Nuclear is eye-wateringly costly, painfully slow & totally unnecessary - Government’s latest announcement is costly distraction from far more effective ways to tackle the
https://nitter.cz/search?q=%23climatecrisis
& bring down energy bills. We don’t need more nuclear white elephants
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/11/uk-government-sets-out-plans-for-biggest-nuclear-power-expansion-in-70-years
🐦🔗: https://nitter.cz/CarolineLucas/status/1745371133849784348#m
[2024-01-11 09:04 UTC]
@guigsy @CarolineLucas If Nuclear power is to get investment, invest in clean fusion, not dirty fission.
*sigh*
Nuclear is absolutely the cleanest way of generating a *guaranteed* supply of power that doesn't emit GHG. We can't rely on solar or wind. Is it perfect? No. No solution is.
@Tarbh @CarolineLucas what if it's cheaper, lower risk and faster just to over provision solar, wind and storage?
@guigsy @CarolineLucas Then it'd be worth looking at *if* it's also greener. And I'm not sure it can be, when you bring storage into the equation. Modern small scale thorium reactors are *much* safer than what went before. And guarantee supply on the darkest, calmest day.
@Tarbh @CarolineLucas I've seen small scale reactors promising this for more than 20 years. But I've not seen any commercial deployments that have delivered more than a couple of units and they've ended up costing roughly the same per GW as large scale bespoke reactors.
@CarolineLucas Keep existing nuclear plants running if they are viable. The damage has already been done. But new plants just don't make sense. The cost of nuclear is astronomical. And it doesn't even consider the cleanup cost for future generations. Most cost effective thing to do is invest in efficiency so we don't need the power in the first place. Then massive over provision of a mix of renewables with a load of various storage technologies. It'll be cheaper and deliver faster.