171
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

I broadly agree with Zack Polanski here. I'm glad he's taken a stance.

I'm not sure about "no state has the right to exist", but whatever.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 6 days ago

It's not about what can't be powered by renewables it's that everything can't be powered by renewables all of the time.

The big advantage of nuclear power is that it works 24/7, it doesn't produce pollution, it's wasted by product is something that can be dealt with and doesn't have any environmental impacts, and it's well understood technology that has worked for nearly 100 years now and we'll still be reliable into the future. It gives us a nice stable based work from.

People are so scared of nuclear power because they don't understand it, and so the Greens have taken the stands that there against it too. Not only does that risk our energy security but it's pandering to ignorance something no party should be doing let of all the greens that are supposed to be progressive.

[-] killingspark@feddit.org 5 points 6 days ago

it doesn't produce pollution, it's wasted by product is something that can be dealt with and doesn't have any environmental impacts,

Germany would like a word about that. We do not know how to deal with the waste, we don't even know how to properly store it until we figure out what to do with it.

Also: obviously mining uranium comes with a lot of pollution with massive environmental impact.

[-] Magnum@infosec.pub 4 points 5 days ago

Hey he said no the glowing stuff is safe

[-] keylemmypie@reddthat.com 3 points 5 days ago

Batteries have sorted that. We just haven't installed enough yet. The combination of renewables and batteries is better than nuclear by every metric.

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago

Uranium has better energy density than any battery.

[-] keylemmypie@reddthat.com 1 points 2 days ago

And the density of the space needed to produce energy with it vs a battery?

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The density of space? I don't follow. 1kg of uranium produces about 10^7 times more energy than 1kg of lithium batteries.
Uranium is denser than batteries too, so 1kg of uranium takes up less volume than 1kg of batteries. Is that what you meant?
Edit: sorry I was being slow. Yes, since uranium is 10 million times more energy dense than batteries, the infrastructure will be smaller than that of batteries for the same amount of energy.

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 2 points 6 days ago

That's fair enough, my only reservation with nuclear is how much runway it needs for rollout, I know some firms have wanted to standardise with a basic unit of nuclear power sort of thing, but that's also taking a long time. I've also seen promising work done in cheap grid storage, so for my money that's going to be a better "decarbonise immediately, if not sooner" solution.

But nuclear is fine too imo, long-term. Didn't the greens evolve slightly on that too? I think I heard they're just going to treat it as another option to weigh on the merits, which is probably their way of saying "we're not NIMBYs, but it doesn't beat wind and solar".

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2026
171 points (96.7% liked)

United Kingdom

6999 readers
349 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS