Green Party leader criticises Hartlepool new nuclear site plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98np768g92o
Posted by Jared_Usbourne
Green Party leader criticises Hartlepool new nuclear site plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98np768g92o
Posted by Jared_Usbourne
24 Comments
The Greens really need to grow up if they have any serious aspirations. I quite like them under their new leader but this is stupid.
>Polanski said it was technology “from a long time ago” and that money would be better spent on wind and solar power, which could deliver thousands of jobs.
Easily one of the stupidest criticisms of nuclear power I’ve ever heard…
Imagine an environmentalist party that doesn’t care about the environment
of course they would. Their idiots when it comes to anything nuclear.
I’m really hoping people don’t vote for Greens just because of Farage. Like we have to think beyond Farage.
That’s a shame – I was hoping that he might start to soften their anti nuclear rhetoric.
Peak virtue signalling, left-wing purity tests leading to circular firing squads will always be what kills any left-wing movement gaining momentum.
These people would rather die than make a reasonable compromise.
Ah yes, like the greens in Germany.
They ended nuclear energy lived happily ever aft… what?
This is one of the reasons I just can’t back Greens. It’s so fucking stupid to be against nuclear in this day and age.
Why are the Greens so anti-nuclear? Is that the party line for other Green parties in Europe too?
This is why I cannot take the Green Party seriously. It’s a bunch of NIMBYs pretending to care about the environment.
Wonder if the usual crowd of Polanski fanboys will be along to defend this
Their anti nuclear power policy is probably the only thing that’s preventing me from voting for them. Do they realise that we need a stable source of always on power to provide a base load for the grid. Whilst they are great sources of clean energy Wind and Solar cannot provide a consistent stable base load. Not investing in nuclear will only lead to prolonged and possibly increased use of Gas.
Having said that though, I don’t know who else I would vote for. I can’t reasonable vote labour at the moment. The Lib Dems are a possibility it depends on their manifesto come election time. Your Party of whatever they’re called seemed doomed for failure due to their infighting (I know in fighting in a left wing party who’d have predicted it).
Their one weakness as a party is their anti nuclear stance. Both civil energy and deterrent
I get it that they’re green so almost gotta take that position but it’s their weakness
That and the ambiguity on NATO
Nuclear fission and fusion is the quickest route to getting off most fossil fuels while renewables build up
And we need NATO with how much of a armed threat Russia is to Europe
We need to join the greens and get rid of this stance and the silly anti trains thing
Show me a large economy that is primarily powered by wind & solar with cheap electricity and low co2 intensity.
France has cheap electricity and low co2 intensity and it’s primarily nuclear powered.
They just can’t help themselves..
We are not yet in a technological position and won’t be for decades to have our energy supplied solely by renewable energy.
The problem is not so much the lack of power generation but storage.
Renewable Power (Solar, Wind, Tidal etc..) is very good at generation but what it isn’t is stable.
To power a country you need a method of power generation that is stable that you can increase and decreased on demand.
You can not have a base power generation made from renewable energy as we do not yet have a way to store it on mass.
This means you have to have a base of Nuclear Power generation which is by better in every to that of Coal or Gas and then you supplement that with renewables.
The more renewables the less Nuclear but you will always need that stable base until such time we can mass store power.
Look at China, they are leading the world in renewable power generation in every single way yet they still are still building many brand new Nuclear Power Stations to replace all their Gas / Coal because you still need a stable base that is scalable on demand.
The other very important aspect is the power infrastructure in the UK. Currently our infrastructure is decades behind and requires massive upgrades at the cost of billions to just keep supplying the current level, let alone adding many more additional renewable power generation sites.
What so many people have no clue about is that our energy grid was designed around the principle of energy flowing traditional power plants to major substations and to smaller substations and individual buildings.
It was never designed around a decentralised model and intermittent nature of renewables like solar and wind.
The vast majority of renewable schemes, over 600 and growing, are being held up because the grid can not cope as it wasn’t designed for it.
This is why I could never vote for the Greens as “No Nuclear” to me scream that they are clueless about the very issue they should be very knowledgeable about
Nuclear power is the great litmus test to know if someone has a clue what they are talking about when it comes to energy policy.
Unsurprisingly, the hypnotist who tries to help women visualise having bigger breasts doesn’t know anything about energy policy.
Surprise surprise, the anti nuclear party is anti nuclear, don’t worry though, he will take away all our defence systems just in time for Russia to take over!
This is why I just can’t take the Greens seriously. They’re way too idealistic for their own good, to the point of outright stupidity.
I like most of what he says but nuclear energy is a good thing
It should be noted that, unsurprisingly, its a little more nuanced then “urgh nuclear bad scary”
Zacks stance on nuclear is, pragmatically; “The best time to build nuclear was 20 years ago, now, with advancements in technology and manufacturing, it has become practically redundant in comparison to renewables. With them now being both noticeably cheaper and faster to build. It’s better to spend that money more efficiently on wind, solar, storage, etc, then it is on a large and expensive nuclear project that will take decades to become operational. Especially in our current energy cost crisis, the faster the better.”
And from a more ideological stance; “Large nuclear projects are extremely centralised, Where as smaller, decentralised projects with renewables will be much more localised and help foster a sense of community. make people say ‘this is OUR wind farm’ and feel pride in it as their community use and maintain it”
Also, it should be noted that the green party is an extremely democratic, bottom up party.
So if you like the vast majority of things, but one or two you vehemently disagree with, join anyway, and vote/campaign to change their policies on said things.
And on the note of nuclear explicitly, it’s very much something discussed often.
Green/environmentalist opposition to nuclear power is possibly one of the most maddening things ever. We could be like France and have an electrical grid that in 2024 qas 90% nuclear/reneable, have low energy prices and be a a net exporter. But
>Nuclear Bad!
So 31% of our electrical generation in 2024 was from fossil fuels, we have some of the highest prices and import energy.
And there still opposing Nuclear generation!
> oh it takes to long to build and its too expensive!
Because of self satisfied pricks fighting against it and calling it outdated.
Oh boy I sure hope the sycophants and the narcissists in the main parties don’t flock around this as if they aren’t desperate for something to nail him on.
Zacky boy could tell me he’s gonna sell my nan and it’d still be a better bet than voting for either of those two shit slingers again.
Count all the posts saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING.