Europe

8484 readers

1 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

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Wind and solar cannot provide all our energy. Nuclear does not replace wind and solar, it complements it. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow.

Yes it costs more than burning gas or coal, but that doesn't take into account the environmental cost or the cost on the health of living things.

And yeah we do know how to store nuclear waste for *hundreds of years. We do so already. I don't know where you're getting the "hundreds of thousands of years" from. Even old reactors althat don't recycle waste didn't have half-lives anywhere near that long.

[–] baru@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow.

Which is why you connect countries together. Combined with having more than enough capacity. And battery storage.

All of that is still significantly cheaper than nuclear. Plus it can be built way faster.

Nuclear is expensive and takes ages. And that's just the budget, it'll easily go crazy over budget and be a decade late.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Battery storage and connecting grids together (which we do already) doesn't even come close to solving our energy needs. And no it can't be built way faster. We cannot have worldwide, practically unlimited, cheap battery storage right now.

Don't get me wrong, I really, really want to live in your fantasy world, but for now, that's all it is.