Minister versprechen rekordverdächtige 410 Millionen Pfund zur Unterstützung der britischen Kernfusionsenergie – Ed Miliband sagt, die Finanzierungszusage bedeute, dass Großbritannien in „greifbarer Nähe“ zu „sicherer, sauberer und unbegrenzter Energie“ sei.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/16/ministers-pledge-record-410m-to-support-uk-nuclear-fusion-energy
3 Comments
From the article
>The UK government has promised a record £410m investment in nuclear fusion which could help construct a world-leading fusion power project on the site of an old coal plant in Nottinghamshire.
>Ministers hope the funding, which will be made available for the coming financial year, will support the rapid development of the UK fusion energy sector and deliver “a future powered by limitless clean energy”.
>The funding will include the development of the prototype power plant at the now decommissioned West Burton coal-fired power plant in Nottinghamshire by 2040, and repurposing the UK’s [pioneering fusion machine at the Culham Centre](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/08/energy-based-on-power-of-stars-is-step-closer-after-nuclear-fusion-heat-record) for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire.
The question is, is this based on some kind of meaningfully finished design or is it based on hoping a design exists before they are forced to kill the project?
The UKs recent record on infrastructure is comical.
Edit: Been following links here and got to this article: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/03/is-the-dream-of-nuclear-fusion-dead-why-the-international-experimental-reactor-is-in-big-trouble](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/03/is-the-dream-of-nuclear-fusion-dead-why-the-international-experimental-reactor-is-in-big-trouble)
>Then huge sections of tokamak made in Korea were found not to fit together properly, while threats that there could be leaks of radioactive materials led the French nuclear regulators to call a halt on the plant’s construction. More delays in construction were announced as problems piled up.
I had no idea ITER was in that degree of difficulty
This makes me think about one of the problems we have in the UK with placing stuff like this.
If you have a nuclear plant built within X miles of you (I don’t have an informed guess on how many miles) then it is a negative. Perceived riskaffects house prices, and in the UK that means it affects youor family standing and security.
The benefit is diffused, but the cost is localised.
It could be offset by a benefit though – electricity.
Could we do a project whereby any residential properties within X miles get, say, free 20kWh/day electricity from the new powerplant? Has anything like this been trialled anywhere?
I suppose there’s multiple ways a city could do it. A powerplant is built and run with council/local government funds with agreement to produce X amount of power to the area. Or the powerplant supplies the grid and any profit goes to offsetting local council taxes.
Now I think about it more.. the profit margins probably aren’t great enough to allow for that consentrated benefit to be realised over all the people negatively affected by it, other than in sparse regions.