No nuclear waste
It is excellent news that Richard Lochhead has withdrawn the Scottish Government from discussions on the deep disposal of nuclear waste.
With two (admittedly highly unlikely) sites in the Western Isles on the short-leet, it is good news for everyone across Scotland that we will have no part in such a process.
Now, we just need to sort out what we are doing with the waste that we continue to create at Torness, Dounreay and Hunterston. Perhaps the answer is as simple as closing the plants and stop producing nuclear waste?
With two (admittedly highly unlikely) sites in the Western Isles on the short-leet, it is good news for everyone across Scotland that we will have no part in such a process.
Now, we just need to sort out what we are doing with the waste that we continue to create at Torness, Dounreay and Hunterston. Perhaps the answer is as simple as closing the plants and stop producing nuclear waste?
6 comments:
Nuclear storage: oh, that's easy. For now there's the Dome, then when that's full there's the Olympic 2012 stadium.
Well, why not? The nuclear industry and power is apparently 100% safe according to various politicians and said industry, so there's no problem with sticking it next to 8 million people, is there?
What exactly is the problem with well contained nuclear waste sites in the Western Isles?
Nuclear power stations have a small controlled amount of waste compared with CO2 emissions from conventional power stations.
You could use the heat byproduct of the waste in a district heating scheme.
I think the SNP attitude of refusing to take part in any talks is all very primary 7 and just playing to the gallery without any idea of possible consequences, We can not pretend that the problem does nor exist, We are producing nuclear waste and we should be part of the forum that is discussing what the best options are, how can the executive influence anything if they refuse to play with the big boys.
I am anti nuclear and my opinion for what its worth is that nuclear waste should be contained as close to the site of production as possible but should still be accessible for safety reasons and to take advantages of new best practice and technology.
And we wouldn't have to worry about street lamps as we would all glow in the dark.
Seumas: the problem is ensuring it is 100% "well contained". Facilities are run by people. People make mistakes. People and businesses are also negligent, especially when trying to cut costs.
1 accident at a conventional power station is not usually a problem. Clean up the coal or oil, move on. 1 accident at a nuclear power station or waste dump IS a problem. There's a long history of leaks, accidents, releases at UK nuclear facilities and storage areas (those just the public ones), as well as transportation accidents and negligence.
Two of the main industries here are crofting and fishing. If/when there is an accident, even if there is no major release, then the press interest alone would damage these industries. "Ah yes, Outer Hebrides, that's where there's radioactive stuff." A turbine falls off a ship into the Minch - no problem. A flask of spent nuclear fuel does same - who is going to eat the lobster or crab from that area again? There's a good reason why you never see food labelled "Produce of Sellafield..."
Agree totally with reiver on his last point. Don't transport the stuff (see link above), and make it still accessible for processing when the technology is there. EU is throwing many millions at research into this at the moment.
personally i think silver sprite answers seumas best.
Post a Comment