What Went Wrong for Nuclear Energy in the UK

[@Real_Halo_MC]

The fact that construction in general for any large project in the UK being held back genuinely feels like the biggest thing stunting this country. A lot of infrastructure is in dire need of replacement, repair, or renovation, but then you see public projects spending 100s of millions on planning applications and analysis schemes, only for fuck all to get built. Also fully expecting even if the current government tried to push through for more nuclear plants to be built, there'd be opposition constantly without any real valid reasoning and just standard NIMBY bullshit, even though nuclear done right is one of the best sources of energy.

[@1258-Eckhart]

If it's any consolation, we have the precise same problem in Germany. We also have an insane goivernment that in the middle of an energy crisis closed down the last nuclear power stations out of blind ideology.

[@Wozza365]

Yep we have a massive NIMBY problem. We should be on like HS6 by now and should have built some new nuclear as well. Meanwhile housing projects are few and far between, usually in fields in the middle of nowhere made up primarily of single family houses or massive tower blocks no one wants to live in. Very little in between where many people want to live. Seeing Trump yesterday has me disappointed in our government. Not agreeing with the policies he enacted, but on day one he's getting things through left, right and centre. Labour really should have been doing the same in the first month of office. Far too slow and allowed bureaucrats too much control

[@loc4725]

Not just that. Apparently we didn't need all this extra gas storage (gasometers) so we got rid of them. I mean, it's not as if there's even a slight possibility of a supply shock due to actions by Russia or anything.

[@venanziadorromatagni1641]

@@1258-EckhartTo be fair, this was originally a decision by the previous administration, which was not exactly ideologically driven back then, but a classical example of ‘the greasy pole’ (Particularly annoying as Angie Merkel is actually a physicist by education) So this was not only ideological stupidity, but also, just stupidity.

[@youngwt1]

@@venanziadorromatagni1641thatcher was a chemist and look how that went

[@mechanical_films5537]

Classic Britain, managing to make a nuclear power station that is not only 3x more expensive than usual, but also takes like triple the usual construction time and is privately owned. Man I love this country, puts a ridiculous amount of roadblocks in its own way and complains about it while doing nothing to resolve long standing issues that plague its sectors

[@Aubrey2004-j4k]

Exactly my point

[@y.g.b]

No problem they can blame the EU for it.

[@loc4725]

​@y.g.bThey haven't so far, like in the last few decades so why would they start now?

[@murphy7801]

​@y.g.b err France has state owned power stations made for a fair price. Not the EUs fault UK is incompetent.

[@BennyColyn]

At least now they can't blame Brussels for it anymore

[@Baxwell.]

This is so frustrating. France has 56 operable nuclear reactors with a total capacity of 61 gigawatts. At no point in the last year has the UK grid demanded more than 40gw.

[@3bonsai5279]

Why don't we just invest in French nuclear power and buy from them?

[@reheyesd8666]

@@3bonsai5279 We do. There is something unique for the British. Its about 6pm? Well you probably want a cuppa but a lot of people do at the same time, it puts so much demand on the national grid we import the energy from France.

[@Pixelplanet5]

@@3bonsai5279 you did. Hinkley Point C is build and operated by the EDF and the UK is building a new powerline over to France to buy more power. But also be aware power from France is not going to stay "cheap" its only at its current price because the government capped the price and makes up the difference with tax money.

[@3bonsai5279]

@@Pixelplanet5 Which government capped the price? The French? If so, there could be a deal in which we help finance infrastructure and they keep cap yearly price hikes. Sounds better than hoping for new British reactors

[@michaeld5888]

The French get things going and fix it on the go getting it up and running. The UK spends the same time planning everything in endless committees to get it absolutely right, putting money in to the pockets of a selected few and still gets it wrong.

[@ctrl-shift-run8681]

Would be a good start. Energy prices in the UK are ridiculous and that has a cascading effect throughout the whole economy.

[@Johnox90]

Wouldnt change anything unfortunately due to how the UK system works. Most countrys price energy based on the Average price of energy cost to make. but the UK prices it based the most expensive method. so even if the most expensive method only accounts for say 10% of the power grid. you still pay the highest price on the other 90%.

[@trojmiasto25]

would be a good start to turn nuclear plants off..? because afaik, its next to coal the most expensive energy source. heavily sub by tax money.

[@James-tv4pl]

​@@trojmiasto25 the reason why nuclear energy is so expensive is because of the massive costs to build the reactors. Once you've built a reactor, it's cheap to run it. Turning nuclear power plants off is the worst possible decision in this situation

[@trojmiasto25]

@James-tv4pl true, true! i didnt actually meant it this way. keep them running as long as safe and then turn them off. but the other extreme cost is: storage. but they were running for decades. material of some extra years wont kill the budget.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Given Starmer has said that AI is the future of the UK economy I'm glad he's finally realized that AI runs on computers which need electricity to run.

[@mab9614]

First and the single biggest reason: back in the 1960s and 1970s, we selected AGR instead of light water reactors like everyone else was constructing west of the Wall. Once that graphite pile was constructed, that pile cannot be “undone”. Therefore, the graphite block would develop hairline cracks that will eventually become a major issue for reactor safety(max 20mm inside and 30mm outside based on ONR standards) after 45-48 years.This issue has the potential to affect control rod insertion when shutting down or in the case of a SCRAM. Due the development of such hairline cracks after just 45 years, the operation of an AGR cannot be extended as a light water reactor to 60 years, if not 80. Second, please remember that when HPC started, it had been more than 20 years since the last time Britain constructed a reactor (Sizewell B). With this much time gap, most of the experienced contractors are certainly retired. This was the case for Olkiluoto and again here at HPC. Edit: As my professor has said, the UK had two mega money pits in the last century that turned out to be failures: the AGR program and the Concorde.

[@BoyeeSmudger]

Seen the same skill gap in aviation. So many of the old timers moved on with lack of apprentices coming through learning the soft skills needed to become a rounded engineer. Although clever, many are textbook engineers that aren't aware of certain basics. Not their fault, but manufacturing nuclear plants or aircraft is specilist, cannot just grab Joe blogs off the street. Was lucky enough to work with an old boy that worked on Bridgewaters hinkley then worked in the brabham hanger in Bristol.

[@badxxxmonkey5541]

But your healthcare is Free. 😂😂😂

[@zax1998LU]

AGRs was an interesting choice and in general it was a bad idea. However it does give us an advantage with new pebble bed reactors coming to SMRs. Pebble beds are gas cooled and graphite moderated. Something which the UK now has unique expertise in.

[@richardbastow9200]

To be fair to the AGR program, we did build six of them and they have been generating carbon free electricity for 40 years now. Over the long run even an initially poor investment can return value.

[@smck9798]

AGR programme actually delivered what it was supposed to, the plants weren't meant to be operated for extended periods. It's a nice to have, but wasn't part of the design framework. They also had secondary functions not to do with electricity generation. And many were operated at much higher operational tempos due to issues with the energy supply at the time. Even then they've all met or exceeded their operational lifetimes and actually hit their originally stated budgets across their lifetimes.

[@davianoinglesias5030]

How environmentalists joined hands with big oil to push out nuclear energy is still something that baffles everyone to date,,you'd expect that environmentalists would go for nuclear energy as a transitional source of energy as solar and wind are developed

[@grafity1749]

Wind and solar can be deployed much faster and cheaper and overtook nuclear a long time ago in most parts of the world

[@spacecube8561]

@grafity1749 and are way less reliable than nuclear power plants - that's why countries build nukes and ''deploy'' windmills and solar craps. those aren't mutually exclusive

[@Burito-tj5ry]

@grafity1749 and enjoy your black out when there is no wind or sun

[@jaidengabriel1675]

​@grafity1749Yet solar doesn't work during peak hours and wind is literally gambling

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

@@Burito-tj5ry Read up on batteries and biogas, what they cost and what they provide. Particularly, google for MB31 lifepo4 cells, and be amazed. You can cycle a kWh through such a cells for between 2 and 3cents. Biogas already produces enough methane in Germany to be able to replace all the fossil methane used to stabilize the german grid (if only it were used right).

[@Aubrey2004-j4k]

NIMBYs would be up in arms about this. Nothing ever gets done

[@TedJM]

it is kind of why i like the chinese system, being a 1 party state stuff happens because there's essentially zero opposition

[@loc4725]

​@@TedJMNail houses.

[@loc4725]

Got to look after the Boomer NIMBY's. _"I'm not against affordable housing provided it doesn't spoil my view or reduce the value of my house."_ - BBC pre-election interview with a group of Boomers in the West Country.

[@TedJM]

@@loc4725 I reckon there's now a new group of people called YISEBYs (yes, in somebody else's back yard)

[@jaidengabriel1675]

​@@TedJMBut the problem is that sometimes "stuff happening" is bridges to nowhere to meet GDP growth goals

[@cbdy1358]

Nuclear is safe, clean and efficient especially Thorium reactors.

[@jaidengabriel1675]

I love nuclear energy

[@robinjones5169]

Efficient, not so much but definitely agree on safe and clean. It is slow and expensive though.

[@Anti_thesis]

@@robinjones5169 SMRs and fast and scalable.

[@aceman0000099]

​@@robinjones5169 is that a joke? Nuclear power has a capacity factor of 92%, meaning its current output is at maximum for 92% of the year each year. The next highest would be Geothermal, at 71% then natural gas even lower - every other type of powerplant is not even producing its stated capacity for half the time it's on. This is pitifully true for wind and solar: a £10 million solar farm at 9MW will actually only produce about 2-3MW on average thanks to its efficiency.

[@aceman0000099]

Nuclear is effectively the most efficient power source, until fusion surpasses it. Every other renewable power source relies too much on weather, climate or geological activity which is never consistent.

[@ok-lq6tv]

Thinking in terms of 5 year election cycles really hinders long term project planning

[@armaan6101]

So do we make election cycles longer or force governments to carry on with what their predecessor did, even if they detest it

[@embalancer6146]

​@armaan6101 what would be point of elections then? If Labour had to power through all the tories policies and vice versa?

[@armaan6101]

@@embalancer6146 there isn't a point

[@emken0206]

Thats why im really happy to live in a dictatorship, it just works better if you make sure that no selfish bastard gets into power.

[@JackDrewitt]

as often as not the election cycles are only 2 years too recently

[@sirgaz8699]

What went wrong for _________ in the UK. Government incompetence, everything in the last 30 years has been government incompetence. The only reason I say 30 is that as far back as I remember.

[@murphy7801]

Tbh more the last 14 years. New labour actually wasn't that bad apart from the war.

[@inzamamulhaque9383]

If see several economic indicators of uk it actually never fully recovered from 2008 financial crash

[@reheyesd8666]

Since Thatcher*

[@reheyesd8666]

@@murphy7801 ... They let the gates open and now we wonder why we have so much crime.

[@zwabTheRealOne]

Nuclear failure in the UK goes back way beyond the last 30 years. We've consistently made poor decisions since our first reactor. Asianometry has an interesting deep dive video covering the history if you've got a bit of time.

[@JosephCapelli]

I'd love for us to replicate the French success with nuclear power investments, but trying to build infrastructure seems to be like trying to cure cancer for the UK Govt...

[@Aubrey2004-j4k]

Exactly. They cant build anything. Takes years of inquiries, assessments, planning etc spending millions

[@inbb510]

Then will you support deregulating the planning sector? If not then you are just trying to have your cake and eat it. Especially parties like the Green Party.

[@SlowhandGreg]

It's now old tech your better off with renewables

[@reheyesd8666]

tbf Franch energy prices are still quite high at nearly 23P a kWh.

[@Psi-Storm]

What are you talking about? EDF is heavily in debt. The EPR power plant they build in Finland cost around 10 billion to build, but they sold it for 1.6 billion fixed price, so they lost over 8 billion on that investment. Flamanville is also an endless money pit. Nobody in the world can build nuclear energy plants at a total costs that can lead to cheap produced electricity, which the pro nuclear fanboys are always promoting.

[@coryborg]

The fact that every major infrastructure project tends to balloon way past its initial budget is seriously something that needs to be examined thoroughly.

[@SIRO_GLYDER]

I would say the 2 major problems are; 1) no nuclear reactors have been built for a long time so supply chains haven’t been able to build, making it much more expensive 2) all of our construction is very centralised in London rather than local areas, Londoners almost always know less about where to build a train line somewhere up north than locals will for example and won’t be as incentivised to find good deals like local governance is

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Thatcher was the last time a nuclear reactor was commissioned. It's just shameful.

[@publics.public]

look where yuppie transit at the expense of mass transit has gotten us... prices through the roof. There used to be a time when near everyone could afford a train ticket. The high speed yuppies have ripped us all off. There is no need for high speed on our tiny island.

[@gabrieldsouza6541]

Why would a local resident know more about where to build a train line than an actual railway engineer? Would a plumber know more about trains than a railway worker just because they’re not from London?

[@angussoutter7824]

The issue is Britain under Thatcher got rid of all our heavy industries for a service sector which doesn’t build anything only Westminster would be so bloody minded and stupid

[@foreveremoatheart]

@@gabrieldsouza6541 I think he means a local railway engineer would be able to do the job rather than someone from London

[@andybrice2711]

It occurred to me this morning that perhaps a major source of people losing faith in institutions is the fact that they seem to be getting mired in evermore stultifying bureaucracy when things should be getting _more_ efficient due to technology.

[@Nxck2440]

TLDR: the same thing that goes wrong for literally everything we try to build: bureaucracy.

[@Nogarda_]

Nuclear Energy is some of the cleanest and reliable sources of energy you can get. We seem to LOVE regulation, so I highly doubt we will ever see a chernobyl event. If just one station is providing that amount of power, it seems far more local to build ten more. and use wind, wave and solar as back up. then when we are in a surplus, the country can sell energy on. I believe this is what either Norway or Sweden does already. If there is any room or supply for "british steel" you can create jobs just in supply those facilities alone.

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

So how about long term storage of high level nuclear waste then? Have you read up about Onkalo? The timedelta between Finland going nuclear and it being built, and the fact that they plan to have it filled up and closed down towards the year 2100?

[@ltt-store]

Nuclear makes so much sense

[@simon2493]

Nope it doesn't such prices are new norms for nuclear not just outlier.

[@TheAmericanPrometheus]

Any Green party that is against nuclear should not be taken seriously.

[@aQuestionator]

​@@simon2493 It doesn't make sense for the UK since we made it overpriced by changing the design of the actual reactor constantly over and over while it was being built. Other countries, like France, who actually build multiple of the same reactor coincidentally have their power plants be a lot cheaper.

[@m0o0n0i0r]

Rolls Royce are building modular reactors also. Energy independance should be a national security issue.

[@SlowhandGreg]

@@m0o0n0i0r And in what decade? It takes too long to build we need a more decentralised approach. With the eventual cost of Hinklery C you could fit solar + batteries to 11 million homes for free

[@mobileapps1736]

Privatisation has been the biggest problem this country has faced. In all industries a government should be a major player competing with private corporations. As long as the government has its people interests at the forefront cannot raise prices on a whim as they would lose customers to government run institutions. If there are only private corporations, then they will collude. Collude to suppress wages so employees cannot leave to a rival for more pay, collude to reduce product quality so it is cheaper to make and collude to raise prices. Competition is expensive and hard work. Companies can charge more with old tech. UK trains are old yet we pay more than a person in China who rides a bullet train.

[@Xamufam]

lack of knowledge, lack of supply lines and a extreme amount of regulations

[@embalancer6146]

Yeah cause we need light touch regulation when dealing with nuclear reactors

[@MrTaekon]

@@embalancer6146 I assume, all other infrastructure projects are done in timely manner?

[@lachlanchester8142]

@@embalancer6146I don’t think you’re thinking about the same kind of regulations

[@hurrdurrmurrgurr]

@@embalancer6146 Do you think South Korea has been winging it on all their nuclear plants? Their country is powered and has had no problems with their nuclear plants for decades. The second they try the same in the UK they get buried in government requests because government jobs need their existence justified. The country is going the way of the soviet union.

[@11gnorris]

We cant build anything in this country because theres too many Nimbys. Only takes 1 disgruntled person to hold up construction leading to fights in courts ultimately driving up the cost.

[@SlowhandGreg]

Nuclear takes too long and is to grand a project Hinkley C will eventually cost 80 billion with subsidies with that amount of money you can fit battery storage to 20,000 million households

[@JsznznSnsnz]

​​@@SlowhandGreg british nuclear takes too long, its the british

[@SlowhandGreg]

@JsznznSnsnz not true Nuclear is a long project with build times in the 12-15 years a commit time of 35 after that + infrastructure Just stick solar and batteries on domestic properties at discount and sort out insulation at a fraction of the cost

[@bobi6191]

@@SlowhandGreg Absolute misinformation, the simplest google search proves you wrong. The average construction time for nuclear globally is 7 to 8 years, the best performers (Japan, South Korea and China) build in less than 6 years on average. The video itself even tells you Britain's Hinkley Point C will be the world's most expensive Nuclear Plant, almost 4 times more expensive than South Korea on a pound per megawatt basis (sources are in the description to back that up by the way). This has nothing to do with Nuclear's build time or price, it's a problem with Britain itself. I happen to think that the future lies in Solar and Wind, but they are simply too inconsistent to operate without suitable base-load power generation and the best option for that is Nuclear. I also tested your claim that "Hinkley C will eventually cost 80 billion with subsidies with that amount of money you can fit battery storage to 20,000 million households". I'm going to assume you meant 20 million households. The absolute cheapest estimate I found for a home battery installation was £2,210, and they have a measly 5 year warranty so I don't give them more than 10 years before they have to be replaced. Multiply that by the UK's 29.9 million households and you get a little north of £66 billion pounds, just for batteries which only come with a 5 year warranty. You can get premium ones mind you, with 10 to 12 years of warranty, but the price jumps to £6,800 per installation 203 billion in total, again just for batteries. Premium or not, I don't see them lasting more than 20 years. I didn't even bother looking up what rooftop Solar panels cost, since it's clear this is ludicrous and completely unworkable.

[@SlowhandGreg]

@@bobi6191 I've just had a solar battery install done The batteries are now Zero rated for VAT as are the panels. I paid £8,500 for 10 panels an inverter and 2 batteries installed, the breakdown was 1550 per battery at 5.2 kwh they have a 12 year warranty and are made by GivEnergy. As a consequence of having batteries I can utilise the off peak tariff of 14p per kwh (2am - 5am) instead of what I was on which was 24p If I just used battery storage and no solar they would repay their capital cost to me in 3.87 years based on my usage. You only need 1 of these batteries to time shift the average house's usage away from peak demand time of 4-7pm Thanks for taking the time to do some investigation I hope you investigate further and save yourself some money by getting a solar battery install

[@wolfgangrenner4152]

Hinkley Point C is a EPR Type Reaktor. The EPR has some new features, which makes it so expensive: First with over 1600 MW it is the strongest nuclear power station currently available. And the safety properties are also outstanding: It has a double containment and an core catcher. Even when an full core melt occurs, the melt can be hold in an special very high temperature restistant pot. The Korean powerstations don't have this properties. The EPR in Finnland and France are in usage, but had been much more expensive as expected and need more time. Macron discussed if further EPR should only have a single containment, to lower the building costs. Another problem of UK, is an general bad excercised building branch in UK. The HighSpeed2 Line hat come also wide over budget and time. In France and Germany building of big infrastructure may go sometimes a little better. But the BER Airport and Stuttgart 21 Trainstation needed also more time and money. And in BER and Elbphilharmony a lot of bad managment faults incresased costs and time.

[@koldwolf]

Brilliantly put

[@DavidsonDave]

To a certain extent, the problem isn't really things going 'over budget,' but rather that it is politically expedient to understate the costs of a project in order to secure the initial investment. Once the project is underway, it becomes somewhat inevitable that completion will be guaranteed, because who would want to waste billions on something that wasn't finished? HS2 proved that this gamble doesn't always pay off, but as a strategy it is pretty safe.

[@Umski]

Aiming for net zero by chucking more concrete and steel at the situation 🤦‍♂️

[@Aubrey2004-j4k]

Because we cant build anything without using millions to plan for decades without ever executing anything because its too expensive ( HS2)

[@SurmaSampo]

The problem, as with all construction projects in the UK, is the bureaucracy. Even government projects get blocked by the government to build things for the government.

[@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK]

Labour : "It's all the Tories fault for the last 14 years." Tories - "It's all Labour's fault for the 13 years before the last government."

[@brandon_youtube]

You get it. The UNI parties. Its over. The electorate needs to understand the 40 year sabotage to the people of the nation needs to end by voting neither Lab or Cons. Instead we need to declare a rebuilding of the nation. And im serious. Overwise its a relay race between two parties to spew more bullshit.

[@RammingSpeed-lk8kk]

I think we need fresh blood

[@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK]

@RammingSpeed-lk8kk Agreed.

[@RammingSpeed-lk8kk]

@@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK blood of Jesus t.b.h.. I honestly think humanity needs to get on the same page ontologically... Because because of wokeness everybody is living in their own FRACTURED truth.. But ultimately there can only be ONE truth

[@Phil_AKA_ThundyUK]

@RammingSpeed-lk8kk You are correct, and we do live in a post truth world now.

[@matthewmaccaughey5016]

Nuclear Advocate / Worker here: Thanks for covering this topic. One thing I'd like to point out is that Sizewell B could technically operate to 2075 instead of 2035... or longer. The reason I say this is that here in the United States the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved our light water reactors (note sizewell is a LWR) to operate with license renewals up to 80 years. They are currently looking at extending the allowance to 100 years. Obviously there will be regulatory differences between our countries, BUT there is no technical reason it can't be done.

[@iainmcdonald9764]

Absolutely correct. The 40 year design life was always an estimate that could be modified up or down with real experience and testing of the design over time under its intended load. We know from studying older plants in the USA and elsewhere that as long as the pressure vessel has retained its integrity we can safely push the life of a PWR out to 60 years and beyond. Shame the same isn't true of the graphite in the AGRs.

[@joshuaparrott2458]

Takes minimum of 20 years. Political life cycle is 5. ---- Why major British projects end up a wet fart.

[@Mk82282]

American Cycle is 4, but theyre crushing us in every area

[@jackdeniston6150]

yeah but the net zero tyranny has been in play for......

[@joshuaparrott2458]

@jackdeniston6150 What's that to do with HS2?

[@lykou1821]

I would be embarrassed to say to aliens: so after harnessing the power of the atom, we forgot how to do it.

[@Commonsense-u1h]

We should never have privatised power generation, that was a mistake. But also, Britain is terrible for NIMBYISM, it´s ludicrous, the British public think we can just sit around twiddling our thumbs whilst we have huge issues we need to deal with, and power generation is one of the most important. Going nuclear is the best option by far. I really hate that the Green party oppose it (I reluctantly voted for them last election as a protest). It´s got by far the best input-to output ratios and it´s the only way we can tackle climate change whilst maintaining our standard of living. This is the problem in the 21st century, people think they can have everything with no sacrifices. That´s not how reality works. Yes, we might have to spoil someone´s favourite picnic spot, but generating energy in a clean way is much more important. The same with HS2, yes, it could have been done in a much better way, complaining about the corruption etc is fair enough. What´s stupid is saying we shouldn´t build it because someone´s house might be knocked down.

[@inbb510]

Green party are just a party that talks but without wanting to build anything anywhere due to the "environment" and expects everyone to just live in the forest and be hippies. They aren't a serious party.

[@SlowhandGreg]

Renewable energy is at the moment 3.5 times cheaper than Nuclear and Given it decreases in overall cost over time even if we made no more technical advances it will always become cheaper so in 10 years your talking 6 maybe 7 times more expensive for nuclear

[@jaidengabriel1675]

You don't necessarily need to privatize energy - Countries like Japan have made it work privately. The problem is that the UK gov. can't regulate anything effectively.

[@Commonsense-u1h]

@@SlowhandGreg the input output ratio is the key figure and for wind, it's only good in very particular situations.

[@jgomo3877]

I assume when the state decides to compulsory purchase your and neighbours houses for less than your mortgage is worth, forcing you on to the street and into negative equity, you'll just accept it as a necessary sacrifice and wont complain. Especially if it is for a project that is perhaps of questionable merit.

[@coasterfest]

We should already be building SMRs from UK companies, with decades of experience in similar technology, like Rolls Royce. Their SMR seems to be taking forever to get through the approval process alone, despite the fact that they've been building similar reactors for submarines since the 50s. Way too much red tape, there's an energy crisis now, just start popping these things down! Would love for you to expand on this video and do some digging as to why they're taking so long, despite the potential they hold.

[@derekp2674]

R-R SMRs are not very similar to their naval propulsion reactors - they're more like smaller scale civil PWRs.

[@coasterfest]

​@@derekp2674 Oh ok, I'm no expert, I was just taking that comparison from Rolls Royce's own press releases. Doesn't really change the point though, we have the experience and expertise here in the UK, let's cut some red tape, and get it done.

[@derekp2674]

@@coasterfest Rolls-Royce have certainly been working to recruit more staff for their civil reactor projects. That has included attempts to entice experienced staff away from other UK nuclear companies and hiring in subject matter experts as consultants. It will be great to see their work progressing, especially if decisions around locations and funding can be taken forward.

[@simon2493]

EPR was very expenses investment in Finland too. They've build only one reactor and it costed 11 bln euro.

[@IronmanV5]

And took 18 years to build. The second EPR at Flamanville is taking just as long at a higher cost. Both mainly due to incompetent management.

[@Nasherrrzzz]

The issue is the EPR design in the UK differs markedly from the proven designs due to regulatory amendments. This lack of a standardised approach massively increases costs. Then you add supply chain and construction expertise standup. This is an issue on all UK infra projects, they don't used standardised proven designs and are not off the shelf. Same with HS2, the speed the infrastructure can accommodate is not in line with other European equivalents

[@Psi-Storm]

The reactor in Finland was a great deal for the locals, they bought it for 1.6 billion fixed price and can now produce cheap electricity with it. EDF, the French nuclear operator is taking the 8+ billion loss on that one, which now has to come out of France's state budget, since bankruptcy isn't an option.

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

And the company commissioning this reactor only paid 5.5B EUR of it. This would have bankrupted EDF if it had not been state owned.

[@simon2493]

@@Nasherrrzzz It's not UK issues it's standard for nuclear power in any civilised country. Poland's nuclear power program officially started in 2021 and the power plant will be finished in 2039 at best, but we are a long way before even concrete pouring so it's subject to change.

[@SeverusFelix]

It's not just about reactors shutting down. As the economy grows, demand for electricity also-- oh wait Britain, right.

[@gabrieldsouza6541]

The problem is that the UK lets people who have no idea what they’re talking about have the same level of decision making power as actual subject matter experts just because they own property close to the project. Why should farmers have input into the design of HVDC transmission lines? Just pay them for their property and tell them to fly a kite.

[@robertmartin6800]

Jesus Christ, that’s terribly authoritarian.

[@TheLiamster]

The UK should be building multiple nuclear reactors at the same time which would be cheaper due to economies of scale and would retain a talented workforce which is needed for such projects. Nuclear is by far the safest, most reliable and efficient form of generating carbon free electricity. It was a huge mistake for countries to shut down existing reactors and cut funding for research

[@hotsaucebeliever]

I'd say this is a sign of how any large project would go in the UK. There needs to be a way to expedite nationally critical projects

[@christophersolheim-allen8585]

There's more to this, and I'm writing as a former nuclear submarine engineer officer, who's had years of interaction with UK nuclear industry regulators. Two generations ago Britain could design, engineer and operate nuclear power stations with its own resources and expertise. Now you can't; these projects rely on French & Chinese technology & financing. UK nuclear regulators have increasingly tightened their needs for nuclear safety. Just to get a crane qualified to do a nuclear lift requires so many safety features, back ups to the safety features, and just in case back ups to the back ups, it takes years to get it built or modified. Nuclear safety cases become convoluted enormous documentation suites, verging on philosophical theological introspection not unlike how many angels can be balanced on the eye of a needle. Much of this extreme caution is based on no regulator wanting to be seen as responsible for letting even the most minute nuclear incident happen, and of course the International Commission on Radiation Protection's controversial insistence that radiation fatality risk is directly proportionate to exposure (it isn't). France has been consistent over the decades in refining and excelling at a single nuclear technology. The British have been down many different paths, and then given up on having a nuclear engineering base of expertise, and have had to contract it out to other countries. As they say, America innovates, Asia replicates, and Europe regulates.

[@iainmcdonald9764]

Superbly put sir!

[@adampreslar2802]

I actually understand the pain of building a first plant and am not surprised there were surprises. What is truly embarrassing is not learning from those mistakes with Sizewell C.

[@Pilps]

Abolish The Town & Country Planning Act, 1947. Introduce a Land Value Tax (LVT) on unimproved land. Reform zoning laws to allow mixed-use developments. Mandate affordable housing quotas in private developments. Revamp the Green Belt & Brownfield landscape. (Most of it is empty marshland next to motorways, not nature, or privately owned with no public footpath.) Completely scrap and redistribute the planned £22 Billion to fund carbon capture projects across the UK in favour of Nuclear and diversify it to other sectors instead. There, done.

[@BrinJay-s4v]

Well I agree that the green belt was abused to stop everything at one time but to repeal it now builds houses for invaders we need a total rethink on what we want or its assumed we do?

[@noahjohnson8740]

Isn't reforming planning law and mandating affordable housing a bit contradicting? Shouldn't we just allow more freedom, and let the market decide on what should be built? Of course with land value tax to compensate for the negative externality of land usage

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

Hey it's Pilps

[@smck9798]

People keep saying "regulators" asked them to make thousands of changes. However every time that claim is examined it turns out the operator chose to make the changes, in large part due to defects or simply improvements identified in previously constructed plants in other countries.... that all had major issues and often running very late.

[@MuffinHop]

Finland is planning to build yet another nuclear reactor, their energy is cheap. Buy from them? Beats clownish prices that the UK currently has.

[@Psi-Storm]

Finland bought the reactor for 1.6 billion guarnateed price from EDF. The construction was over 10 billion. I doubt EDF will make that mistake a second time.

[@IS1AMY3434]

We should be getting >32% from Nuclear as it's very consistent and produces no CO2 !

[@craigsteele101]

Britain should focus on SMRs rather than large scale plants SMRs are faster, cheaper and scalable

[@andybrice2711]

I think SMRs show a lot of promise. But they're not cheaper. At least not per megawatt.

[@craigsteele101]

@ you could be right, but that could be down to SMRs being a relatively new version of producing nuclear energy. I think they’re cheaper in terms of initial set up due to requiring considerably less space … at least at the start, that could change if they’re required to produce more power. Full disclosure: I’m not an expert and won’t pretend to be one 🤣 willing to be wrong

[@Psi-Storm]

SMRs promise to be that, there is zero proof that they will. There is no company that builds them, and getting finance for one will be extremely hard. It's a chicken or egg problem. Without massive amounts of fix orders they can't build scalability which is needed for speed and cost reduction. If you build just 8-10 SMR to build a 1 GW power plant. Then you definitely won't beat a regular one in price.

[@craigsteele101]

@@Psi-Storm I understand why, but over regulation can also contribute. We’ve used nuclear power for years without incident. They’re put into ships and submarines without issue. Nuclear energy is the only solution for long terms baseline energy production until, by some miracle, we crack fusion.

[@robbailie5878]

@@Psi-Storm Well if the governent is happy to below billions on saving people 15mins on a rail journey they would do better throwing it at SMR's.

[@lesgamester7356]

Taking lessons from NASA. What's wrong with modular?

[@felineboy1586]

Well you can't have one project every generation and think the industry would survive

[@camerongardiner5736]

This question can be asked for absolutely any project big or small in the U.K, almost a 100% garuntee it will go wrong and miles over budget.

[@atrumluminarium]

Why not set up the framework for SMRs? The UK already has experience from fitting compact reactors in submarines how hard can it be for Rolls Royce to set up a simplified model that gets shuttled off of assembly lines to wherever they need to be.

[@coasterfest]

Wish I'd read the comments first, just said the same thing. We have the expertise, experience, and infrastructure already in place here in Derby to roll these things out. Rolls Royce have been building similar reactors since the 50s, but there's too much red tape getting in the way... Just get it done.

[@atrumluminarium]

@coasterfest I think even with the red tape, if they come off an assembly line, once the factory and the process are given the green light, they could still be pumped out probably at rates of 200MW chunks every few months to be installed cumulatively onto the grid. Not to mention, in more remote towns an SMR could probably also cover all the heating needs in winter by piping heat directly from the core eliminating the need for natural gas.

[@coasterfest]

@ definitely, I think that each Rolls Royce’s SMR has a generation capacity of 470 MW, enough to power a big UK city or multiple small cities / towns. Once they’re past the approval stage, and we start rolling them out, I strongly believe, from what I’ve read (although I’m no expert) that our energy crisis could be over. Obviously I’m local to Rolls Royce, so there could definitely be some bias in the things I’ve read and been told, but it looks very promising. But we need to get them past approval, I wish labour would make this an absolute priority.

[@robbailie5878]

@@coasterfest Rolls-Royce SMR is currently engaged in the Great British Nuclear (GBN) SMR technology selection process, which will select the best SMR technologies from around the world to deliver low-carbon nuclear power and support the UK transition to net zero. Bet the government will go with another countries solution rather than a home based one.

[@coasterfest]

@@robbailie5878 That wouldn't surprise me, sadly, given the amount of times they overlooked local train manufacturers in Derby to choose overseas production, I don't think it would surprise anybody around here. Hopefully though, they do what's best for the tax payer, and that includes calculating which options would generate more tax paying jobs, VAT and corporation tax for the UK!!!!

[@Azelphur]

I wish people would stop bleeting close the power plants, use renewables. We currently lack the infrastructure to store the vast amounts of energy required to fully rely on renewables. The best tech for storing power we have right now is two lakes and a turbine. Batteries are too expensive and environmentally bad, pumped hydro isn't dense enough (and also relies on you having lakes to use), etc, etc. Solar/wind is great, but unless you have somewhere to store absolutely astronomical amounts of power to meet peaks/troughs in production, we need nuclear to keep the lights on.

[@chench1lla]

Local government shouldn't make any demands on projects of national importance.

[@jgomo3877]

Why not?; central government can't select which biscuits to serve with tea without it costing £400m in planning and research, and then setting fire to the kitchen, burning down the house, and then spending the next 20 years denying responsibility.

[@robertmartin6800]

I feel like that’s a tad undemocratic.

[@lewiskearney3797]

Privatisation doesn't work 🤷‍♂️

[@Phobosandpanic]

Serious question, are there any stories out there about what the UK is doing well at compared to the rest of the world? I'm getting put off watching all the depressing stories...

[@Mk82282]

were not currently getting invaded or genocided, so theres that

[@tachyony]

We are doing great at immigration.

[@robertmartin6800]

@@Mk82282London is no longer an English city, the idea that the UK isn’t being invaded or genocided is dubious.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

​@@robertmartin6800Those words don't mean what you think they mean

[@robertmartin6800]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 I stand by what I said.

[@steveweidig5373]

To be fair, it's not really the UK's fault this time, but a big part is also coming from the reactor design itself, the EPR, which is used on both the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, as well as the proposed Moorside clean energy hub. The EPR design is known to be notoriously very hard to build, and the designers weren't really aware of all the problems with the design. For instance, the French Flamanville 3 started construction in 2007 and just became fully operational last month, so 18 years later, and the budget went from a projected 3.3 Billion dollar to 13.2 Billion dollar, and other EPR reactors accrued similar delays and cost overruns. As a result of this debacle, EDF is designing an EPR2 design that would be much simpler to build (to give you an idea of the complexity of the EPR, the original design has 13300 valves. The EPR2 would bring it down to just 571), so the delays and cost overruns could be minimized.

[@CaptainLettuce]

Yeah we struggling with everything at the moment xD

[@jonathan2847]

Every government contract: "please complete the work on time and within budget otherwise we will give you more money and more time"

[@PoliticalEconomyPAK]

Missed opportunity to say "when the sun is not suning and the wind is not winding"

[@derloos]

Nice of you to leave the Sizewell C case largely unexplained in the video 😀 One thing among many, if you compare wages offered to recent engineering graduates against the overall cost of living in the UK, wtf else can you expect?

[@Milominderbender586]

Basically it was the privatisation of the Electricity Industry, private industry want quicker returns. Sizewell B was supposed to be the first of a series to be constructed by the CEGB, privatisation killed that, Short term thinking and ideological blinkered government. We had a well established system that could and did fund the capital investment needed but it was sacrificed on the altar of Ideology..

[@SlowhandGreg]

Nuclear is old hat now anyway Dogger bank wind farm produces as much as Hinkley C would at a fraction of the cost and only 3 years to build Domestic batter costs as part of a solar install have halved in price and are now Vat free making capital payback due to supplier cheap overnight tariffs under 5 years

[@Milominderbender586]

@ The industry was killed off 30 years ago. The range of power stations would have been in inservice by now about 20 years and would have significantly reduced the recent electricity and gas situation, and guess what the CEGB would have been leaders in renewables and integrated better with the national grid. The big Nationalised industries were incredibly good at seeing projects through to completion, Governments are incredibly bad at infrastructure project due to short term thinking. Look at HS2. We always need a mix of power generation to underpin a stable supply. Large scale nuclear is perfect base load generation.

[@spacefun101]

Privatization is not the issue. Before all the nuclear energy regulations after the 3 mile island (non)incident, plenty of energy companies were building nuclear power plants throughout the country. After the (non)incident, construction basically stopped. As they explained in this video, the UK also has a very regulated nuclear energy sector. Privatization is not the problem, over regulation is.

[@1Orderchaos]

@@spacefun101 Privatization is the issue, always has been.

[@spacefun101]

@@1Orderchaos Please explain. The US currently has the most nuclear power capacity of any country in the world, and yet its power plants are private. Construction only slowed to a halt after the 3 Mile Island (non)incident when a bunch of new regulations were introduced. So please explain how privatization is the problem and not the regulations.

[@PixelLife101]

We need to reform the land allocation system and how we approve plans. I think the cabinet should declare a national emergency for energy supply and ignore any groups trying to stop power stations.

[@regarded9702]

Just make it illegal to block the building of anything even mildly important. Too much of the malaise in this country is self-inflicted.

[@12pentaborane]

There's a worry that justification could be used to skate by sound environmental analysis. In general I agree though, I would even go as far to say power generation and distribution should be a state-owned monopoly.

[@regarded9702]

@@12pentaborane I would be in favour of skating round sound environmental analysis, unless the analysis is warning of an immediately imminent extinction. Even then, if the project is important enough we can and should put human prosperity first.

[@inbb510]

@@12pentaborane , but that's the problem though. We can't have it both ways unfortunately. Too much environmental regulation is just hurting investment plans so much that it's just becoming too expensive to build anything.

[@andypandy1986]

You must understand the key to building new safer nuclear reactors is to rapidly increase the amount of paperwork

[@adriendorleans4634]

I love TLDR but several simplistic/misinformed statements are made here, I’ll address the one most closely related to my line of work: Nuclear doesn’t “plug the gap” between renewables, it can’t be dispatched on demand like gas or hydro. Nuclear is designed and built to run flat out its entire life, with scheduled slots for planned maintenance and refuelling. This brings the overall cost per MWh down and also makes it, over its lifespan, an extremely decarbonised energy resource. Renewables are great at what they do, cheap stochastic generation, but baseload generation isn’t in their repertoire. This is where having a constant low-carbon energy source becomes extremely valuable. UK demand varies between 25-45GW throughout the day and nuclear has a key role in shoring up the lower end of the curve where demand is constant. This isn’t “the starmer govt’s view”, it’s common sense shared by everyone in the energy industry!

[@markrobinson9956]

I'm old enough to remember when Labour led the fight against nuclear power in the 80s. How things change.

[@1verstapp]

but what about the backup for when the nukes aren't working, or not built yet?

[@ratchet2505]

It's meant to be a big pool of energy that back up each other source.

[@Skipping2HellPHX]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="162">2:42</a> point of clarity. Nuclear is not a "back-up" for wind and solar. Nuclear is a Base-Load generator and cannot be quickly ramped up & down on demand.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

They are fairly responsive though

[@xMasterAssassin93]

Nuclear is good but its expensive and takes time to set up, so by all means let's expand it, but in the meantime there are things that can be done as well. So many car parks could be sheltered up with solar panels on their roofs, great for charging points as we transition to electric cars solely in the future. Every home (not just new builds but retroactively too) could mandatorily have solar panels on their roofs where it is possible to do so, as well. Those two alone would really help boost our energy supply and while solar in the UK is not really the best (we have far too much rain and cloud), every little can help until we can go nuclear.

[@vardekpetrovic9716]

Or remove as many car parks as possible and expand public infrastructure to have lowed induced demand. You could make half of london a car park, and the increase in car usage would just match it.

[@arghjayem]

You do understand that wind and solar are intermittent sources of energy right? There are only 2 countries in the entire world that rely solely on renewable energy sources- Iceland and Lesothos. And both countries use the same percentage of wind and solar energy as we do because most of their energy is generated by hydro electric sources (dams) and geothermal energy (Iceland of course). And sure every home could have solar panels, but more important is how we design and construct those homes. Having properly insulated, thermally insulated homes or even passive house standard homes would make more of an impact than just adding solar panels to all new build Barrett homes. And rethinking the layouts and way we use houses too needs to be modified to be more efficient. Upside down house designs have shown to be more efficient for example, yet we still design and build house in much the same way as we did 100 years ago.

[@fl-ri-]

People say that Nuclear takes super long to build but China is managing to build new high tech, passively safe nuclear power stations in 3-4 years at this point. Like really, we can't wait 3-4 years? We're that short-term oriented?

[@jaidengabriel1675]

​@@fl-ri-I fear for y'all in the UK. Surely it's not so bad that the American public is more patient????

[@coasterfest]

@@arghjayem these types of renewables can work everywhere, but they need to be complimented by energy storage. Lithium storage in homes is one thing, but I don’t think it’s a viable solution on a mass scale, due to the scarcity of lithium. We’d need to invest in huge infrastructure projects, like massive pumped storage hydro electricity reservoirs. I’m all for mandating every home has solar, and storage too. Renewables are a huge part of the solution. But they are just a ‘part,’ these renewables need to be complimented by nuclear, specifically, in my opinion, SMRs.

[@angussoutter7824]

Not great is an understatement 🙄we couldn’t build sand castles on a beach

[@grafity1749]

Not just in the UK. Everywhere nucleat power plants are expensive to build and are confronted with huge delays. Just look to Finland and France

[@SimonTmte]

You're referring to the same design, EPR, in Finland and France, and in the US it was AP1000, but nuclear is being built elsewhere in reasonable timeframes belonging to the design of Russia, China, Korea,..EPR2 will be built in France going forward which intends to be a lot easier to build, also the second EPR plant in UK they say will go a lot smoother

[@spacecube8561]

except korea and japan, apparently......

[@--and--]

Seems like the Americans (Westinghouse) and the Japanese (Toshiba) cannot do it either. I've got the suspicion that this might be an inherent problem of nuclear fission powerplants. (For this reason, I concluded a while ago that nuclear energy is either safe or cheap but not both at once. Countries like China, South Korea and Russia go more into the "cheap" direction which is not acceptable in Europe and the US.)

[@SupremeST25]

It’s a myth that nuclear is expensive: The previous Tory government effectively paid the energy companies something like £60bn over 2 years to "subsidise" the price cap stuff going on. That would easily be enough for 2-3 massive nuclear power stations for example or many other interventions. The argument is "we cant spend £20-50bn over 10-20 years on nuclear power", but then we're more than happy to drop £60bn to the generators in 2 years? Obtaining cheaper energy is expensive. Keeping things how they are now will be expensive. Choose your expensive

[@spacecube8561]

@ i'm guess(ing) it's cheaper in South Korea because they're - constantly building them.......... i guess if you - don't sabotage your own nuclear industry, and are constantly building new and better reactors - price does go down :) meaning.....yknow, we should do that too.

[@narcissusecho7469]

Hinkley D is on the table, plans submitted, land purchased. Same design. This will be after sizewell which will be built by same teams as Hinkley C

[@rorytribbet6424]

Nuclear is likely the only way we will get to carbon neutral at this time

[@hughjass1044]

"What went wrong for nuclear energy in the UK?" I'm gonna go with - "The UK."

[@loc4725]

NIMBY's and regulation designed to extract as much money from the public purse and hand it to large corporations as possible.

[@inbb510]

Do you support deregulating the planning regulations? Do you support loosening the definition of the green belt? Do you support building infrastructure in your back garden? Do you support building nuclear power stations in your back garden? Do you support the government banning protests which block nationally significant infrastructure projects through repeated ligations by small environmental pressure groups? If your answer to any these questions is no then you are part of the problem.

[@jaidengabriel1675]

The amount of deflections in the replies is crazy

[@mikeall7012]

You need large synchronous generators to provide base load power and also provide reactive loading. Wind and Solar are bad at both. People dont talk about the Reactive loading because its a highly technical issue, but it is the bigger issue since you cant use batteries to solve it.

[@RamSoberts]

nationalise the grid and build more reactors. ez

[@jaidengabriel1675]

Nationalizing doesn't help when the government is too scared of it's own shadow to build on its own

[@HyperFlex924]

Hi TLDR UK, I want to learn more about UK building regulations. Could you make a video to include information on how many projects went over budget? For example, HS2, nuclear energy, and the Elizabeth line

[@HyperFlex924]

what i was thinking is can we change legislation in the UK for these mistakes not to happen into the future?

[@alex29443]

The UK is among the world leaders in small modular reactors. and they are building multiple large nuclear reactors as well. The real question is why is it so expensive here? the simple answer is over-regulation.

[@simon2493]

Yeah good idea who need biological shield? Said Russian in Chernobyl.

[@paulhodgers]

Which regulations do you think need removing?

[@sho-m-er5194]

@@simon2493 "I don't know anything about nuclear builds but muh chernobyl, I am actually very smart"

[@sho-m-er5194]

@@paulhodgers basically the entirety of the 1947 T&C Planning act and any regulation that requires new nuclear builds have to be less toxic than gas/coal plants that existed previously in the vicinity

[@paulhodgers]

@sho-m-er5194 you you want the new nuclear plants to be more toxic to the local environment?

[@gavpatterson1943]

I grew up in Heysham. It’s pronounced Heesham.

[@Crimetvuk]

😂 lot few places near coastal Suffolk has names that spell nothing like they pronounced for outsiders

[@thetidycookie]

I will say the epr vs epr2 reactor notes include the phrase "removed redundant second containment wall". I don't mind having the second containment wall because it's only redundant until it's not. I think a lot of the design changes were quite silly, but some were very sensible and should reduce costs if we do it again. We should start building another right now, following exactly the same design. I know that sounds a bit insane but it's the smart thing to do.

[@manana1444]

It really is quite tragic seeing all the waste that has been going on in Britain over the years.

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

You mean nuclear waste?

[@manana1444]

@@luc_libv_verhaegen No no, I meant public spending waste. Every projects seems to cost either double or triple it's projections.

[@chrissmith2114]

Britain could have had 6 nuclear power stations built for the cost of the '£1billion pound railway to nowhere' = HS2... Britain built the worlds first nuclear power station at Calder Hall - since then we have lost all that skill and engineering expertise and now rely on China to build nuclear.

[@fmind-dev]

From 1970 and 1990, the french electricity company (EDF) was able to deliver 1 nuclear reactor per year. Thanks to our politicians for ruining this industry.

[@sgtrpcommand3778]

I cannot understand why there would be any political motivation to cancel or see a reduction in nuclear power across the UK.. it is by far the best non renewable power source and with the latest generations of reactors, safer than ever. Solar and wind are good, but in no real world scenario can they compete with nuclear power as a national energy generation source.

[@JohnPilling25]

Thatcher's privatisation of the CEGB is the reason Britain cannot build a nuclear power station. All the expertise was got rid of by the buyers because manpower and R&D cost money and so reduce profits that must go to share holders. With no research labs and scientific services, no new graduates were being hired and so no experience/knowledge was passed to the next generation. I know because I used to work for what was northwest region scientific services supporting the nuclear power program, particularly the gas cooled reactor at Heysham.

[@anthonyrinaldi1331]

Nuclear energy is the only serious path to renewable energy right now

[@lv3609]

What about the modular small reactor? that most nuclear lobbyists commentators usually spam all videos about energy

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

This makes no sense technically, it is just an to fix the financing issue. It is far from fixing the economical disadvantage nuclear has compared to renewables and batteries (virtually no running or decommissioning cost).

[@rockets4kids]

The UK initially concentrated on bomb production. Then they doubled down by concentrating on reprocessing. Then they tripled down by giving away all the profits from North Sea oil and gas instead of investing them into a nuclear future.

[@6baenre165]

"Reliable Energy" is what we used to call Energy 😂

[@martiivanov]

I feel the same way when working with UK companies. Too many unnecessary regulations in place over complications across the board and no viable results or practical solutions. It’s like word waffle is the end goal… not actual work and results…

[@Jonny_Karate]

I hate it here.

[@Fellowtellurian]

When power was state owned, we did it fast and within budget. When privatized, it is inefficient and costs rate payers more. Socialize energy generation.

[@marpro212]

If you’re building anything in the UK, just double or triple the cost on account of our regulative complexity and professionally useless people who charge money for stamping paperwork instead of doing real jobs.

[@cunawarit]

The UK's greatest challenge, without question, is our inability to build. We are beginning to resemble a de-developing nation, with much of our infrastructure increasingly resembling something out of a dystopian novel. From housing and hospitals to roads, railways, and power stations, the majority of our essential systems are ageing, yet we remain paralysed-unable or unwilling to do what it takes to build anything new.

[@Croz89]

Offshore wind is having the same problems too, the cost to build Hornsea 3 has doubled as well. So it's not just nuclear where costs are ballooning.

[@luc_libv_verhaegen]

Hornsea project 1 was indeed a financial distaster that makes Hinkley looks like a bargain. A strike price of 195GBP/MWh versus 125GBP/MWh for Hinkley. Project 2 is at 78GBP/MWh and project 3 and 4 are at 47/55/59GBP per MWh. This is a technological and economical progression that is simply not possible with nuclear. Source: register lowcarboncontracts uk

[@phyllislovelace8151]

Thank you TLDR

[@randomzebra1233]

What about small modular reactors that Rolls-Royce are working on based on Submarine tech for smaller regional power stations that have a modular design allowing for core components to be built in factories and shipped to sites massively reducing costs?

[@parvizdeamer]

Hope Australians are watching this and learn from it.

[@roryfriththetraveller4982]

im SO frustrated, as someone who works closely with construction (pre construction archaeology, i may or may not be sat on the Suffolk coast now), our inability to actually construct things well and on time is stunting us horribly. even the legal planning parts aside, i know a lot of people view my role in this a waste of time and resources but i can guarantee it would go MUCH more smoothly if practical choices were made by people who knew what was needed, and pointless organisational delays were cut out. i dread to think how much more money time and grief would be saved if its as bad across the rest of the process as with the pre-construction archaeology.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

70% of the price of HPC is finance costs. It's a robust and very safe design (albeit difficult to build), the scheme is very profitable, and it could be done a lot cheaper without the finance premium. But the investment horizon for nuclear is simply too long for commercial investors who want quicker returns, and it's also too big, to sit as an asset/liability on a commercial balance sheet (in this case EDF). All other issues, are largely immaterial.

[@fantasyfleet]

It’s not a UK problem, it’s an EPR problem. Every EPR has gone years late and massively over priced.

[@mylesmacleod4306]

Rather than a small number of huge nuclear facilities, they should build larger number of small ones. Like the ones that power naval vessels. They have a good safety record. If there were a problem, the area impacted would be relatively small.

[@SuccessMindset2180]

Nuclear energy can't exist without proper policies

[@MervynPartin]

The UK's nuclear power stations were originally of the Magnox type and were primarily for the production of plutonium. With the demand for plutonium decreasing for weapons (with consequently less credit on the discharged elements) the fuel irradiation was considerably increased past the level for optimum Pu production and concentrated on overall energy production to the benefit of the consumers. During this time, the UKAEA carried out research on different reactor types, e.g. the SGHWR at Winfrith, Fast Reactors at Dounreay and others. Research was practically ended by privatisation, not only in the nuclear industry, but in other privatised organisations too. The companies who had the expertise to manufacture the hardware were left without orders and just about everything now has to be bought from foreign companies. Well done Thatcher! You turned Britain from a world leader into a has-been.

[@mad-yorkshireman4854]

What happened in Texas shows you need nuclear, you need a solid core for the energy grid to work around.

[@astranger448]

Or interconnects. All of Europe has electrical interconnects. Meanwhile the Texan electrical grid is interconnected to exactly nowhere. Being able to source energy from elsewhere would have kept the lights on in Texas.