Read on Twitter
I see Sizewell is in the news as a ‘go-ahead’ is expected soon
Apologies but even though it’s Saturday I feel compelled to do a thread on this
Here’s why this is a bad decision https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54754016
Apologies but even though it’s Saturday I feel compelled to do a thread on this
Here’s why this is a bad decision https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54754016
The justification is weak and insubstantial. There are 3 reasons given for the go ahead, only one of which holds water (we’ll come to that later)
First let’s understand that this is not a ‘go-ahead’ in normal speak. For Hinkley, there were 3 years between broad agreement on terms to actually going ahead
Terms for Sizewell have not yet been agreed https://twitter.com/jbuckland13/status/1322446565634691077
Terms for Sizewell have not yet been agreed https://twitter.com/jbuckland13/status/1322446565634691077
The first reason given for going ahead with Sizewell is that it’s ‘government policy’
That’s *not* a justification. The question is WHY is it government policy.
Otherwise it’s like answering the question ‘why do you like cheeses?’ by answering ‘Because I like cheese’
That’s *not* a justification. The question is WHY is it government policy.
Otherwise it’s like answering the question ‘why do you like cheeses?’ by answering ‘Because I like cheese’
Second reason is because wind & solar can’t cover power needs all the time
This is true, unless there’s storage
However we know how to do this. Green hydrogen, liquid air and others are all tech which are known to work and are scalable.
This is true, unless there’s storage
However we know how to do this. Green hydrogen, liquid air and others are all tech which are known to work and are scalable.
What we don’t know for these tech are costs, because they’re coming down, but how far? Will they be cheaper than nuclear when deployed at ‘whole system’ level?
Maybe. Maybe not
What u definitely don’t get w them are headaches of security & nuclear waste that come with nuclear
Maybe. Maybe not
What u definitely don’t get w them are headaches of security & nuclear waste that come with nuclear
So how do you compare (possibly) slightly higher system costs for renewables vs nuclear risk? Answers come there none
I’m clear waste & security issues require a wisdom & institutional capability that human societies don’t universally possess to manage for decades & centuries
I’m clear waste & security issues require a wisdom & institutional capability that human societies don’t universally possess to manage for decades & centuries
Others can legitimately take a different view
But if you do, you’re basically looking at the world’s governments, presidents & prime ministers and saying:
‘Yup, this lot and their appointees will do a solid, long-term job on a technically demanding issue’
Does that feel right?
But if you do, you’re basically looking at the world’s governments, presidents & prime ministers and saying:
‘Yup, this lot and their appointees will do a solid, long-term job on a technically demanding issue’
Does that feel right?
And by the way notion in BBC piece that
“Even some of most prominent evangelists for renewables such as wind & solar privately admit that you can't get to net zero by renewables alone”
Well… here’s thoughts of someone definitely not in NGO community: https://twitter.com/bobbyllew/status/1322450892390604800
“Even some of most prominent evangelists for renewables such as wind & solar privately admit that you can't get to net zero by renewables alone”
Well… here’s thoughts of someone definitely not in NGO community: https://twitter.com/bobbyllew/status/1322450892390604800
Third reason given in BBC piece is jobs
Will building Sizewell create jobs? Yes
Is it best way to create jobs in tackling the climate crisis? No
Other routes to creating jobs are quicker and more cost-effective, and aren’t happening.
Will building Sizewell create jobs? Yes
Is it best way to create jobs in tackling the climate crisis? No
Other routes to creating jobs are quicker and more cost-effective, and aren’t happening.
Renewables are being delayed, there's no proper programme for long-term jobs in building efficiency, nature restoration is not being funded, our waste recycling/re-use system needs much more capacity
See here for some of the options
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/new-greenpeace-report-green-recovery-could-create-a-1-8-million-jobs-revolution/#:~:text=Share&text=A%20green%20economic%20recovery%20package,by%20Greenpeace%20UK%20has%20found.
See here for some of the options
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/new-greenpeace-report-green-recovery-could-create-a-1-8-million-jobs-revolution/#:~:text=Share&text=A%20green%20economic%20recovery%20package,by%20Greenpeace%20UK%20has%20found.
We also know from SPRU that nations going down the nuclear route are less effective at delivering CO2 emissions reductions than those going down the renewables route
So a nuclear focus is not a risk-free option for the climate https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3?utm_campaign=MultipleJournals_USG_SOCIAL&utm_source=Nature_community&utm_medium=Social_media_advertisingCommunity_sites&utm_content=BenJoh-Nature-MultiJournal-Social_Sciences-Global
So a nuclear focus is not a risk-free option for the climate https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3?utm_campaign=MultipleJournals_USG_SOCIAL&utm_source=Nature_community&utm_medium=Social_media_advertisingCommunity_sites&utm_content=BenJoh-Nature-MultiJournal-Social_Sciences-Global
And by the way the EPR is a rubbish design
If Sizewell ever gets built it will probably be the last one ever constructed
China and even France seem to be turning their back on it. Only the gullible Brits are building them
If Sizewell ever gets built it will probably be the last one ever constructed
China and even France seem to be turning their back on it. Only the gullible Brits are building them
The financing package proposed by UK govt transfers risks of cost overruns to taxpayer and consumers.
Here’s a nice illustration of what happened when EDF tried to build this reactor design in France
If you're in UK, EDF's foul ups become your problem https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2019/06/24/epr-de-flamanville-visualisez-comment-le-cout-et-la-duree-du-chantier-ont-triple-depuis-2007_5480745_4355770.html
Here’s a nice illustration of what happened when EDF tried to build this reactor design in France
If you're in UK, EDF's foul ups become your problem https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2019/06/24/epr-de-flamanville-visualisez-comment-le-cout-et-la-duree-du-chantier-ont-triple-depuis-2007_5480745_4355770.html
A mechanism similar to the one being proposed was used to finance a nuke station in South Carolina, which collapsed and will not be built
Payments for a power station that will never generate power still make up about **18%** of customers’ bills
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2018-HTML.html#fig28
Payments for a power station that will never generate power still make up about **18%** of customers’ bills
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2018-HTML.html#fig28
In conclusion this is a bad choice where risks of failure will land with consumers and taxpayers, continue to create hard-to-manage risks, threatening better ways of delivering CO2 emissions reductions
thanks for reading, apologies for the length
thanks for reading, apologies for the length
