclear waste is very low in volume compared to waste from fossil fuels, and it is strictly managed in shielded facilities.

Key Considerations:

• Nuclear: High upfront capital costs and long construction times. However, modern Gen III/IV reactors have improved safety mechanisms to prevent accidents.
• Gas: Faster and cheaper to build, but contributes to carbon emissions and poses risks related to explosions, leaks, and mining.

Conclusion: In terms of deaths per unit of electricity produced, nuclear energy is comparable to renewable energy sources like wind and solar, making it one of the safest options available."

Have you looked into the actual quantities, though? They aren’t really vast at all.
Communities have to volunteer to host a deep geological repository (some already have). There won’t be any placed against the will of locals.

Today, its 15% nuclear and 25% wind

Here are countries ranked by share of electricity generated from wind power (%) — using the most recent widely reported data (mostly 2023–2024 figures):
🌬️ Top countries by wind share of electricity

1. 🇩🇰 Denmark — ~55–60%
2. 🇮🇪 Ireland — ~35–40%
3. 🇬🇧 United Kingdom — ~30–35%
4. 🇩🇪 Germany — ~25–30%
5. 🇵🇹 Portugal — ~25–30%
6. 🇪🇸 Spain — ~20–25%
7. 🇸🇪 Sweden — ~20–25%
8. 🇳🇱 Netherlands — ~15–20%
9. 🇺🇾 Uruguay — ~30–40% (varies year to year)
10. 🇱🇹 Lithuania — ~25–30%

🧠 Important context

• These are percent of electricity, not total energy use
• Smaller countries (like Denmark) can reach higher % more easily
• Wind share fluctuates year to year depending on weather

⚡ Big countries (for perspective)

• 🇺🇸 United States — ~10–12%
• 🇨🇳 China — ~9–10%
• 🇮🇳 India — ~5–7%

📊 Key takeaway

• Northern Europe dominates due to:
• strong, consistent winds
• good grid integration
• long-term policy support

If you want, I can break this down by onshore vs offshore wind (the UK is especially interesting there), or show how fast these shares are growing.

Correction

today it's 15% nuclear 35% wind 😀

This new site is for SNRs - completely different from the scale at Hinckley!

Thanks.
Hinckley is a disgrace.

Are you honestly comparing the waste from coal mines to the waste of nuclear fuel? How much of the coal waste has a half life that will make people ill if they stay in the same vicinity as the waste for any length of time?

Someone from the nuclear industry or a paid sycophant might come out with such claptrap but beyond that I am incredulous at the idea that the two can be compared. We are not talking about shifting rocks here. We are talking about something that will still be dangerous to stand next to in a thousand years time.

Or more accurately, a hundred thousand years time. That is actually longer than our species has existed in Europe.

Are you aware that a coal plant both releases over a hundred times more radioactivity into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant and also leaves behind vastly greater quantities of radioactive waste compared with a nuclear power plant? This is because coal contains uranium and thorium that is left behind when you burn it.
We can't make decisions like this on feelings around risk alone, which is why governments sit down and calculate this stuff and usually continue with nuclear power programmes (unless they are swayed by the electorate as they were in Germany, where they now have much more radioactive waste to deal with after returning mostly to coal).

We can't make decisions like this on feelings around risk alone,

Why not ? Never stopped us before.

Ok I wasn’t aware that in certain places with certain coal fuels such high radioactivity had been measured so that’s interesting. It seems this is a matter of debate still. Generally potential radioactive content seems very dependent on the specific coal strata used, and there are questions about the whole-life radioactivity release of nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing, generally that’s likely to be far higher. It also helps that coal plants are from a far older technology dating to when no one built with safety measures in, whereas nuclear power stations are considered safety critical, with good reason since when things go wrong they go very very wrong. I’ll have to look further.

I found this discussion if anyones interested.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why-is-coal-ash-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste-and-what-is-the-exact-reason