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.”

  • Oneser@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    This hits the nail on the head! It’s rare to see a sane and realistic take on nuclear online.

    • solo@kbin.earthOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

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

      • Oneser@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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.

        • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Nuclear energy has, by a staggering margin, the lowest death toll of any form of energy generation per kW produced. And almost all of these come from Chernobyl, where 31 people died due to the explosion, then a further 46 died due to radiation poisoning from the cleanup.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s not soviet propaganda though. That’s UN numbers.

            Maybe if you weren’t such a fucking moron you’d be able to look into it yourself.

            • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              lol It’s the official numbers provided by the SU. But your ad hominem projection really shows that you don’t have any argument in this anyway. Fucking clown.

              • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                And it’s the numbers the UN have verified. Moron.

                You’re honestly so fucking stupid. Keep gobbling fossil fuel industry cock, dipshit.