Currently the UK gets significant cross-channel energy from France which has
a reliable nuclear supply.
Not exact matches
You'd also know that weather - dependent renewables can not
supply much of global electricity, let alone global energy and they are far more expensive than
nuclear to provide
reliable power (which is an essential requirement).
Nuclear power would provide many other benefits as well: energy security,
reliable energy
supply, reduce shipping costs and energy used in shipping coal by a factor of 20,000 to 2 million, provide fresh water, no need for carbon pricing, avoid 1 million fatalities per year by 2050,... https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-231867.
If we'd need 10,000
nuclear plants, how many solar plants would be required to achieve the same power and reliability; and how much area, how far apart would they have to be placed to provide
reliable supply, how much storage would be required, how much transmission line length and capacity would be required how much total materials and how much transport between all the processing, production, construction and decomissioning steps?
«Since intermittent renewables by definition can not provide a
reliable supply of electricity, they must be backed up by conventional fuel sources such as coal, gas, hydro or
nuclear.»
Coal,
nuclear, natural gas; all could
supply a
reliable and steady stream of electricity from a set amount of fuel.
And in any case, there is no alternative at the moment to
supplying reliable and cheap base load capacity with any sources other than fossil fuels and
nuclear energy.
«Only a system with its base - load provided by
nuclear power, supplemented by gas for peak demand, and retaining the existing wind investment, can possibly
supply the UK long - term with the huge amounts of secure and
reliable, predominantly electrical energy, it needs.