Utility scale solar power occupies a lot of land that could be used to better purpose. Nuclear power can free up that land and solve the energy crisis and housing crisis.
If your idea made sense maybe they would but it doesn’t. A nuclear plant takes 8 years to build, plus probably 10 years to actually agree location and get planning permission. There’s also the little issue of the cost at £20billion+ which could be used to build hundreds of solar and wind farms far faster.
As for using it for houses instead well that depends on whether people want to live there or not to a degree. But more fundamentally there isn’t a shortage of land. House builders have more than enough in their land bank to cater for demand. They just can’t build them fast enough due to lack of materials, people and planning permission.
I’m also sure that 99% of people that currently own a home don’t want to see the market flooded with housing as the value of theirs would plunge and cause considerable economic issues elsewhere.
How long do you think it would take to build 106 GW of solar, 146 GW of wind plus agree on dozens of locations and get planning permission etc., and then build hundreds of GWh of battery backup, hydrogen electrolysers, giant underground salt caverns for storage, back-up hydrogen powered generators and hundreds of miles of high voltage transmission lines? The "green"energy revolution has been happening for 20 years and less than 15% of the needed renewable generation is in place, less than 1% of the battery storage, none of the hydrogen electrolysers, storage or generators and very little of the transmission infrastructure. At the rate of progress it will not happen until the next century, if ever. Nuclear would be much quicker to build because you have to build a lot less to achieve what you need.
Renewable installations are accelerating now there is a drive to actually do it. Not sure what you are on about regarding 15% as the UK generated almost 50% of its power last year using renewables.
If your idea made sense maybe they would but it doesn’t. A nuclear plant takes 8 years to build, plus probably 10 years to actually agree location and get planning permission. There’s also the little issue of the cost at £20billion+ which could be used to build hundreds of solar and wind farms far faster.
As for using it for houses instead well that depends on whether people want to live there or not to a degree. But more fundamentally there isn’t a shortage of land. House builders have more than enough in their land bank to cater for demand. They just can’t build them fast enough due to lack of materials, people and planning permission.
I’m also sure that 99% of people that currently own a home don’t want to see the market flooded with housing as the value of theirs would plunge and cause considerable economic issues elsewhere.
How long do you think it would take to build 106 GW of solar, 146 GW of wind plus agree on dozens of locations and get planning permission etc., and then build hundreds of GWh of battery backup, hydrogen electrolysers, giant underground salt caverns for storage, back-up hydrogen powered generators and hundreds of miles of high voltage transmission lines? The "green"energy revolution has been happening for 20 years and less than 15% of the needed renewable generation is in place, less than 1% of the battery storage, none of the hydrogen electrolysers, storage or generators and very little of the transmission infrastructure. At the rate of progress it will not happen until the next century, if ever. Nuclear would be much quicker to build because you have to build a lot less to achieve what you need.
Renewable installations are accelerating now there is a drive to actually do it. Not sure what you are on about regarding 15% as the UK generated almost 50% of its power last year using renewables.