Of course, it’s stupid on a galactic level, especially if you’re concerned about climate change which they claim to do
Yes
Yes.
Yes. Anyone that is anti nuclear, but open minded, really needs to take a tour of Torness nuclear power station. It takes 2-3 weeks to get the security clearance, but the tour is free and they take you inside/all over the station
The best time to embrace nuclear power was yesterday, the second best time is today
I have no safety concerns over nuclear energy, but you can’t ignore the costs of constructing nuclear facilities. What Scotland and the uk needs is to expedite connections to the grid, this is where investment should be made.
Why on Earth would a nation abundant in renewable energy want to go Nuclear?
Unless there was a greedy neighbour that was energy poor and wanted to dump it’s nuclear power stations up here along with Trident?
No thanks, get it to fuck.
The SNP won’t drop their opposition because that would mean agreeing with the UK govmt and accepting UK funding to build reactors.
Their supporters also hate nuclear for this reason.
They will complain nuclear energy has been forced on Scotland “against it’s will” sighting it’s “vast oil and gas resources” resources they themselves want to “keep in the ground”.
Everything, everything is about attempting to destroy the union, even if it hurts the Scottish population.
Common environmental sense says nuclear is a good idea.
Good luck Scotland.
Yes, the opposition to nuclear is completely incoherent and, outside of the snp, almost always comes from the same groups whose wider policies just so happen to echo Russian foreign policy goals.
Scotland should be aiming for nuclear baseload with wind and hydro-electric to supplement.
There isn’t enough lithium etc on planet earth for the human population to have a battery dependent baseload.
No. Until someone produces a full life cycle cost, built, operate, maintain, disposal and site rectification. Nuclear is keeping the strike price high and that’s on partial costs only.
We needed new plants 20 years ago.
They won’t, because the stability necessary to construct a new nuclear station would require them to stop campaigning for independence for several decades.
The UK government is not going to commit tens of billions towards constructing a new nuclear station that they wouldn’t get a return on. It’s delusional to think they would.
The process of independence would cause significant economic turmoil as well, which would not be conducive to funding decades-long contracts for construction or operation. There are several half-built nuclear stations around the world where economic disturbances caused the cancellation of the project, leaving vast concrete ruins of zero economic value.
So whatever happens, I don’t expect any new nuclear stations in Scotland.
Yes, bit late in the day now though.
How do you plan to dispose of the waste? That’s the eternal problem with nuclear power. People aren’t against it for weird hippy reasons, it’s the metric tons of horrifyingly dangerous radioactive which has no practical uses which is what causes the opposition. Solve the problem of the waste and then you can build a thousand of the buggers!
Yes, but not until the playing field is evened. no point building nuclear up here when it costs so much to connect to the grid.
Yes if they’re container sized, no if they’re billions of quid with a chance of a 10x overrun
The time was 20 years ago
I’m in favour of generating electricity where it’s needed. We generate more than we need, and this has been the case for decades upon decades. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity.
Why on earth would we want to burden and costs of maintaining and decommissioning nuclear facilities. Chapelcross is just to sit there now for thousands of years. As is Hunterston A. Hunterston B and Tourness will be the same.
Renewables works for Scotland. The risk factor is no more than double that of a coal station, so it is reliable – especially over the area of Scotland.
No, we don’t need nuclear. It’s bonkers to suggest.
We have Cruachan for black start and frequency response. We have a few gas dotted about.
England has a much greater need for large stations like nuclear – we don’t.
This idea that we’re missing out on some sort of large influx if investment is short sighted. I don’t actually think a nuclear power station has ever been built that is self sufficient in cost when the entire lifecycle has been taken into account – now why would Scotland want that when it’s not needed?
Absolute BS. Likely pushed from the anti-woke, anti-renewable, and anti-anything-SNP-just-because brigade. We’ve been having surplus in wind generation for about 10 years now – and my lights have yet to go out.
Future investments should sit with energy storage and network upgrades – not on more capacity from nuclear.
No point, it’s too complex and expensive.
Yes
Love to see thorium reactors built in Scotland. Super safe compared to the usual PWR and we have enough thorium to power us with clean energy for thousands of years. It’s unfortunate safe reactor designs like this have been thrown out with the bathwater with this kind of blanket policy.
Yes, a long time ago.
It is a policy rooted in ignorance.
No. Disagree entirely.
We have far better ways of ensuring we have sufficient energy.
No, Scotland doesn’t need them. Plus, they’re massively expensive and terrible for the environment.
Maybe. Its Scotland, and wind and water is abundant here. Solar not so much, except for that one week a year we all get our taps aff.
The issue is that Nuclear, while not the boogie man some present it to be, is still a huge investment in time and space. For example, you can throw up a wind farm in no time with very little in the way of permits needed. And once you’re done, or want to move the farm, you can. And the land can be reused. With Nuclear, its much more of a pain in the arse to do all of these things. And the land can never be used again in our lifetime if it is dismantled.
Small Modular reactors are the only way to go, as per the PMs briefing the other day. No one wants a 20 year wait to build a reactor, when you can throw up onshore wind farms measured in weeks and months, depending on megawattage. If we can build these in a relatively short space of time, and the road blocks are minimal, I dont see any real reason not to go ahead. But where to build them? And will those local to them, get an extra bump off their energy bills?
Linglong 1 in China started construction in 2021, and is due to complete next year. So 5 years for, I believe, the worlds first SMR. Which means that going forward, it should get cheaper and easier to build as technology moves forward. Once its completed, it will have an output of 1 billion kilowatt hours per year.
I still think that, being Scotland, we should be throwing up wind farms like crazy both on and off shore. But maybe an SMR or two wouldnt hurt as well. Not the least of which, because it would create jobs.
No, construction costs & overall benefits, limited shelf life, waste disposal costs, potential environmental consequences does not merit a change in policy.
Scotland is already blessed with more energy than it can use.
Why would this benefit Scotland?
Granted it would create Jobs etc, but I suspect the real reason is to export all excess energy to the national grid, which will benefit shareholders & the UK government only.
Mhairi Black’s “Nuclear energy is fur tha’ burds” comment tells you all you need to know about the intellect behind the SNP’s policy on nuclear energy.
Yup
Yes.
Probably aye!
Yea, no shit. The scaremongering around nuclear power is crazy and rarely legitimate.
Genuine concerns like nuclear waste can be better managed – personally, I’m of the opinion that jettisoning it into the Sun is better than dumping it in Beaufort’s Dyke.
I suggest you look at the proposed strategy in place for Scottish Woodland’s & Timber.
34 comments
Yes.
Of course, it’s stupid on a galactic level, especially if you’re concerned about climate change which they claim to do
Yes
Yes.
Yes. Anyone that is anti nuclear, but open minded, really needs to take a tour of Torness nuclear power station. It takes 2-3 weeks to get the security clearance, but the tour is free and they take you inside/all over the station
Email here for bookings: tornessvisitorcentre@edf-energy.com
.
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-stations/torness#visit
The best time to embrace nuclear power was yesterday, the second best time is today
I have no safety concerns over nuclear energy, but you can’t ignore the costs of constructing nuclear facilities. What Scotland and the uk needs is to expedite connections to the grid, this is where investment should be made.
Why on Earth would a nation abundant in renewable energy want to go Nuclear?
Unless there was a greedy neighbour that was energy poor and wanted to dump it’s nuclear power stations up here along with Trident?
No thanks, get it to fuck.
The SNP won’t drop their opposition because that would mean agreeing with the UK govmt and accepting UK funding to build reactors.
Their supporters also hate nuclear for this reason.
They will complain nuclear energy has been forced on Scotland “against it’s will” sighting it’s “vast oil and gas resources” resources they themselves want to “keep in the ground”.
Everything, everything is about attempting to destroy the union, even if it hurts the Scottish population.
Common environmental sense says nuclear is a good idea.
Good luck Scotland.
Yes, the opposition to nuclear is completely incoherent and, outside of the snp, almost always comes from the same groups whose wider policies just so happen to echo Russian foreign policy goals.
Scotland should be aiming for nuclear baseload with wind and hydro-electric to supplement.
There isn’t enough lithium etc on planet earth for the human population to have a battery dependent baseload.
No. Until someone produces a full life cycle cost, built, operate, maintain, disposal and site rectification. Nuclear is keeping the strike price high and that’s on partial costs only.
We needed new plants 20 years ago.
They won’t, because the stability necessary to construct a new nuclear station would require them to stop campaigning for independence for several decades.
The UK government is not going to commit tens of billions towards constructing a new nuclear station that they wouldn’t get a return on. It’s delusional to think they would.
The process of independence would cause significant economic turmoil as well, which would not be conducive to funding decades-long contracts for construction or operation. There are several half-built nuclear stations around the world where economic disturbances caused the cancellation of the project, leaving vast concrete ruins of zero economic value.
So whatever happens, I don’t expect any new nuclear stations in Scotland.
Yes, bit late in the day now though.
How do you plan to dispose of the waste? That’s the eternal problem with nuclear power. People aren’t against it for weird hippy reasons, it’s the metric tons of horrifyingly dangerous radioactive which has no practical uses which is what causes the opposition. Solve the problem of the waste and then you can build a thousand of the buggers!
Yes, but not until the playing field is evened. no point building nuclear up here when it costs so much to connect to the grid.
Yes if they’re container sized, no if they’re billions of quid with a chance of a 10x overrun
The time was 20 years ago
I’m in favour of generating electricity where it’s needed. We generate more than we need, and this has been the case for decades upon decades. Scotland is a net exporter of electricity.
Why on earth would we want to burden and costs of maintaining and decommissioning nuclear facilities. Chapelcross is just to sit there now for thousands of years. As is Hunterston A. Hunterston B and Tourness will be the same.
Renewables works for Scotland. The risk factor is no more than double that of a coal station, so it is reliable – especially over the area of Scotland.
No, we don’t need nuclear. It’s bonkers to suggest.
We have Cruachan for black start and frequency response. We have a few gas dotted about.
England has a much greater need for large stations like nuclear – we don’t.
This idea that we’re missing out on some sort of large influx if investment is short sighted. I don’t actually think a nuclear power station has ever been built that is self sufficient in cost when the entire lifecycle has been taken into account – now why would Scotland want that when it’s not needed?
Absolute BS. Likely pushed from the anti-woke, anti-renewable, and anti-anything-SNP-just-because brigade. We’ve been having surplus in wind generation for about 10 years now – and my lights have yet to go out.
Future investments should sit with energy storage and network upgrades – not on more capacity from nuclear.
No point, it’s too complex and expensive.
Yes
Love to see thorium reactors built in Scotland. Super safe compared to the usual PWR and we have enough thorium to power us with clean energy for thousands of years. It’s unfortunate safe reactor designs like this have been thrown out with the bathwater with this kind of blanket policy.
Yes, a long time ago.
It is a policy rooted in ignorance.
No. Disagree entirely.
We have far better ways of ensuring we have sufficient energy.
No, Scotland doesn’t need them. Plus, they’re massively expensive and terrible for the environment.
Maybe. Its Scotland, and wind and water is abundant here. Solar not so much, except for that one week a year we all get our taps aff.
The issue is that Nuclear, while not the boogie man some present it to be, is still a huge investment in time and space. For example, you can throw up a wind farm in no time with very little in the way of permits needed. And once you’re done, or want to move the farm, you can. And the land can be reused. With Nuclear, its much more of a pain in the arse to do all of these things. And the land can never be used again in our lifetime if it is dismantled.
Small Modular reactors are the only way to go, as per the PMs briefing the other day. No one wants a 20 year wait to build a reactor, when you can throw up onshore wind farms measured in weeks and months, depending on megawattage. If we can build these in a relatively short space of time, and the road blocks are minimal, I dont see any real reason not to go ahead. But where to build them? And will those local to them, get an extra bump off their energy bills?
Linglong 1 in China started construction in 2021, and is due to complete next year. So 5 years for, I believe, the worlds first SMR. Which means that going forward, it should get cheaper and easier to build as technology moves forward. Once its completed, it will have an output of 1 billion kilowatt hours per year.
I still think that, being Scotland, we should be throwing up wind farms like crazy both on and off shore. But maybe an SMR or two wouldnt hurt as well. Not the least of which, because it would create jobs.
No, construction costs & overall benefits, limited shelf life, waste disposal costs, potential environmental consequences does not merit a change in policy.
Scotland is already blessed with more energy than it can use.
Why would this benefit Scotland?
Granted it would create Jobs etc, but I suspect the real reason is to export all excess energy to the national grid, which will benefit shareholders & the UK government only.
Mhairi Black’s “Nuclear energy is fur tha’ burds” comment tells you all you need to know about the intellect behind the SNP’s policy on nuclear energy.
Yup
Yes.
Probably aye!
Yea, no shit. The scaremongering around nuclear power is crazy and rarely legitimate.
Genuine concerns like nuclear waste can be better managed – personally, I’m of the opinion that jettisoning it into the Sun is better than dumping it in Beaufort’s Dyke.
I suggest you look at the proposed strategy in place for Scottish Woodland’s & Timber.
https://preview.redd.it/pkcgpgnh1yhe1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77f1f48e7137f92a98c2e15bbfbec43d4d013fa3
Nuclear power and renewable are the future, fossil fuel usage wont stop until we use nuclear.
Comments are closed.