Europe

8324 readers

3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

Nuclear energy has no place in a green Scotland (greens.scot)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by solo@kbin.earth to c/europe@feddit.de

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Nuclear power leaves a long and toxic legacy.

Mr Ruskell said: “There is nothing safe, secure or green about nuclear energy, and many people across Scotland will be dismayed and angry to hear that the Secretary of State is seeking to open a new reactor in Scotland.

“Aside from the brazen entitlement and the message this sends, it ignores that people in Scotland have long rejected nuclear energy. I hope that all progressive parties will unite in condemning this environment wrecking overreach.

“A new reactor would not only be unsafe, it would be extremely costly and would leave a toxic legacy for centuries. It would also distract from the vital work we need to do to boost clean, green and renewable energy.

“That is why I hope all progressive parties can rule out any return to nuclear power once Torness has been decommissioned.

“The Hinkley point shambles has exposed the UK government’s total inability to deliver nuclear programmes on budget or on time. We would be far better investing in the huge abundance of renewable resources that we already have here in Scotland.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee -5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The issue is that you still need something to replace fossil fuels. Solar and wind are not going to replace fossil fuels, they're simply not efficient enough. If you look up the global energy production solar and wind barely even register. Hydro or thermal are much better, , but they're too dependent on geography and are also expensive. Assuming our energy demands will keep growing, whether we like it or not, nuclear is the way to go.

And we don't really need to keep nuclear safe for a millennia, just long enough to make it safe and cheap to shoot it into the sun. Since we need to go to space anyway we need to keep it safe for a century, maybe max two centuries.

The issues you've brought up are all valid and the adoption time of nuclear is also a factor (I think it was something like 10 years just to build a plant), so realistically we're fucked anyway.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that we can reuse the spent fuel rods. If we go the nuclear reactor way, this will inevitably need to happen anyways.