
UK energy bills 'used to subsidise nuclear submarines' - zeristor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48509942
======
gnode
> bill-payers will give price support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear station
> at a cost of £92.50 per megawatt hour, compared with £55 for offshore wind.

Something ignored here, is that electricity generation is not fungible. Wind
power is not reliable, but nuclear is. Nuclear power is really the only
practical solution for the UK to eliminate fossil fuel use from electricity
generation, around the clock; we don't have the geography for adequate hydro.

~~~
pjc50
People keep arguing this, but it is now really too late. Nuclear power is too
slow to build, has trouble with suitable sites (need to be away from populated
areas but near water). If we started planning a new power station _now_ it
wouldn't be online until about 2030. The intermediate strategy of
"overprovision wind and fill the remaining need with CCGT" is actually working
pretty well. Hopefully people can start talking about battery storage, or some
other modular deployable solution.

(Cost is another issue, but it seems the parties are happy enough to spend
$100bn on a nuclear weapons system that we hope never to use)

~~~
dabeeeenster
Tend to agree. The window for nuclear is closing now. We should be doing a
fuckton of R+D into energy storage solutions, and overprovisioning offshore
wind.

~~~
lstodd
To substitute a single 4GWe nuclear plant, one would need ~96 GWh storage,
which there is no technology for, plus ~48GW wind farm, while UK has ~22GW
installed total now..

And you talk of overprovisioning. Crazy.

If anything, we must invest into making nuclear cheaper.

~~~
cygx
Given these numbers, how was it possible for Germany to cut nuclear energy
production from 156TWh in 2002 to 72TWh in 2018? ( _source:_
[https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-
sources&p...](https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-
sources&period=annual&year=all))

~~~
XorNot
They buy their baseload from France, which at this point has one of the most
vibrant nuclear industries in the world (and no surprise, fought hard to make
sure ITER was on French territory).

~~~
cygx
In 2018, Germany imported 10TWh of electricity from France, while it produced
545TWh. That's not even 2% - how are you supposed to cover baseload with that?

~~~
pjc50
A lot of people seem to be saying "baseload" when they mean "peak". That's the
benefit of the international links - countries not having their peak
consumption at the same time of day can average it out between each other.

~~~
lstodd
Can't send power over thousands of kilometers without losing half of it,
sorry. Not to mention oceans.

It is just not happening.

------
detritus
Good. One of the biggest tragedies of modern British history is the apparent
implosion of her homegrown nuclear industry. The recent 'new' nuclear power
station debacles using French and Japanese technology paid for by the French
and Chinese governments are beyond embarassing.

Rolls Royce has been banging the ‘small modular fission reactor’ drum for a
while now [1] — i'd love to see a discussion about the concept's merits or
otherwise.

We need smart, adventurous thinking on power generation to fill the gap before
fusion comes on line ( _fingers crossed_ ) — the UK has one of the healthiest
renewable markets in the world, I see no reason we shoudn't be pushing nuclear
alongside. Just smart nuclear, not dumb monolthic last generation nuclear with
little benefit for local industry.

\- ed

[1] [https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-
services/nuclear/sm...](https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-
services/nuclear/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/)

------
arethuza
I hardly think this is surprising - countries that use the same reactors for
power generation and production of materials for weapons are going to have
some cross subsidies of some kind.

What I find surprising is that nobody ever comments on the fact that the UK
literally operates US nuclear missiles with warhead designs heavily influenced
by US designs. Not to mention the lack of permissive action locks on the UK
weapons...

Edit: I should have been clearer that I meant was discussion _outside_ of the
UK about these issues.

~~~
ggm
_UK literally operates US nuclear missiles with warhead designs heavily
influenced by US designs._

The thing being this was a negotiated outcome to prevent the destabilization
of a system by the introduction of an independent nuclear source. France was
bad enough: the Americans and Russians didn't want Britain making ICBM.
(Obviously I doubt the Russians were consulted)

This is why black arrow was cancelled: the US promised Polaris if the UK
ceased rocket tests in Australia.

~~~
NotPaidToPost
As a "junior partner" it's good to see that the US allow us a few toys.

------
mbruce
Nicelear dispatchable energy can be argued is cross subsidising the
intermittent wind...

~~~
jeremyjh
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, I think it is a fair point. The cost
per hour of wind do not, I think, reflect all the infrastructure required for
the other power plants that are required when the wind is not blowing. Yet,
this is a very real cost of using wind power.

------
ovi256
It will be interesting to see the UK, a nuclear power, hindered in maintaining
their last nuclear delivery capability by consumer environmentalist groups
refusing to cross-subsidize in this manner. Interesting, in the sense used in
the Chinese saying "may you live in interesting times".

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's not "refusing", it's "not being given the option not to."

There's an official defence budget, and in a democracy voters express their
opinion about the state of defence spending through the ballot box.

Real democracies don't scam their citizens with a secret defence stealth tax.

~~~
_djo_
That's not really what this is, though. This is about industrial policy and
maintaining local industrial and technological capabilities that are, in turn,
useful or necessary for defence.

There are plenty of examples of this being done all over the world, because
many defence industry capabilities are pretty fungible into areas like
aerospace, chip design & manufacturing, optical engineering, and so on. So an
industrial policy that results in development in those areas has dual benefit.

Half the reason Silicon Valley exists is because of this sort of cross
investment. It's likely Airbus wouldn't exist in its current form either
without it. If it's all humming along nicely, you get good cross-feed in
between too, with a lot more stable and long-term low-TRL investment on the
defence side feeding into the civilian sector, and high-TRL investment
producing better completed systems for the defence side.

What will be important to prove in this case is whether the UK investment in
civilian nuclear power is done solely to benefit the military nuclear energy
industry, or whether there is a valid and viable argument for that investment
on its own. I'd be interested in seeing the research.

~~~
ovi256
>solely to benefit the military nuclear energy industry

For the state's POV, maintaining a nuclear capability is a very sufficient
argument on its own! The voters may disagree, but no state really lets voters
pick national security mechanisms they'd like.

~~~
_djo_
True as well.

------
GaurVimen
"Ministers expect that, before long, wind energy will operate without
support."

Not when there is a anti-cyclonic high pressure system anchored over the UK
and the wind isn't blowing. No wind, no turbine rotation and no electricity.

~~~
ChrisSD
If the wind falls below 2.5 m/s across the entirety of Britain's coast... that
would be an unusual event to say the least. But in the incredibly unlikely
event that happens, the UK can buy electricity from the continent (and vice
versa). This already happens today with non-renewables.

If the wind stops blowing across a significant area of Northern Europe then
something has gone seriously wrong with the Earth.

