points by gadders 2 days ago | 0 comments
Not really. Solar is improving, but in terms of area required it's not even close to comparable to nuclear. You'd need 668 sq kilometres of solar panel (67k hectares) to match the same generation capability as Hinkley C (175 hectares).
[–] MichaelNolan 2 days ago
[–] jayflux 2 days ago
You are still going to need an energy source that you can “switch on” and balance the grid at times of low wind/solar.
You know it’s not sunny all the time, you don’t need me to tell you that, but it’s not windy all the time either. Batteries are a good investment but they can only hold hours worth of capacity right now not days.
So you have 2 options. Either invest in long term storage, or have enough nuclear around that can kick in when other generators don’t have much, or ideally both, which the UK is doing.
Both Hinkley and Sizewell are the right choice. They’re an upfront cost but once running are cheap.
[–] gadders 2 days ago
I guess people can have different views. I'd rather have power generation concentrated in a few spots and have more fields and forests.
For reference, the Birmingham/West Midlands conurbation is 671 sq km.
In 2010 Hinkley C was the right choice. But if starting today, that £48 billion could buy you a whole lot of wind, solar, and batteries.