New petition: Stop Hinkley nuclear plant and spend the money on renewable instead

The petition: https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/s/osborne-dont-waste-billions-nuclear?source=em&subsource=20160307egem01&utm_source=gpeace&utm_medium=em&utm_campaign=20160307egem01

About it: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/new-petition-stop-hinkley-nuclear-plant-and-spend-money-renewable-instead-20160307

"The cost of the project is staggering. Best guesses say Hinkley could pass £24 billion -- easily making it the most expensive power station in world history. " - What??

Reply 1

user73867

19

And when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?

Reply 2

THE EPIC Panda

10

You have to be clinically insane to think that renewable can replace nuclear. It is the future. Renewable is a stopgap and will be gone by the time fusion becomes viable.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 3

joey11223

20

Original post by Supersaps

And when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?

or it blows too fast and the turbines need shutting down...lol.

I understand us trying to take advantage of tidal energy, since that's a constant and we have good sites for it. But not solar/wind in any serious way.

Reply 4

user73867

19

Original post by joey11223

or it blows too fast and the turbines need shutting down...lol.

I understand us trying to take advantage of tidal energy, since that's a constant and we have good sites for it. But not solar/wind in any serious way.

Yep. Presumably the OP isn't a massive fan of coal power stations...

Hamsters..?

Reply 5

Wired_1800

20

The UK Government wants to spend 100 Billion on Trident, but people are angry for 24 Billion on a Nuclear Plant that has better long-term benefits than a nuclear weapon.

Reply 6

username1751857

21

Oh come on...Renewables are good but it doesn't have as much of a good output as nuclear and it isn't reliable. Investment is much better in nuclear power than renewables.

Reply 7

Drewski

19

Yay, another petition, they always work!

Reply 8

L i b

19

Nope, nuclear is the way to go to improve baseload, reduce emissions and promote energy security.

Renewables are expensive and problematic. I have no problem supporting renewable investment for the future as part of a diversified energy mix, but to suggest it can adequately replace new nuclear is, I think, a bit daft.

Reply 9

limetang

19

The infrastructure is nowhere near there yet for renewables to actually work alone as a sustainable energy source. Before we even begin the infrastructure needed in terms of renewables to match the power out put of a nuclear plant is much higher, secondly a flaw with many renewable technologies is that they only work for some of the time (not continuously), and the grid in it's current form works such that power plants are producing as much electricity as is being used, i.e. none is left over and stored anywhere. In order for renewables to be able to constantly meet demand at all times of the day battery technology is going to need to vastly improve, and ... while it is improving it is NOT in the state yet where it can feasibly used for a mass grid storage project.

All of which is to say I would support a new new petition: Instead of building just one new nuclear power plant, build two.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 10

jeremy1988

13

I think nuclear power is an excellent investment, and I wish more countries would be open minded rather than taking a "not in my backyard" attitude. I think the Germans freaked out over this issue and started dismantling nuclear plants to go back to coal.

Talking to a German engineer and hearing his emotionally-based, paranoid reasoning that revolved around potential yet unlikely disasters and grandchildren was depressing. I thought they were smarter than that. And this was one of the people advising their government.

Reply 11

Sebastian Bartlett

10

I suggest all those supporting Nuclear go and live right next door to the plant and lets use your back garden as a dumping ground for deadly radioactive waste. Also I think you should pay for it and all the subsidies it will require for decades to come and it will go way over budget I can guarantee that. Nuclear Power in its current state, is wasteful, expensive, creates fewer jobs than renewable alternatives, is still short term and an unnecessary risk.

Also don't come out with crap like oh what if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. You do realise there is more than just wind and solar and it's been proven to be successful in generating a lot of power in many other European countries. I seriously advise you educate yourself on the matter, maybe do Geography at A Level and realise current nuclear power is not worth it!

Reply 12

Sebastian Bartlett

10

Original post by jeremy1988

I think nuclear power is an excellent investment, and I wish more countries would be open minded rather than taking a "not in my backyard" attitude. I think the Germans freaked out over this issue and started dismantling nuclear plants to go back to coal.

Talking to a German engineer and hearing his emotionally-based, paranoid reasoning that revolved around potential yet unlikely disasters and grandchildren was depressing. I thought they were smarter than that. And this was one of the people advising their government.

Actually Germany is going to renewables so maybe stop being so uninformed and making up an apparent friend of yours.

Reply 13

user73867

19

Original post by Sebastian Bartlett

I suggest all those supporting Nuclear go and live right next door to the plant and lets use your back garden as a dumping ground for deadly radioactive waste. Also I think you should pay for it and all the subsidies it will require for decades to come and it will go way over budget I can guarantee that. Nuclear Power in its current state, is wasteful, expensive, creates fewer jobs than renewable alternatives, is still short term and an unnecessary risk.

Also don't come out with crap like oh what if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. You do realise there is more than just wind and solar and it's been proven to be successful in generating a lot of power in many other European countries. I seriously advise you educate yourself on the matter, maybe do Geography at A Level and realise current nuclear power is not worth it!

wow

Reply 14

Sebastian Bartlett

10

Original post by limetang

The infrastructure is nowhere near there yet for renewables to actually work alone as a sustainable energy source. Before we even begin the infrastructure needed in terms of renewables to match the power out put of a nuclear plant is much higher, secondly a flaw with many renewable technologies is that they only work for some of the time (not continuously), and the grid in it's current form works such that power plants are producing as much electricity as is being used, i.e. none is left over and stored anywhere. In order for renewables to be able to constantly meet demand at all times of the day battery technology is going to need to vastly improve, and ... while it is improving it is NOT in the state yet where it can feasibly used for a mass grid storage project.

All of which is to say I would support a new new petition: Instead of building just one new nuclear power plant, build two.

You really can't see the solution? Investing in renewables will mean they will come up to scratch with Nuclear in terms of generation, create many more jobs, be much more long term and have you heard of diversifying your energy sources?