Rolls-Royce SMR selected to build small modular nuclear reactors

But once that's all done, you are still left with broadly similar energy consumption

That wind and solar cannot satisfy.

It must, as if we lose fossil, nuclear is all we have left that actually works. And apart from ships, that means reactors driving steam turbines and asynchronous generators

Yes, could do. O rtake some from nuclear.

Don't know.

I'm not sure, it'd be tricky. Who, btw, is supporting 'no nuclear'? Of course, you can assume whatever you want - but to keep the assumptions reasonable you could frame them in something approaching the real world?

Absolutely, agreed. But if a household won't accept, say, a new kitchen, bathroom and efficient boiler, do you think they'd allow MVHR or solid wall insulation?

Yes, I suppose that could be what they think. And so we are where we are.

At the moment. But capacity is increasing daily, at less cost. I don't know the actual figures/projections. Just that as at now, energy consumption in homes is just less than services and industry combined, and just behind transport.

In my little book something more needs to be done. And it can be done.

'Nuclear is all we have that works'? Okey-dokey.

Yes. I know you *believe* in renewable energy. Unfortunately as a trained electrical engineer I don't do 'belief', I do Sums. Sadly there are no trained engineers apart from Kathryn Porter making it through to government since David Mackay died mysteriously of bowel cancer.

I pointed out her report, which explains all if you read it. I assume you didnt bother. Or my own paper.

I have skim-read it. Do you really want me to call on the figures you circulated in your pdf? You *still* stand by them, and the 3 basic premises on which your essay stands?

I'll take a look at the Porter report, thanks. Missed it earlier.

To be fair, the technology now (for extracting uranium from seawater as well as for the reactors) is a lot better than it was 50 years ago.

Then add the pollution from burning coal.

Uranium is not particularly rare, and the energy density is so high that higher energy and therefore more expensive extraction methods are no bar to its usage.

You could toss the reverse figures at us, the ones that show that wind and solar work.

I did some sums BTW, and my conclusion was that *given* a decent storage system - and I have no idea what it might be - wind is a better solution that solar. It doesn't turn off for 16 hours each and every day in the middle of winter just when we really need the power.

In the absence of a storage system capable of running the country for a day we need to burn something. And my preference would be uranium.

Andy

Wind might not turn off for 16 hours a day in winter, but it can, and has, essentially turned off for up to 14 days at a time, sometimes referred to as a Dunkelflaute. Gas has to step in and supply the missing ~4TWh in that time, and sometimes another Dunkelflaute turns up a few days later. Covering that shortfall is an enormous storage requirement.

Exactly. But as TNP points out, if you’re going to do that, you might as well throw away the wind turbines and have cheap reliable electricity generation from nuclear all the time.

I'm no expert - I rely on the figures of others far more qualified.

Indeed - most people are coming to that conclusion, government included.

This is where there's a sums dispute - nuclear *is* more expensive than renewables. That's why I asked whether he stood by figures and premises presented. I understand that there are many out there that think that nuclear ought to be cheaper. But the fact remains that it isn't. Two things:

1. Renewables are cheaper per kWh than nuclear - at least according to AI*. Overall system costs narrow the advantage, but the advantage remains.
2. Until storage can be arranged, renewables only work in the real world with sufficient backup. And that backup, at least according to current policy, is nuclear.

Dont tell porkies.

The issue is not what renewables cost when they are subisdised , its what the total cost of everything needed to make them work, is.

No, It is gas. Nuclear backs up nothing. Nuclear is baseload.gas is peak demand., Renewables are neither,

Then CSIRO is lying.

Nuclear has been traditionally in the $50-$70 /MWh. Solar works our at about $250-$400/Mwh and wind is in between at $12-$25/MWh

They are all paid for by renewables lobby orgainsations.

Lazard found that utility-scale solar and

$30/MWh for nuclear is a bit too cheap.

$40.MWh for wind is ludficrous, Its never been that cheap ever

Lol SMRs will reduce electricity prices to around 30% of what they are now once renewables are left to rot.

I don't think so.

You rely on figures that tell you what you want to hear Like Putin, or Trump.

Only took them 14 years after everybody who WAS qualified told them that.

Quote

As of 2025, the UK government has set the following subsidies for wind farm generators under the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme:

Offshore Wind Projects: The starting price for the next auction has been raised to £73 per megawatt hour (MWh). This is a significant increase from previous rounds, reflecting the rising costs in the sector.

Floating Offshore Wind Projects: The subsidy for floating offshore wind has been increased to £176 per MWh, up from £116 per MWh.

These adjustments are part of the government's efforts to ensure that wind projects remain economically viable amid rising costs and to encourage further investment in renewable energy.

The changes aim to support the UK's goal of expanding its offshore wind capacity significantly by 2030. Unquote

From DuckDuckGo AI

And on top of the subsidies of £73 to £176 per MWh for wind generation, added costs will be those of the electricity produced, the required full-load grid, and the storage necessary to fill the significant losses when the wind doesn’t blow - which can be two weeks followed a few days later by another lull, with no surplus energy available to recharge the storage in that time.

Please note that these costly subsidies are (quote) to ensure wind generation remains economically viable (unquote), which is a wonderful example of an oxymoron.

I can hardly take your figures at even face value. The last figures you provided with something approaching a source are over 10 years' old. Things have moved on.

I did give you the opportunity to confirm that your essay was effectively current but you decided against.

When have I cited one of that lot?

I diont think you will fid that te price of cionmcrete, and carnes used in building wind turbines have gone downm

No you didn't

My god, You don't even understand English...

Er . . .

Reply to you in this thread 12 Jun 2025 at 18:09:02 BST

OK, lack of full stop notwithstanding. Yes, I do. But as a reflex I always try to take on board the antithesis, counter etc.

And huge variables that you and many others discount or ignore include pollution, environmental/social/political impact, uncritical consumption of finite resources, and waste. Just because they're difficult to measure doesn't mean they don't exist.

As you speak of pollution, environmental/social/political impact, uncritical consumption of finite resources, and waste, note that a large wind turbine blade (around 60-80 meters long) may contain several tons of carbon fiber. Estimates suggest that carbon fiber can make up about 30-50% of the blade's weight.

The matrix resin, often an epoxy or polyester, is used to bind the carbon fibers together. The resin content can also vary, but it generally constitutes about 20-30% of the total weight of the blade.

The disposal of such wind turbine blades poses challenges due to these composite materials, which are not easily recyclable. Many go to landfill or are incinerated.

And a large turbine can use up to 1500 cubic metres of unrecyclable concrete, at 2.5 tons per cubic metre. Imagine how much concrete goes into the UK’s wind turbine fleet - it has been estimated at 11 million cubic metres, or 27.5 million tons, for the 30GW fleet, or almost a million tons per GW. And that’s referring to the plated capacity; taking into account the poor availability of wind power, Hinckley C is more economical on such unrecyclable concrete, in addition providing clean, reliable electricity for far longer than the erratic wind turbine fleet will.

If you don’t agree with these estimates, please feel free to research your own.