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 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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

[–] solo@kbin.earth 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You find "sane and realistic" to claim that 77 people died due to the Chernobyl accident?

[–] Oneser@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It appears to be a widely quoted official figure and have no insight on if it is realistic. I am also aware that this does not consider the considerable environmental impact of the disaster, nor the economic cost to clean up the mess.

My comment was more relating to the facts about the current state of renewables.

The 2 options this comments OP provides at the end are what I mostly agree on, where we either go 0 carbon now and accept nuclear (with its flaws) as base load, or continue with carbon intensive tech as base load and continue to build out renewables on top.