> Unfortunately, this plan would involve building infrastructure near homes. And there will be many people, some doubtless with Ukrainian flags in their handles, who’d rather we sent billions to Moscow for gas than have their view spoiled or house price dented.
With journalism this ‘good’, I’m starting to think I should quit my day job and become one myself.
Regardless, attacking home owners for not being enthused about as-yet unproven nuclear technology near their homes is a bit of a low hanging fruit.
It’s not yet clear what such construction would do for house prices (I doubt they’d go up as a result) or for safety and Chernobyl / Three Mile Island etc. weren’t all that long ago.
This might come to a ‘tough shit’ moment as clearly energy is an important concern now and for the future, but you’d have to be a little disingenuous to be *surprised* that people don’t want nuclear plants springing up near their homes.
“The Scottish Government has said that its position on traditional nuclear energy has not changed and that it does not support the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
“Delivering a net-zero economy by 2045 will require significant growth in renewable and clean electricity production, and work is underway to refresh our Energy Strategy to reflect this transformation.””
Nuclear isn’t a special case for this. Either people get to veto what is built or they don’t. If they do, they do for nuclear. It makes no sense people can block housing or wind farms, and can’t change their houses with 20k in planning permission, but a huge nuclear plant is beyond their comment.
Full disclosure: I think we should have less restrictions. And I don’t like nuclear for economic reasons.
I’ve had strange NIMBYist thoughts recently due to 3 rural areas nearby being given over to housing.
I’m seeking therapy.
The answer is simple: use the sites of existing or former nuclear power plants.
For the record I live about 15miles away from Hinkley Point.
5 comments
> Unfortunately, this plan would involve building infrastructure near homes. And there will be many people, some doubtless with Ukrainian flags in their handles, who’d rather we sent billions to Moscow for gas than have their view spoiled or house price dented.
With journalism this ‘good’, I’m starting to think I should quit my day job and become one myself.
Regardless, attacking home owners for not being enthused about as-yet unproven nuclear technology near their homes is a bit of a low hanging fruit.
It’s not yet clear what such construction would do for house prices (I doubt they’d go up as a result) or for safety and Chernobyl / Three Mile Island etc. weren’t all that long ago.
This might come to a ‘tough shit’ moment as clearly energy is an important concern now and for the future, but you’d have to be a little disingenuous to be *surprised* that people don’t want nuclear plants springing up near their homes.
“The Scottish Government has said that its position on traditional nuclear energy has not changed and that it does not support the building of any new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
“Delivering a net-zero economy by 2045 will require significant growth in renewable and clean electricity production, and work is underway to refresh our Energy Strategy to reflect this transformation.””
Nuclear isn’t a special case for this. Either people get to veto what is built or they don’t. If they do, they do for nuclear. It makes no sense people can block housing or wind farms, and can’t change their houses with 20k in planning permission, but a huge nuclear plant is beyond their comment.
Full disclosure: I think we should have less restrictions. And I don’t like nuclear for economic reasons.
I’ve had strange NIMBYist thoughts recently due to 3 rural areas nearby being given over to housing.
I’m seeking therapy.
The answer is simple: use the sites of existing or former nuclear power plants.
For the record I live about 15miles away from Hinkley Point.