The paper refers to traditional build costs not SMR costs. I don't know the comparisons.
The main point is we need baseload for the next 20+years as renewables are not yet reliable enough. Quick-built nuclear SMRs could do that. There could be a cost but there are no alternatives being suggested.
The main point is we need baseload for the next 20+years as renewables are not yet reliable enough. Quick-built nuclear SMRs could do that. There could be a cost but there are no alternatives being suggested.
Comments
But SMRs are being built in many countries.
The argument here isn't whether we should build them. We are planning to build them. It's whether we build some of them in Scotland.
Seems perverse not to.
UK Polaris fleet.
Given the UKs skill in procurement now!, someone else’s expensive problem later, it’s a no from me.
We’ve some of the worse thermally efficient properties in Europe.
Better insulation = less heating demand.
Secondly, look at tidal, pumped hydro.
Thirdly, force developers to build energy efficient housing (Alex Rowley) been doing good work on this