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.
Which one would you like me to pick? How about Iodine-129 with 15 million or so years?
Have you been reading Russian propaganda again? Breefer reactors. Next you’ll be spouting the benefits of cold fusion for skin care.
France
hashad used breeder reactors for years to great effectEdit: turns out their breeder reactors have been offline for a few years now.
They do, however, still process and recycle the spent fuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle_in_France
Not true. The ones they used from the 1960s onwards were phased out by 2009. All were pretty much still in testing mode and never deployed at scale. The Superphenix (the last) was shut down over leaks and safety concerns. France’s nuclear are all now 100% Pressurised Water Reactors.
So misinformation or worse, deliberate disinformation, in this thread.
Ok then I’ll change a single letter of my previous comment.
France had used breeder reactors for years to great effect.
I’ve edited my comment to reflect it. The point remains that France has an established cycle for nuclear fuel that includes processing the spent fuel and recycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle_in_France
I’d love you to define:
when the reality was they remained small-scale, in testing phase, were dangerous and ultimately scrapped. Next you’ll be waxing lyrically about modular reactors.