Why not? You've got abundant wind and solar. Once installed, even if for some reason you can't get new turbines or panels, you'll still have a decent amount of capacity.

▲

doublerabbit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Solar is hit & miss. The only capacity we really have is wind and those are only efficient to those near the sea or in the highlands. England, Scotland, Wales are governed by rain 80% of the year and with the sun we get, household solar rarely breaks even.

Just because we've got, if the government isn't supporting it's pretty much wasted. The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by private investments firms. Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK government says no.

> End 2024 installed electricity generating capacity was 105 GWe: 35.0 GWe natural gas; 32.8 GWe wind; 18.3 GWe solar; 7.4 GWe biofuels & waste; 5.9 GWe nuclear; 4.8 GWe hydro (including 2.9 GWe pumped storage) and 1.3 GWe oil.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

▲

mekdoonggi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

A quick search says the UK produced 18,314 GWh of solar last year. And this was mostly funded by private investment? It seems like for some infrastructure investment, the government is getting long-term renewable power. If the solar isn't making money, why is it growing 30% annually?

What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy.

Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?

▲

doublerabbit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy.

It's not the stupidly of the reactor producing. I don't agree with it personally, but hey whatever, it's a thing. The stupidly of it is that we are small island.

Claim what you wish about how safe they are but like anything: errors and malfunctions. Cyber sabotage and all that.

If an reactor were to implode we're eff'd. We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK and the waste we do currently produce has to be shipped elsewhere; sold for dark money.

> Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?

My preference would be my hand with a gun pointed at my temple and myself pulling the trigger. To dark?

	▲	mekdoonggi an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Forgive me, but I don't think you're looking at UK energy policy with a pragmatic and realistic lens. The UK could always make a reactor safer and more secure. If you're dependent on gas, Russia or the US could just shut off the tap.
	▲	M2Ys4U an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		>We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK Yes, we do. It really doesn't make that much space to store the waste. The biggest problem is people being irrationally scared of it.
	▲	Moldoteck an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		even accounting for fukushima/chernoble nuclear is between solar and wind in terms of human deaths. And new units are safer than both. EPR went 'just add one more thing' to be more expensive, AP1000 went passive safety way but westinghose imploded and they needed to ask Korea for help