How the U.K. broke its own economy

> Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels in all rock, soil, and water. It is the highest-numbered element found naturally in significant quantities on Earth and is almost always found combined with other elements.[12] Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust.[60] The decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium-40 in Earth's mantle is thought to be the main source of heat[61][62] that keeps the Earth's outer core in the liquid state and drives mantle convection, which in turn drives plate tectonics.

> Uranium's concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[11][22] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.[17] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).[11] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers),[63] and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.[22]

> Uranium is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver, and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum.[12][22] Uranium is found in hundreds of minerals, including uraninite (the most common uranium ore), carnotite, autunite, uranophane, torbernite, and coffinite.[12] Significant concentrations of uranium occur in some substances such as phosphate rock deposits, and minerals such as lignite, and monazite sands in uranium-rich ores[12] (it is recovered commercially from sources with as little as 0.1% uranium[17]).

Now, 0.1% uranium is 1000 parts per million, which is a lot more than 0.7 to 11. But that doesn't mean current technology is incapable of recovering uranium from these 300× lower concentrations. It's just that it requires processing 300× as much rock, which is expensive, so it can't compete in the market with more concentrated sources.

We can pretend the problem is all nanny state and neglected shitty council housing - which I agree it partly is - but it's also the creation of a vast class of landlords and property developers milking the population for rent with shoddily built super-expensive apartments. Classical free market thinking would have you believe they'd build enough housing to satisfy demand but they seem more than satisfied with maintaining the status quo so they can continue to charge exorbitant rents for little shitboxes with paper-thin walls, made to look fancy from a distance. These landlords have had a tremendous influence on Tory politicians and on policy.

And with everybody stuck in those high-rent dividend-machines, people under 40 can't afford to outright buy a house or even an apartment. And if you own a house, by means of its value gradually increasing, your mortgage reducing, and your salary hopefully increasing somewhat, you can eventually move on to a bigger/better house making room for the next young family to buy the house you're leaving behind.

Not to mention the absolute scam that is selling people leaseholds on apartments designed to make it prohibitively expensive to buy off the lease. An uniquely devious instrument dreamt up by the rentseeking class to screw over the average middle-class Brit.

The free market, cutting red tape, etc, isn't the answer. The government and the councils could and in my opinion should pick up the slack from the property developers. Build affordable houses, sell them at a reasonable rate with a provision mandating the buyer actually occupies the property for the coming 5 years or so (outside of exigent circumstances like divorce - we can work out the details). Sell them to people who are actually going to live in the house rather than use it as a financial instrument to speculate with or to rent out.

Is that unfair competition to the rentseekers? Yes, it is. Tough luck. You can't demand the government play by free market rules if you've successfully been undermining the free market functioning for at least two decades.

Sadly, with the current Labour government being very 'Tory but change the typeface and make it red,' this isn't going to happen. Cause they're friends with the real estate class too.

The idea that if we can't have a renewable grid identical to the fossil fuel grid, then we may as well stick with the fossil fuel grid even if it means the end of the world is a bit weird.

The UK's biggest energy need is heating, but the housing stock in the UK is famously shitty, 38% of homes were built before 1946 and it's the worst value for money of any developed country[1]. It isn't well insulated, triple-glazed, heat-pump fitted, using local industrial waste heat for home heating.

Heat is harder to move than electricity, but easy and cheap to store - this 2019 pilot project can store 130MWh of heat for up to a week[2], something we couldn't reasonably or cheaply do with 130MWh of electricity.

It's possible that energy and electricity requirements could be reduced meaningfully without dropping quality of life, and that meaningful amounts of energy could be stored in heat and synthetic gas[3] rather than in more expensive electric charge storage.

[Is this used Nissan Leaf at 30kWh for £2,000 the cheapest battery storage I could buy in the UK right now?[4]]

[1] top few results from https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=uk+housing+stock+low+qualit...

[2] https://www.siemensgamesa.com/global/en/home/press-releases/...

[3] https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-...

[4] https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202502289581699

Nuclear is a distraction to defocus from renewables and battery tech. There’s a reason this kind of nuclear propaganda is all over TikTok amongst right wing social media.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien...

https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-st...