Empty words. The best transition plan is building new nuclear on these sites which would remove the need for site decommission for another 50 years. Ditto for Torness when it closes.https://twitter.com/Ross_Greer/status/1299003928286121985 …
-
-
Als antwoord op @JonMarcStanley
I'm sorry build a nuclear power station on top of old one without decommissioning the old one and ridding it of the threat from radioactivity ? I'm not sure it works that way .
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @bahookey4
It doesn't. You build it next to it on the same site. Which is what happened last time.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @JonMarcStanley
No , Hunterston a wasn't decommissioned When hunterston b was constructed , It stayed in operation until 1990 b was built in 1974 or 2 ?
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @bahookey4
Hunterston A1 and A2 were Magnox stations undergoing decommission. They are located next to the AGR B1 and B2 stations. You don't need to fully decommission when it's built next door.
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks -
Als antwoord op @JonMarcStanley
So we keep the reactor that's breaking up and build another one next to it , Anyway you cut it it's not safe or going to happen that way .
1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks
You don't want a sensible discussion
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.