Sorry, afraid I cannot agree with that.What is the perspective here?
My understanding:
Nuclear is a key part of a zero-carbon future.
Agreed, it's time for it to be confined to the history books.Our existing nuclear is coming to the end of its lifespan.
Perhaps a happy coincidence, but we now have new clean energy sources to replace both. Looking at national demand as I write, wind is supplying 52% and gas 10.4% of current needs. Admittedly we need to build out over generation of renewables and place excesses into a variety of storage technologies. Some already in existence, with others also maturing to cover short falls. Tidal energy has huge potential to fill gaps as well, given the political will and necessary investment.The failure of successive governments over the last few decades to enable new nuclear construction has resulted in our current reliance on FF gas for electricity generation.
I'm afraid It is too late for new large scale nuclear, their build only exacerbates the already precarious toxic gas emission situation. For instance Sizewell C, circa 6.5 million tonnes of CO2 during it's early build programme and not even commencing being supposedly repaid until a decade further down the line, by which time there would be precious little FF generation in the grid left to replace. Thus repayment is unlikely ever to be fulfilled. Leaving a huge expensive white elephant and unnecessary excessive emissions as another testimony to mankinds folly!How do you propose nuclear be funded if not through electricity bills?
Apologies, I believe we all desperately want to save the planet for future generations to inherit. Just have differing views on how it might best be achieved!
