I always think what's the advantage of going renewable in the actual world.
Having this much instability, this much anger, breaking alliances and a start of a new world order in just a few nights.. the danger and probability of economic or physical wars is rising higher every day. And it can always escalate to a proper WORLD WAR grade physical conflict.
In such cases, having fission in a reactor, that itself is encapsulated in tones of concrete, IS much easier to defend and to protect.
Having renewable wind or solar energy production would mean the aggressor can operate on a wide/big areal, which is difficult to defend and to protect, and only needs to throw cluster bombs. Once critical mass of wind/solar generation is destroyed, the conflict is won.
We should follow two paths and for upper reasons invest BIG MONEY into both, renewable and fission/coal (what is and could be available in a grown conflict and is a source of reliable energy production).
If one is destroyed, we have backup. In times of no conflicts we can use the renewables as peacemakers, strengthening the bonds between neighbor nations. This may also reduce conflict potentials: when both need it, either one will not destroy it.
The Russian attacks on Ukrainian reactors show they are not easy to defend.
Renewables' diffuse nature means that attacking them directly, while easier to score a hit, does much less damage. Knock down one wind turbine, you cut something like 15 MW peak output, you need to hit 60-120 turbines to have the impact of hitting a single nuclear plant (or more depending on capacity factor). If a bomb hits the PV in my garden, the loss of the PV itself is by far the least of my problems.
Fission is great when you want the spicy radioisotopes though. MAD worked last time, will it continue to deter in the future?
> The UK also plans to work with Germany, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands to open up cross-border, offshore electricity projects, with a focus on joint planning and cost sharing.
That’s refreshing and promising. I wonder if projects like these could lead to un-brexit long term.
Long term, un-Brexiting requires the UK to convince the EU that the UK won't treat the EU like a cat treats a door.
I don't know what this needs, but any Nigel Farage party (currently Reform) polling well, isn't it.
How much funding does Reform receive from foreign parties?
And should said foreign parties come to an eventual collapse where would it leave Reform?