United Kingdom

6960 readers

324 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

149

Green party drops longstanding opposition to nuclear power (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 days ago by Armand1@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The motion, adopted at conference, removes a “blanket opposition to nuclear fission” and instead commits the Green party of England and Wales to assessing nuclear projects alongside other low-carbon technologies.

Its electricity generation policy still prioritises offshore wind, onshore wind and rooftop solar as the primary sources of electricity, but allows elected representatives to support new nuclear reactors on a case-by-case basis.

This was one or the few areas I didn't align with the Green Party before, as I believe that a bit of nuclear is kind of necessary to help round out less consistent energy sources as things stand. I think this is a reasonable stance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Saying nuclear is unfeasible because building new plants is too expensive and takes too long is like saying swimming is too hard; but then it turns out you insist on carrying a 100lb anchor whenever you get in the water.

The reason it's expensive and takes a long time is because of the absolutely massive amount of red tape built up over the years. Some red tape is obviously a good thing, but fear around the word "nuclear" has caused so many unnecessary regulations, committees, and testing that it causes plants to take 5x what they should cost and 10x the time.

Literally having to build safety mechanisms and procedures for failures that aren't even physically possible. All because the average person knows jack shit about nuclear power.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

And who do you trust to cut down the red tape? The conservatives that promised to cut red tape through brexit? Only to increase it many-fold after they were confronted with the reality everyone warned them about, that completely divorcing from the EU single marketwould be ruinous for the UK, so they were forced to put in place a bunch of half-measures to still keep access to the EU.

And what red tape are we talking about? There must be a list of unecessary red tape. I'd like to see a public debate around what rules to cut, rather than trusting the next conservative promising to just get rid of all the bureaucracy.