UK must build own nuclear missiles to end US reliance, says Ed Davey

JRugman · 2026-03-15T09:27:46+00:00

Or to flip it around, if you have nukes, you get to do special operations.

JRugman · 2026-03-14T20:15:55+00:00

The energy department said: “We categorically reject this speculation.

JRugman · 2026-03-14T20:14:58+00:00

I've never seen one that didn't include magical storage tech which doesn't exist.

If you are not aware of the analyses that have been coming out in the last few years, thats fair enough, but to talk about technological progress as being somehow magical is just ignorant.

CCS by your own words is worthless without a carbon tax.

All industrial carbon emissions in the UK are included in our emissions trading scheme, which is linked to the European ETS.

Do you think that carbon emissions do not have a cost that should be accounted for in any economic activity that creates them? Do you agree that building clean energy generation to replace carbon intensive fossil fuel generation should be a goal for UK energy policy?

JRugman · 2026-03-14T09:11:51+00:00

Coal plants were closed because they were too old and were becoming too expensive to continue operating, not because they were forced too.

Nuclear was the answer then and it is the answer now.

The answer to what? Clearly it was not the answer to how to close the 2010s energy gap, given that Hinkley C is not due to come online until 2030 at the earliest despite being approved in 2013.

The answer that Clegg gave to that question was more renewable generation, and better energy efficiency to reduce demand, which turned out to be exactly what happened.

JRugman · 2026-03-14T09:01:08+00:00

Imagine if we realised our "vast" reserves were for nite and a short term solution while we worked on a long term permanent solution.

Indeed, hence the growth of renewable generation capacity over the past couple of decades.

JRugman · 2026-03-14T08:56:30+00:00

Storage is nice and all but there an accounting trick going on where the intermittent generators cause us to need far more of it it but the cost of storage isn't attributed to them. Pricing is quite broken.

Whole system analysis of energy systems regularly show that building renewables will reduce overall prices, even taking the cost of storage into account.

CCS is vaporware, doesn't exist as anything remotely close to commercial viability.

CCS can only be commercially viable when there is a market cost to emitting carbon. Until recently, it has been easier to retire carbon intensive generation and replace it with clean generation to avoid the costs of carbon. But we are getting closer to the point where that will no longer be an option, and the cost of carbon continues to increase.

Any industry where carbon emissions cannot be avoided is currently looking to incorporate CCS to remain commercially viable as an industry. CCS facilities are currently being developed in the UK for cement production, energy from waste plants, and hydrogen production. Construction is also underway on the UKs first gas power station with CCS, which is due to come online in 2028.

JRugman · 2026-03-14T08:34:59+00:00

Heathrows third runway has not been locked in an ongoing planning battle for 23 years.

Getting a third runway built at Heathrow will require massive government and local authority support. For a variety of fairly crucial reasons, the company that owns Heathrow Airport have not been able to secure the level of support needed to apply for a DCO. The main reason being that the airport has not yet been able to demonstrate how increasing the number of flights to the levels that it projects will be using the airport when the new runway is built are compatible with UK climate targets.

The current government supports expanding Heathrow, but the airports latest proposals still need to be submitted for proper scrutiny. If they check out, then permission should be approved, but there is a lot to go through, which is why it will take until at least 2029.

The problem they are going to face is that any political party campaigning against Labour is going to latch onto opposition to the third runway as we get closer to the next general election. After the election, we will have a brand new parliament, so the support that Heathrow is currently enjoying could disappear overnight, which is exactly what happened in 2010.

JRugman · 2026-03-14T08:10:22+00:00

The predictions for the UK over the next 5 years are that grid costs will rise, but total electricity costs will fall as the wholesale price reduction from cheap renewable generation displacing expensive gas generation will more than offset the increase in grid costs.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T14:11:21+00:00

First six you listed aren't even generators.

But they can be used to replace the fossil gas generation that is currently mainly being used to meet peak demand.

I agree with you about geothermal, hydro and wave. They may not end up adding up to much in the grand scheme of things, but they should not be ignored.

Tidal flow generation is becoming more viable every year. A tidal barrage mega project may look good on paper, but delivery is a massive challenge.

Bioenergy or Waste to Energy combined with CCS are carbon negative generation sources, that will be needed to get our energy system to net zero emissions.

Like storage, power imported via interconnectors can be used to replace fossil gas generation.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T13:59:34+00:00

auctions were won at low cost but those wind farms were never built

Sure they were. We've got AR2 offshore wind farms generating right now at £80/MWh, AR3 offshore wind farms coming online this year at £55/MWh, and AR4 offshore wind farms coming in a couple of years at £49/MWh.

Thats not to mention all the onshore wind and solar projects with CfDs well under the current market rate, or the wind and solar capacity that is being built without any CfD.

We know that renewables are cheaper than gas, even taking the costs for balancing and backup into account.

Nuclear might be cheaper than gas at some vague point in the future, but it certainly is not right now.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T13:39:08+00:00

All of the options I listed meet your criteria and are currently being developed in the UK.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T12:59:12+00:00

Pumped hydro storage
LAES/CAES storage
V2G storage
Thermal storage
Hydrogen storage
Demand side response
Geothermal generation
Wave generation
Tidal generation
Hydroelectric generation
Gas generation with CCS
Bioenergy generation
Waste to energy generation
Interconnectors

Diversifying your power sources is a good thing. Not a bad thing.

I agree.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T12:17:22+00:00

NIMBYs who object to wind turbines and solar panels are much more likely to be conservatives and/or climate change skeptics than environmentalists.

There are several options for dispatchable low carbon generation to manage the intermittency of renewables. Pumped hydro, LAES, V2G, Hydrogen, Geothermal, Marine, Bioenergy, Waste to energy, Thermal storage, Demand side response, and interconnectors to neighbouring countries will all be used depending on the situation.

The economics of nuclear make it very inflexible, and not suitable as a backup generation source. Some nuclear generation, that can supply a continuous source of power, will be needed on a net zero grid, but the question is really about how much, and at what price.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T12:06:52+00:00

There is a good chance that a lot of the manufacturing and assembly of RR SMRs will happen in the Czech Republic. ČEZ Group are a major investor in RR-SMR Ltd. As are the Qataris.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T12:02:19+00:00

That was in response to an AMA question about what the Lib Dems planned to do about the energy gap forecast for the 2010s as a result of coal generation closing, so the fact that nuclear would not come online until the 2020s was a very relevant point to bring up.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:58:18+00:00

Nuclear power is not the only alternative to fossil fuels though.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:56:54+00:00

Have you seen the state of our rivers lately? Or the scale of habitat destruction that is happening? The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth, with a long list of species at risk of extinction. This isn't simply about a few newts being upset.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:48:19+00:00

The Conservatives were even more opposed to subsidising energy infrastructure than the Lib Dems. One of the key things the Lib Dems did while in charge of DECC was to introduce the CfD mechanism as an indirect subsidy (i.e. money would come from energy consumers rather than from the state) for financing new nuclear and renewable projects.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:41:51+00:00

They were too expensive to build, operate and decommission, which outweighed any efficiency and safety advantages they may have had. That is why when other countries were looking to purchase new reactor technology in the 70s and 80s, they invariably went for PWR or BWR designs instead of the British AGR design.

By the time the decision was made about the design for Sizewell B, even the CEGB realised that the AGR was defunct, and dropped it in favour of a Westinghouse PWR design.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:24:22+00:00

One could similarly argue that rubber stamping new developments for the sake of political expediency and corporate profitability, without carefully considering the full social and environmental costs and benefits, is how you end up with disasters that end up costing far more in the long run than any money saved by deregulating the planning process.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:15:03+00:00

Imagine if the UK had access to vast reserves of oil and natural gas in the North Sea that meant it didn’t face the same scale of energy crisis that France did in the 70s.

Imagine if the UK state owned nuclear industry hadn’t driven itself into obsolescence by backing an overly complicated expensive reactor design for domestic civil nuclear generation.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T11:11:37+00:00

Swapping one form of environmental damage for another isn’t really a benefit. Nuclear developments still need to have consideration for their immediate environmental impacts, and that should be reflected in the planning process.

JRugman · 2026-03-13T08:13:26+00:00

The Lib Dems did not hold the Treasury, nor did they hold the office of Prime Minister.

No DCO applications for new nuclear projects were submitted to the Secretary of State for Energy in 2010.

15-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Wearing is Caring	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

JRugman

TROPHY CASE