Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES
For exclusive content as well as to support the channel, join my
Support page - ko-fi.com/elin...
Join the friendly Nuclear subReddit to discuss nuclear energy, ask questions and share memes - r/friendlynuclearfamily
Instagram - @elinacharatsidou
TikTok - @elinacharatsidou
In today's eye-opening video, I, as a nuclear physicist, tackle some of the biggest misconceptions and outright falsehoods about nuclear energy perpetuated by Greenpeace on their website. Join me as I debunk their misleading claims with facts, logic, and scientific evidence. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the truth about nuclear power and its role in our quest for clean energy. Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more credible and insightful content!
🔗 Relevant links and resources:
Nuclear Energy Agency: www.oecd-nea.org/
International Atomic Energy Agency: www.iaea.org/
World Nuclear Association: www.world-nucl...
👇 Join the conversation! Comment your thoughts on nuclear energy, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll be happy to address them.
Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share with friends and family.
#NuclearPhysicist #GreenpeaceDebunked #NuclearEnergyFacts #CleanEnergyFuture
This was a very different and quite eye opening review of the Greenpeace website! It was the first time I read their blog posts and I’m quite puzzled as you’ve noticed from the video!
Let me know if you’d like me to make more of these videos going into more detail on their nuclear related content 👩🏽🔬☢️
I think if we want to expand nuclear power's footprint, this would be a great idea.
We need to break down the disinformation and misinformation in reasonable ways in order to change the public view.
I wouldn’t want to dirty my hands with Greenpeace. I enjoy a lot of their environmental advocacy, but even 50 or so years old, I ignored all the anti-nuclear-power stuff. In the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the air in the USA smelled of petrol and diesel fumes. So many rivers and streams were choked with solid and liquid waste. Most species of cetacean were highly endangered and whaling was legal (!?!). I liked Greenpeace for the anti-nuclear-weapon stance, but it only seemed aimed at the US. I’m not aware if they exported this view to non-Western countries, though. In these times of climate change and reduction of carbon emissions, it seems out of touch to be anti-nuclear-power at this time. It’s said that millions of people die of air pollution from burning fossil fuels. I doubt that many people died from nuclear power plants. Until this climate issue is rectified in the next couple of centuries or so, it’s important to use nuclear fusion and fission to reduce anthropocentric climate change. At least…use these technologies as backup power for wind farms and night time power for solar arrays.
@@joshcee3362 I'm infamous for expounding on the benefits and environmental friendliness of true clean coal.
The coal burners love it initially, until they learn to their horror that I'm talking about using coal as a municipal water supply filter. Fort Dix uses one such filtration plant.
Burning it? Just nope, save perhaps when making a bit of coke, the rest of it is better used as a filter.
Hi please make a video about the cost of nuclear energy, i.e. current realised costs and time to build a reactor per 1GW, the hostorical negative learning curves experienced, and why you think it will become economical in the future.
If you look back at the whole anti-nuclear movement over the last 40-45 years they have done more to promote burning coal and CO2 climate change than any other single group in the world. Its even possible to say that without them climate change would not be the big problem that it is today..
Over decades the switch away from nuclear and towards coal has already killed something on the order of 10 million extra people globally. Just through air pollution...
Statistically coal has a 'Chernobyl' about every three days. Thanks Greenpeace.
My geology professor in college was previously part of a large government study (in a leadership role) aimed at deciding the best methods of packaging, transporting, and storage of nuclear waste for the long term. He was also a member of the Sierra Club. He was contacted by the club's magazine and asked if he would be amenable to an interview about this. He agreed, with his usual conditions, specifically he retained the right to squash the interview and forbid them from ever mentioning that he had been interviewed and they would be required to turn all instances of any notes, recordings, and records. The reasons for this policy will become obvious in a moment. When he sat down with the reporter he was ready to discuss the current state of disposal technology, its successes, and pitfalls. The first question of the interview: "Don't you agree that it's stupid that we have nuclear waste to dispose of?" The Dr. stopped the interview and clarified that he was there not to discuss the merits of nuclear power, but to tell what he knew about how to deal with the waste that already existed, and told the reporter to start again. The next question was: "Don't you agree that it's stupid that we have nuclear waste to dispose of?" My professor immediately ended the interview, invoked all the clauses on the agreement the magazine signed to turn over all the notes and recordings, and never mention their contact with him again. This was decades ago, and the lack of any sort of balanced discussion of the realities of the issue still isn't on the table for these people. The technology has advanced, the ideology has not.
@@ThomasVWorm the reason he ended it from what i can tell, the interviewer was planning to be aggressive and the nature of the question was highly emotionally driven, he stated from the story above, that he was there to discuss how they deal with nuclear waste. The interviewer was instead going to try the angle of nuclear is bad because waste is produced at all. Waste is produced but its something that CAN be dealt with, but many idiots insist it cannot. I mean greenpeace even makes efforts to block solutions and measures to deal with nuclear waste.
@@ThomasVWorm The same thing actually happened, or rather i should say a similar thing happened between an interviewer and Robert Downy Jr. . The interviewer was going to try and “discuss” instead of the movie Robert was there to discuss, instead attack Robs prior drug problems, which Robert had put behind him years before. Robert first tried to redirect the conversation multiple times before ending the interview; the interviewer had no right to just attack him on that.
@@ThomasVWorm "The reason for his policy is clear: he wants to place a message rather than discussing this topic" - do you not think a similar accusation could be leveled at the Sierra Club journalist, who's disregarded the agreement he made and instead pursued an entirely different conversation?
Whenever I dig into the details on this kind of thing, I always come away with the impression that the really devoted environmentalists would really much rather humans died off ... most of the solutions offered only work if electricity becomes a luxury item or if big chunks of the population mysteriously go away (which is what luxury electricity would ensure, anyway)
Personally, I kind of lean towards the view that nuclear waste, is probably some of the few wastes, that are properly taken care of.
So far we haven't been good at taking care of various chemicals and plastics and if we're gonna add massive amounts of eg. batteries, windmill wings and solar panels. What's gonna happen to them over the next decades or centuries?
I did a loose calculation a while back that if we replaced current power generation with windmills, in 10.000 years, it would be around 8 billion tons of turbine blades, or around the equivalent to 250,000 world trade center towers of waste.
@@ThomasVWorm Please tell us which way of generating electricity does not have waste.
Before you answer with "renewables" please remember that is a marketing term just as "natural gas" is, that doesn't actually mean anything specific or relevant to the discussion.
Here's a word you might like: conflate.
When Greenpeace calls a nuclear plant a "nuke," this conflates nuclear power with nuclear weapons.
Also: sleazy.
Greenpeace is sleazy.
You got it!
Sleazy and highly malicious. This wasn't misinformation, it's fully intentional disinformation.
@RogerWilco99 True.
The most sleazy part is that they claim that they are funded by people. They are not. They are funded by some large business that is hidden between secrecy of a swizz bank
Nuclear power industry grew out of the nuclear weapons industry. I worked in both and it's not a good look.
What grinds my gears the most is that politicians who like to claim they trust in science always seem to take environmental advice from these bozos.
Well there's a reason why politicians are considered units of lying.
Well, they tend to be the ones willing to break shit, which gets expensive, and since we live steeped in capitalism.... All the while, scientists are faaaaaaaar more likely to bend over or even embolden abusive institutions. They just want to collect data and crunch numbers. Asking scientists to be a bit more functional adds complexity, and since this is a STEM context involving engineering, complexity is bad because reasons. As a result, scientists grant themselves license to sit on their asses.
To be clear, not a defense of greenpeace. Scientists just need to grow some balls and be more willing to say "fuck decorum."
How dare you!
Spot on !
No they don't.
They only take advice from other self interested members of their own party while concocting a narrative of jobs then sell the lies to the electorate. These people are very often in politics to further their own interests, not do the best for the people that elect them.
The simple fact is, if there were money in nuclear power for these politicians they'd be all for it.
In fact there is a certain perfection in what I say, and that is if the free market can make money out of something cheaply and efficiently then it will succeed. Politicians however, alter the free market for self interest then use
environmental groups to further their agenda. Tech that might succeed doesn't and tech that should fail succeeds. This is political perversion of the free market.
Before I go, I live in a forest. There is logging and local grass roots anti logging activists with a few dope smoking green fascists. The main guy is an older scientist however and is research driven.
So, one mill was taking some logs illegally thereby allowing them to undercut the other mills in the area doing the right thing. This was discovered and documented by the anti logging activist leader. One by one the other mills closed because they couldn't compete.
The illegal logging ops were tabled to several state governmentsand eventually one launched an investigation and found the activists were correct, then stepped in and ceased all logging operations. The dodgy logging company immediately blamed 'environmentalists' for their illegal behavior. 10 years later 'effing greenies' is still going on by locals.
The illegal ops were allowed to occur because the previous state government turned a blind eye to it. They were voted out of office due to corruption in part, and this all came out.
Political self interest.
Over a decade ago when I was a poor student I was asked by one of their activists if I would agree to "donate" to Greenpeace. She decided to advertise the organization by talking about how they want to stop nuclear plants from being built and I asked which type of nuclear plants. She didn't know and I gave her my very limited understanding of different types and that not all of them are as hazardous as Chernobyl plant. The basic gist of it is that they don't even know what they are talking about and if they know then they are complete cynics lying through their teeth.
typical
They're not critical. They're fanatics.
Orgs like Greenpeace and PETA aren't conserned with the problems that they were made to 'solve', in case of Greenpeace, my father is a civil engineer and works on building dams, and some people that live or have a problem with the fact that a dam is going to be on a location are a big problem (I do know I did compare two VERY different things, but...). For example, two colegues that knew my dad were supposed to inspect a dam in South America, some time after their arrival, they ate on a restaurant nearby the dam on were many workers and crew ate lunch and dinner. They died a couple of days later of mercury poisoning in their beef. Later it was discovered that the restaurant owner poisoned the food because he had a grudge with some of the company that was building the dam the two were confused with some of the co.'s personel and thus they died because of a grudge with people they didn't even know.
And no, I won't answer alot because it's 00:30 here and I'm very tired.
Greenpeace should be named Greenpiss.
20+ years ago I was a research assistant on a project for Department of Energy researching turning nuclear and other toxic wastes into glass so that it could not dissolve into ground water even in the event of a breach of waste storage sites. We had a decent success with this and that was decades ago.
Turning it into glass? Would it be stored as a solid plug or packed in grains?
@@pretzelbomb6105 Lab scale, we were getting solid plugs. Then also had to break them up and grind parts of them up into fine particles for some of the testing we put the glass through. We were proving at lab scale that is was feaible and figuring out which glass formulas were best for different types of waste by mass or by volume the most efficiently.
@@danamccarthy5514 Now that is an interesting idea. Would you know of any papers/articles written up on this - I would like to know more.
@@rianmacdonald9454 Look up Nuclear waste glass vitrification. The idea wasn't exactly new when I was working that project, it was largely to improve the efficiency of it and see if we could find better methods.
@utoobeizkaka2737 Well a first step would be to get everyone to stop being so damn afraid of some of the newer reactor designs that could potentially even burn some portion of currently stored waste as fuel, and the leftover waste at teh end of that process would have a shorter half life. The part that people freak out about is that what would come out of that process would be easier to turn into a weapon than current waste. Realistically, dirty bombs are easy to make and a much bigger threat than more tactical weapons used by nationstates anyway.
I know a nuclear physicst and I'm honestly so mad over incredible amount of misinformation going around nuclear technology, thank you for clearing everything up and educating people
New reactors are coming out that barely produce any waste and don't need refueling. And last for 50 years.
SMR's
@Utoobe Izkaka Look it up, instead of dismissing facts. You might learn something if you educate yourself on the topic
@Utoobe Izkaka so what is your education in?
@Utoobe Izkaka So your telling me what my education is without knowing me?
Seem like a very unique Individual...
Chemical engineering and applied nuclear science and radiation safety.
So what did you just say ? Lol
You have no idea what you are talking about or any intention of learning researching or hearing any opinions other than your own.
It's like talking to a brick wall
So have a good day. And i hope one day you can carry on an adult conversation.
That's because the powers that be want humans to return to the stone age
Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, parted ways with their organization over how they treated nuclear power. Along with James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Hypothesis, they believe clean nuclear energy MUST be part of the path to a cleaner, more environmentally friendly future. According to Lovelock, Nuclear is supported by people who believe in scientific environmentalism, but opposed by people who believe in religious environmentalism.
Interesting.
And all the waste can either be reused or stored in an underground vault in the most stable continent on the planet, (South) Australia !
I came to post exactly this. Thanks :).
... ask anyone with knowledge on the Electrical Grid... current renewable technologies and available infrastructure does not allow for a full renewable electrical grid... therefore, if you want to go green and sustainable, you need nuclear
@@linmal2242 so good of you to offer to take the world's nuclear waste. Are you Australian?
Where does Japan or Indonesua bury their radioactive waste? Throw them inside a volcano?
Greenpeace is not aiming to inform. They’re aiming to persuade. Bold assertions are more persuasive than measured discussions.
Yes, aim for the emotions, they over-ride rational thought and logic every time.
To be fair, most people are a bit stupid and doesn't seems to care much about the truth...
Not to mention they all want a safer environment, better and free healthcare services, a better justice system, but they also get furious if their taxes is raising by 1% lol
Yeah
Our countries suffer from them too
When they boycott Russia oil to Indonesia
I was like
What???
It's environment organization or political organization???
Did they think it's their money?
I personally find bold assertions far less persuasive than measured discussions
It depends on the recepient...
The fact that Germany is closing nuclear power plant and building coal ones, sums this hysteria quite well.
You can literally calculate how many more people are going to die due to air pollutions. They killed people with that decision. They should be sued
Well, in Germany we have the goal of 100% renewables and a few problems that i.e. the US does not have all of.
1. We do not actually have that much Uranium. And the one we do have is comparatively very expensive to get to. Meaning, we need to rely on other countries to import. We also imported lots of gas from Russia. That got us into problems...
2. We do however have lots of coal and the possibility for generating renewables.
3. The cooling water can become a problem long-term. France, our direct neighbor, is experiencing a huge drought over the last years, and parts of germany in the west are also already affected. A few years back, the river Rhine, our biggest, had so little water they needed to stop shipping.
France is investing into new nuclear plants while many ask how they want to cool them - and what that does to the rivers, because by now they actually significantly raise the temperatures of said rivers downstream (with the water that doesnt evaporate, that is).
The exact figure is open to debate, but even the lower estimates, about 5-10% of total water usage are big enough to be worrying.
@@kennichdendenn Thank you for the information. With all that why not keep the existing reactors running, while building up renewable instead of building new coal?
Is the price of uranium greater than the damage that coal will cause?
@@Eleanor_Ch that however is something I cannot answer. They even built a brand new one that was never taken online...
Btw: the coal plants are actually releasing more radiation into the environment than the nuklear plants ever did.
Public backlash will have played a role, even before Fokushima happened - and afterwards, the fate was sealed.
A point that I did not mention - in Ukraine, fights around an active nuklear power plant also threatened the safety of said plant. That is something I personally think is a consideration against nuklear power - not even that it is hard to control, but the existence of bad actors that could actively undermine this delicate process.
And another argument - huge, centralized power plants (of whatever type) are relatively easy to take out or cut off.
Ukraine learned that the hard way then Russia bombed their grid - luckily they were back up pretty fast - but that was and is not a given. The more decentralized a grid is, the harder it is to take significant portions offline.
To phrase it differently: Short of detonating enough nukes to permanently cloud the sky, its pretty hard to take rooftop solar power offline over any significant area - and even that doesnt stop the wind from blowing or the water from flowing.
A reasonable long-term strategy probably involves a sizable portion of renewables.
With an emphasis on "Long Term".
I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm an armed guard at a Nuke plant and let me tell ya, I catch more dose sitting in the sun than when I'm patrolling around the spent fuel pool.
Just never go for the forbidden swim. :p
@@liesdamnlies3372 Honestly, for many spent fuel pools, if you were to swim around in it submerged by 0.5-1m (with still at least 5m or more of water below you and the spent fuel) you are probably receiving *less radiation overall than walk around in the countryside or forest* because of the absorption by the water.
@@sebastianjovancic9814 Fine, forbidden deep dive. Sheesh.
@@liesdamnlies3372 😅
LOL, When I was new to nuclear security, exploring the plant to get my bearings, I found a LHRA, 2500 mr/h area. I noped the fuck out immediately.
In primary school, we called greenpeace the heavy weed smokers...I guess we weren't that far from the truth.
I agree but i must say, the weed isn't the problem, it's their lack of self awareness
Plenty of people smoke, weed and don't become ecoterrorists
Imagine how it was for me, the pothead libertarian.
That means you guys where dehumanizing scumbags (as your ad hominem is NO ARGUMENT) back then
... and you kept being one.
That is a great achievement **facepalm**
You called them that in primary school?
That must have been a hell of an environment to grow up in
Activists have learned in the last few decades what corps and politicians have long before then: that solving problems puts you out of a job, but creating problems, making them worse, or convincing people things are problems that weren’t before make you more business as long as you aren’t blamed.
So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?
100% true
Green Peace is not 100% honest?? I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!
Excuse me sir your winnings
@@shawnmiller4781 😲😂 Thx!
"...maybe not that shocked."
@@EinFelsbrocken “Fry, stop talking!” - “Yes, Leela!”
One of their complaints about Nuclear power is how slow and expensive it is to build a plant but never mention their own part in making it that way. Decades of lawsuits and delays they themselves create are the main reasons for those.
I came here to pose the "whose fault is that?" question, too.
Well they are right
The INITIAL cost are huge, then its very low
They arent paying for fue (fossil fuels)l, maintainance of alot of moving parts (wind)
Or very regular cleaning to maintain efficiency (solar)
@@jaqjaq101 Whose side of the debate are you on? Those are TERRIBLE comparisons!
Properly sited solar panels only require cleaning every five years or so, which costs very little.
Nuclear power plants have many, MANY more moving parts than wind turbines: Pumps, valves, and steam turbines -- many of which have the added degree of difficulty of being exposed to extreme heat, water, and various levels of radiation (depending on the loop in which they function). Their maintenance is never-ending and expensive. Nuclear fuel rods are costly to manufacture and tricky to handle.
Where nuclear power plants WIN is sheer economy of scale: they produce MASSIVE amounts of energy at a RELATIVELY low cost per watt-hour over the span of several decades (while spewing nothing more than water vapor into the atmosphere).
Yep. Way more expensive to build and maintain, but a large reactor facility can generate staggering amounts of power while outputting so few toxins into the air that it makes solar and wind combined totally irrelevant.
@@OneBiasedOpinion Not TOTALLY irrelevant. We need a diverse generation portfolio.
Nuclear power is excellent for baseload. Solar is good for peaking in the southern tier of states, as it generates its maximum output during hot sunny days, when it's most needed.
Wind is decent for baseload if you have enough sites scattered widely. It's okay for peaking but shouldn't be the sole source thereof.
Natural gas and waste-to-energy plants are ideal for peaking since they have relatively fast start-up and shut-down cycles.
Hydro is good for baseload but there are a limited number of appropriate sites and the best ones have already been developed.
Geothermal is good for baseload but is rough on equipment and the most efficient sites for it are mainly west of I-25.
Tidal power isn't quite ready for prime time.
We need to employ all of the above if we're going to stay ahead of the curve.
Green Peace motto: If you can't beat them with brains, then baffle them with BS!
I'm old enough to remember when one of the founding members of Greenpeace published an op-ed, advocating nuclear power as the best way forward, and was excommunicated.
Full disclosure, I was a commercial nuclear industry security officer, in charge of the badguy team. My job was to find ways to break them in training exercises.
It's actually harder than you think, trying to intentionally cause a meltdown. There are so many redundancies, and widely separated. And that's assuming you actually breach the perimeter.
It was kind of frustrating, actually, as the training got better and other things were improved, our win rate as badguys dropped precipitously.
Sorry for you, but that's what I want to hear! If your job is incredibly hard, that's good news for us all!
@Satan Hell_Lord Well, being a good badguy made me a better goodguy. I think there were like 2 years where the majority of the "kills" were adversaries playing good-guys, vs. adversaries playing bad guys.
I’m so grateful for people like you and the other Breakers/white hats who help our security constantly improve across the board. Most people don’t realize how important your job is to them.
@OneBiasedOpinion It burns you out. I came back from an 8 week deployment one time and had 32 hours to spend some quality time with my girl, strip, clean, and repack my gear before I headed out again.
It's definitely a single man's game. I was engaged in, shall we say, indoor sports with my girl, on a Wednesday afternoon. Phone rings, "Pack your gear, we're going to Wisconsin."
When?
"Flight leaves Friday, 0600."
Oh, joy 😑
I think you are referring to Patrick Moore. I can recommend his book 'Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom' - that also gives you an idea why he parted ways with Greenpeace.
Ecologists denying nuclear energy is the one thing I'll never understand. If they were coherent, nuclear energy would basically be their messiah.
I have an ecology degree, and it’s because the university staff in those sciences demonize it. They straight up told us that solar and wind have comparable outputs, and ecology degrees attract 2 types of people: non confrontational rednecks and hyper opinionated hippies. Ecology is half science and half politics, and unfortunately on that issue the political side is what’s taught
How can they be coherent if they are ignorant? :)
Professional activists have to be active against something.
The radical leftist environmental movement has been infiltrated by Russian propagandists. The Guardian among others have written about it.
Ecologists/liberals know very little of the world and how things work. its just movements and random idealistic thoughts based on trends
As a french guy, i facepalmed when the sentence "say no to new nukes" appeared. The good thing in being in one of the country with the most developped nuclear park is that, at the very least, we know from basic experience that nuclear civil powerplant are nothing compared to nuclear weaponry. The problem is that even in France, while we were ahead on that aspect, we have only regressed these past few years. This hysteria has gained such a voice in public debate in place of scientific accuracy, it's concerning at best
The french are also the French. I doubt they'd give a shit if anyone got angry at them anyway, that's just how it be lol
@utoobeizkaka2737 I sincerely hope you are a bot. Real life humans would understand your argument to be drivel. If humans are "dangerous" for millions of years to come do we get rid of them? How about the sun? It gives lethal doses of radiation to people it won't go away for billions of years. As a matter of fact the sun will consume the earth and people will make war. Do you live in a fantasy or are you just a conman?
The media has a strong role. What do you think it happens when people's nuclear information sources are streaming services films? Productions like Chernobyl and Dark bias people
why is france importing so much energy during sommer times from germany then?
@@progamler1 we don't? Like yes we imported a bit during nuclear power plant maintenance, but overall we are still largely exporting electricity...
No surprises here. Greenpeace has never let pesky little details like fatcs and honesty get in the way of their primary purpose: Making money!
This right here
And power/influence.
Whenever any organization blatantly attacks any specific industry, the question should always be: who is paying them?
Yeah, not like the selfless, ascetic nuclear lobby that tries to influence public opinion and politics exclusively in a very very honest way.🙄 They don't pay scientists or even UA-camrs at all to praise nuclear power, no! Of course, they do it only to do good for the world and not at all to earn billions.
GIVE!
I work at a nuclear power plant in the US. It's astonishing how little people understand about this issue. Thanks for making this video. What's really funny is that most environmentalists are actually in support of expanding nuclear power, so greenpeace is out of step with their own people.
but (coment ment as humour) isn';t green peace a terrorist organisation
@jacobrogers9397 Well, fusion is nowhere near being a viable energy source.
As an environmentalist, I'm in full support of expanding nuclear power as a way to quickly have an impact on reducing carbon emissions. Renewable sources will have their day, but it isn't yet.
It's funny that the only way they'd be informed about Nuclear disasters is if thet actually went to university and had to write a cited Essay about the whys, hows and the sheer stupidity in it.
After I read about Fukushima, I was so dumbfounded and angry that words could not describe the feeling.
There was some thought put into the design, such as placing foundations at sea level so they could attach it to bedrock given the area's seismic activity, but then it devolves into stupidity:
Back up diesel generators at the basement;
Simulations of a similar magnitude tsunami being disregarded as unlikely;
Ignoring IAEA recommendations because the IAEA is an advisory body and unfortunately, regulations are done at a national scale rather than international;
Fucking makeshift way to introduce coolant through a fire extinguishing reserve (at least from what I remember).
Thing is, there's legitimately good criticism to be made about Nuclear, particularly with it's goddamn legislation... I know we are in the topic of energy but I need to vent this... TPNW 2017 is the most vaguely worded and exploitative legislation I've laid my eyes on. If you aren't part of it, you can literally litter other countries with Nuclear fallout scott free and because of the vagueness and scope of it, it is a shitty legislation in the context of rehabilitating an environment. It hurts my eyes reading it due to how bad it is.
But no, instead green peace prod at a strawman of general nuclear applications, because the former would require an understanding about weighing the pros and cons of nuclear power beyond the obvious 2 environmental ramifications (whilst pretending rare earth metals grow on trees).
From what I remember, Greta Thunberg isn't necessarily a fan of nuclear either, but she is not a contrarian and has at the very least principles and ground to stand on which is a better environmental outcome. Then we look at Bernie Sanders who for still lives in the 60s regarding Nuclear and then pretends like the Power supply gap he left didn't just worsen the entire ordeal (Vermont).
So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?
Going to Greenpeace and expecting intellectual honesty and integrity is a bit like going to a used car salesman and expecting them to be honest and upfront about any issues with the cars that they are selling. Activism is a big business and I liken the modern climate and environment activist groups to the clergy that sold indulgences to clear the consciences of the wealthy for a "donation" to the church. "Give us your money so that you can feel good about yourself. Support us so the world can see how good of a person you are."
If they care about not being caught as liars then they should not lie in a first place.
Their model is based on hype and out cry. They don't care about truth
That's leftism, when your arguments fall flat because facts and reality clearly show the opposite - make stuff up and lie.
Or deceive !
Just propagandists! Success consist in convincing a large enough number of idiots.
"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities.
My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival?
In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)?
It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation.
Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources.
"Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.
Over the years I have watched Greenpeace's activities I have come to see them as a radical movement. As such I did not expect to find a truly balanced and honest commentary on any of the information they put out. As you learned their information is quite tilted and subtly dishonest. Thank you for the work you do and for putting out this honest information we lay people can learn from!
So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?
Elina, you are way more patient than me. I doubt I'd get past their use of the word 'nukes' before I just declared the whole website full of shit and threw my computer against a wall.
I feel your emotion 🤣
I'd be more inclined to throw their webserver against a wall.
@@spvillano more specifically, a Fire wall
@@019nawakinaryapalupi9 if the wall is made of actual fire, preferably, a few dozen gigelectron volts worth per cm plasma. ;)
Higher would likely fatally irradiate me. There are limits to toughness of physique. :P
Oh, if we met in person, you'd be doubled over laughing. Right alongside me.
But, destruction of equipment is something I excelled at in the military.
haha yeah had similar thinkings 😁
I've worked in coal plant, gas plants, solar and nuclear (I'm only a rope access supervisor) but I felt safest in the nuclear stations.
And we all know how important feelings are....
@@michaeljost8399 yeah the feeling of a work place accident being imminent makes a bit of a difference, believe it or not.
@@alphadeltaroflcopter Yes maybe for you. But its irrelevant in case of discussing the whole matter itself.
@@kevinmeganck1302 AS I said: Irrelevant, because we shouldn't go nuclear after all, so what does it change if people fear it. We just get rid of it, period. No role played by "nuclear fear"
@@michaeljost8399 Naive and ignorant.
Its good to see an actual professional debunking the ideas and thoughts of some idiots.
Where were any claims 'debunked' as opposed to pointing out contradictions or incomplete arguments?
@@mightym did you watch the video ?
@@israelss sure did, did you? Give me a timestamp where she debunks an actual claim, rather than talk about how Greenpeace gave a strawman argument.
I remember in high school we had a Greenpeace guy come in. The town had uranium processing facility, so I called him on all his idiotic claims. Poor guy got schooled by a 17 year old.
@@monad_tcp the 'high cost of nuclear energy' is a claim which she didn't address.
I'm grateful for an honest person like you; it shows another side that none of these organizations want to share.
And if I may say, I don't think they ever will update the facts because it's not going to help the Narrative they are trying to sell.
Ps. I'm actually happy to know there are now ways for nuclear waste to be properly dealt with.
There are actually even reactor types you can run on nuclear waste.
So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?
Really hope this channel grows as fast as possible, you're doing amazing work
I support the green movement but with their anti-nuclear stance I will never vote green again in Canada.
We have indeet serious problems with increasing green hous gases but nuclear power helps to reduce it. Greenpeace lies make things worse.
are the "green" activists being lobbied by oil companies? why are they so up against nuclear energy?
I broke faith with the greens for the same reason
Same in the US. They have some good ideas. I even contacted them to see if there was some "wiggle room" in their views. There was none.
Well then you aren't green. Pro-nuclear is pro-human.
Angry environmental zealots incoming in 3...2...1...
I am an environmental zealot but also understand that nuclear energy is necessary to stop using fossil fuels , at least in the short term.
@@vesawuoristo4162 Here's my upvote. I should have specified "german" in my comment since they're the only environmentalists who prefer using old coal plants than building new NPP's
Why can't we all just listen to Green Peace and continue outsourcing all of our Rare Earth Mineral mining to the ethnic slave labor in China. Why cant we understand that ANY amount of pollution and carbon sink destruction is worth decreasing fossil fuel sales in qestern countries.
@@vesawuoristo4162 I'm pro nuclear power, but its not a solution. As an example, in Austria (per year) we produce about 70TWh electricity (about 2/3 environmental friendly, mostly hydropower), we burn about 90TWh and 100+TWh oil products. There is no chance to substitute those about 200TWh fossil fuels by nuclear energy (to produce 200TWh electricity with nuclear power you need about 15 Temelin like plants (about 30 1GW nuclear reactors))!
If you use instead of reactors like in Temelin the ones uses in US/UK nuclear submarines (which are very safe, do not need refuel twice a year and likely could be produced much faster, in years not decades), then multiply the number by 10 (-> 300 100MW reactors for Austria alone).
So nuclear isn't a solution, neither short nor long term (unfortunately wind and solar power isn't too, because 1GW reactor produces more and more reliably an energy equivalent of about 300 wind turbines, and neither wind nor solar power can be built in necessary amounts). The replacement of fossil fuel is at a scale humanity likely might fail or need to take dramatic sacrifices (e.g. reduction of mobility), I refer to the climate change as a planet killer event similar to the asteroid that doomed the dinosaurs.
@@romanstangl8655 Since about half of fossil fuel burn goes right up the smokestack: it may not be as insurmountable as you think.
If you get a heat pump with a COP of 3 or more: it becomes more efficient to burn fuel at a central power plant ~50% efficiency, transmit it on the grid, then operate the heatpump -- than to have a 95% efficient boiler.
Motor vehicles have even worse efficiency (on the order of 30%). Electric cars can be around 90% efficient. But since that is less than an order of magnitude: rolling out mass transit and densifying cities will probably yield better results.
More than a discussion about Greenpeace versus nuclear energy, this video is an amazing exercise in critical reading. It should be required in any English literature class, because the skills Eluna is using to analyze the Greenpeace website are applicable to any written article in academia, newspapers, or reports. Extremely well done.
So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?
I'm in NZ. I was working on an old house that had an old sticker on the window "New Zealand. Nuclear Weapons Free Zone." Now the phrase used is "Nuclear Free Zone." Somewhere over time the "Weapons" wording was quietly dropped.
Just part of the activism !
That's the same trick they have been using for decades now.
And despite the protests we're not exactly nuclear free anyway. Not sure how accurate this report was but this line always caught my eye: "The Somers Report commented that Auckland Hospital alone releases more than twice as much radiation into the environment each day as the entire US naval fleet and all of its support services in a year."
@@Babalas You might be more surprised to know that if any coal plant was subject to the same radiation emission regulations as nuclear plants are, they'd be shut down immediately.
Like PETA, Greenpeace is not about their stated goal. It is about raising money through fear to pay high salaries within the organization.
Right on the spot. Well said.
What are their salaries?
@@alexwray617338-57k a year for GreenPeace.
cruelty against eggs protest made me rethink if im on the right planet. 😂
@@Dr.KarlowTheOctoling that seems appropriate though doesn’t it?
I believe the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant used something called an RBMK Reactor, a design which had few if not none of the safety features of western Reactors at the time.
Correct, the RBMK is at its core a late 50s/ early 60s design which was selected for ease of construction and lower cost than the VVER, which is a comparable design to the Westinghouse PWRs or Framatome N4.
@@adder3597 And for the ability to swap fuel rods while it was running. Very useful but the easy way to do that is to not have a containment vessel... so that's what they did.
It not only lacked safety measures, it included risks like having scientifically uninformed (but uniformed) high brass testing risk limits.
The RBMK was selected as it was cheap. The Chernobyl plant was built under strict time limits meaning some compromises where made by plant director Victor Brukanov. Also the RBMK had design flaws meaning it could be very touchy at low power below 300Mw, the reactor was also huge and together with the massive fuel handling machine meant building a containment building similar to western reactors would have been an enormous and very expensive task. Also known design issues where not shared with the operators. Similar accidents had been experienced at two other RBMK facilities Ignolina and Chernobyls own reactor 1 prior to the 86 accidents. Some design changes where proposed but shelved due to costs. Had Chernobyl 5 & 6 been completed they where to incorporate these. Anotoni Dyatlov was also a key factor in the accident. Most of his experience was with PWR submarine reactors. He thought it impossible for an RBMK to explode.
"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities.
My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival?
In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)?
It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation.
Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources.
"Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.
Greenpeace seems to favor any form of energy production as long as it doesn't work very well.
I gave up with Green Piece decades ago after seeing how they miss represent the truth to promote their chosen agenda. Elina has hit the nail firmly on the head with her analysis of how GP cleverly mislead and misdirect through their dialog.
Never believe any of their propaganda. It makes one wonder what their real agenda is.
Their real agenda is to make people poor. Or they’re puppets for people that desire power.
Communism.
@@forfun6273 Exactly, they are watermelons, but most of them, at least in the USA, are too ignorant to even know that they are. The only reason their brand of green advocacy exists today is because many of their predecessors were propaganda arms of the USSR attempting to expand the small anti- nuclear weapons armament faction within the USA into a massive political block against scientific progress entirely.
There's a reason many of the early members of Green Peace are against what it is today. For example, Patrick Moore a co-founder turned against them when they started applying pressure to ban chlorine worldwide. Yes, the element. I'm not joking.
They've bought into big oil fear mongering. Renewables aren't sustainable. Therefore, there will always be fossil fuels working as the backbone and being the main energy production. That is why nuclear is hated. It can replace fossil fuels spot while being hundreds of time safer and more energy efficient.
A while ago I heard that mayor donations are made by the gas and oil industries. I dident double check it to be honest. But it sounded about right...
Greenpeace supporters who respect truth and rationality should have no issue with this video
What a contradictory statement greenpeace supporters who respect truth and rationality 😂
@@aluminumfalcon552 "What a contradictory statement greenpeace supporters who respect truth and rationality." Spoken like a simpleton.
@@cassandra8984 Greenpeace is an alarmist organization that makes its money from scaring people.
@@cassandra8984 Found the Greenpeace supporter lol
There aren't any. There are many former Greenpeace supporters who learned about reality and stopped being Greenpeace supports, though. I'm still ashamed that I believed them when I was 15.
A lot of the anti-nuke stuff stems from David Brower, one of the leaders of the Sierra Club. Back when Diablo Valley's nuclear plant was in the proposal stage, most of the board members were far more concerned that the facility would be an _eyesore_ rather than a threat. Brower was the only one who was making wild claims about nuclear power. He was briefly removed for this (and probably for being confrontational), and he formed Friends of the Earth where among other things he reached out to mothers in the nearby community, whom he successfully convinced that nuclear power plants would somehow poison them with radiation. Since his return to the Sierra Club, the anti-nuclear stance has been a fixture in the US environmentalist community.
This is not a new thing, by the way-- Back when John Muir founded the Sierra Club, a lot of the top members were firm believers in pseudoscience, such as eugenics. The Sierra Club even has a disclaimer on their website saying, "There is no evidence that Muir believed this stuff, we are inclusive, blah blah blah." The Sierra Club will never say they were wrong about nuclear power, and neither will Greenpeace. It's just too good of a fundraising tool, like abortion for Republicans.
What also really didn't help was the fact that the release of the movie _Radio Bikini_ and the Three Mile Island accident happened within months of each other. Ever since then, Hollywood filmmakers would try to devise ways of making a nuclear power plant blow up with a big mushroom cloud, even though we have a lot of evidence that this can never happen unless the plant is stupid enough to be using weapons-grade material.
Eugenics isn't really a pseudoscience, since it's a real thing that can technically happen. It is, however, extremely unethical in every regard.
Nice story.Being a particle physicist I once talked with a higher up at sierra club, they simply had no clue. Also, they hate mountain bikers even though that group does tons of trail work.
@Utoobe Izkaka You do understand that there's a way to interact with this conversation that isn't spamming the same question in every comment thread, yes?
@Utoobe Izkaka I'll answer you again because you didn't seem to see my first reply: we don't need to store nuclear waste undisturbed, we just need to prevent people from directly touching or ingesting it. When stored underwater in an airtight container, the radiation becomes negligible just a few metres away from the waste.
Funny that you brought up abortion and eugenics separately.
The founder of planned Parenthood was a racist and eugenicist
Συγχαρητήρια Ελίνα! Πραγματικά διασκέδασα το βίντεο και τον τρόπο που το παρουσίασες!🎉❤
So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?
They use the word "nukes" because it's scary. It helps them to skew people's perception by making them think of nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power.
The use of the word "Nukes" on the Web page is one of its most egregious elements. It makes any good logic impossible and makes it impossible for the reader to distinguish between very different issues.
The nuclear energy industry should rename itself to “fissile energy”.
So true. As soon as someone mentions the N word everyone around them faints with fear.
Yep. I've had to explain to several people that nuke plants if there ever was an accident don't explode mushroom cloud explosion, it's usually more steam cloud explosion. A nasty steam cloud, but it won't vaporize you. I live about ten miles from one. Maybe actually closer than that because I can walk up a hill by my house and see the cooling tower across the river.
Kind of like the term "assault weapon".
Elina should challenge Greenpeace to a live public debate about their nuclear power stance.
I can almost guarantee that Greenpeace would not accept such an invitation.
@@stevenwallman2346 Of course not, it would be bad for their business. They depend on people remaining ignorant. No anti-nuker could prevail in a debate with someone who knew the topic of nuclear energy.
she would be shouted down and not allowed to speak , interuptions are the norm from these people, dont let the other side speak
Greenpeace would pull a Donald Trump, fill the debate time with waterfall of garbage claims
@@pogo1140 That's amusing how you're against Greenpeace, seeing them for what they're, but using "pulling Trump" as a smear, siding with the Dems
The stupid thing is that extremism destrys Greenpeace's integrity and believability. They basically do good work based on good intentions, but the second they distort facts and more or less lie, they lose all credibility.
I’m not really impressed with Greenpeace. When did they change from a guardian organization to a misinformation one?
When they became addicted to the [very realistic] need for money to maintain their cause. That seems to be the Achilles heel of many idealistic advocacy groups in the long run, right or left.
I think it was during the mit 90ies.
When they were infiltrated by the fossil fuel / oil cartels?
1971.
1980s...
I worked in radcon in the US, and I gotta say, it's one of the most regulated industries I've ever heard of. It's very safe, everybody is very well trained and professional. And we did solve the nuclear waste problem. Reactor facilities that are still operable need to either keep going or be recommissioned. Diversify power sources!
Honestly nuclear is the best only option
@@Themrine2013 you got that right, our population just keeps going up which means the need for more efficient sources of power are needed. and nuclear right now is the most efficient. and getting safer every day.
@Utoobe Izkaka radiation doesnt actually take that long to disapate
@utoobeizkaka2737 We'll just build all the reactors in Southern Africa :)
@utoobeizkaka2737 also making millions of solar pannels still releases alot of co2, making a nuclear plant would just be more efficient
so in sweden we kicked the environmental party out of the goverment and have just restarted one of the decommissioned nuclear power plants and plan to build 25 new small ones
But you unfortunately didn't throw them in jail... :(
@@peterfireflylund Throwing them in jail for their opinion sets the worst precedent you possibly could. Is proving them wrong not enough?
@@pretzelbomb6105 treason is not opinion.
Nuclear power is the cleanest most environmentally safe thing we currently have.
Greenpeace has lost credibility in recent years. It's not what it used to be. I'm not surprised.
No, they are exactly what they always were. They were very expensive for seal hunters in Greenland, for example, because of a few videos from Canada. Blood always looks very impressive on white snow.
Recent years? Try the last 20 years.
@@BabyMakR 50+.
"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities.
My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival?
In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)?
It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation.
Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources.
"Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.
I can see why we need organisations like Greenpeace and PETA but they always seem so extreme in their missions and it always feels like they manipulate rather than educate, and so much of their information seems fabricated to further their own goals.
Greenpeace is good in their anti nuclear weaponry, otherwise it's bad
Greenpeace and PETA suck.
Seems like going way too far to crazy extremes is human nature. I wish Homo sapiens were a bit more rational and pragmatic.
Sadly, this is true for most political advocacy groups.
It’s human nature. People want simple answers and rally around organizations that provide them. Adding nuance to your position creates opportunity for disagreement within the base and fodder to your opponents.
some of those groups are so bad that sometimes I think if they are not intentionally created by oil companies to dissuade people in the fence to join the side of conservationists and create more extremists against them. gods know its wouldn't be out of character for them to do something like this, its not like its not well known that they invested in marketing campaigns with similar objectives.
"Renewable energy. Yeah. Much better for the environment. Let's talk about the carbon footprint for making solar panels, the equipment for a hydroelectric dam, or just ONE wind turbine. Oh, but they don't want to talk about that.
Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. RE is nothing but a misleading marketing buzzword like all natural or chemical free.
Beat me to it.
I personally disagree with both statements, nuclear has a mining and concrete carbon cost like anything else. To say that a solution is imperfect and therefore is not worth implementing just leaves us with the *much* worse problem! There won’t be a perfect power source but most (especially in combination) are *way* better than fossil fuels.
Renewables are also a legitimate category, their sources of energy are replaced in a short timeframe, it’s not an unscientific term. A self sufficient resource also would satisfy the 3 goals mentioned.
@Nathan J
Renewable is a stupid goal. Sometimes, methods that are called RE are the best option. Often, they are not. Being called RE or not should have no weight in energy system planning and implementation.
Ideology blinds people to facts, and politicians are no exception. This isn't a sporting event or popularity contest, and we should stop acting like it is. We need more involvement with engineers and energy infrastructure experts and stop depending on those who have no training or experience in any relevant field shaping policy.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Richard Feynman
So Thomas what is the carbon footprint for making panels, dams and wind turbines?
Greenpeace should be the biggest advocate for low enrichment, safe reactors.
I completely agree but they seem to have lost the plot. Same for CND.
Not the first issue they lie about, not the last.
Nuclear is the answer for baseload power generation. Wind and solar have a place, but they just don't do the trick for on-demand electricity. Not to mention that they are extremely expensive. For instance, my modest middle-class home would require a $30,000 solar system to just barely meet my energy needs. My state has no subsidies, but subsidies just rob Peter to pay Paul. They don't fix anything. And then they need to be replaced every ~30 years. So I'd have to pay for them to be recycled and then go into debt AGAIN to get a new set installed. No, thanks. Just build modern, safe nuclear plants and call it a day. If you still think nuclear is unsafe, you haven't actually looked at statistics or kept up with new developments in the industry.
So the solar panels would have to last 15-30 years to get the money back. If solar panels get cheaper then I think it’s a great idea for people to be less reliant on the grid and natural gas. I think we just need to let the market take care of it. It’s natural for people to want to save money and not be reliant on the government and grid.
Yup, like those NuPower modular reactors. That's some really cool shit, being able to build a shell to place nuclear reactors into and then just prefab and install additional ones as needed without needing to build a new facility. Genius stuff.
Solar and wind are not recyclable. You were lied to.
The most interesting thing and the caveat about "renewables" is that it takes dirty, nasty fossil fuels to create solar panels and wind turbines.
Wind turbines are lubed with ... unrefined crude oil. The problem with that is that crude oil converts to paraffin wax when exposed to subzero temperatures, causing the turbines to destroy themselves.
The blades are made of plastic and cannot be recycled so they go where all the other plastic goes ... it's buried in the desert.
Solar is the worst of the two. It's parts are made from metals that cannot be recycled. Cobalt(toxic), Lithium(dug up in Africa by slaves.)
Weird how the very advocates for the end of slavery totally ignore slavery happening RIGHT NOW. Why is it ignored? Because it's black on black slavery that cannot be laid at the feet of white people.
How many animal species have to die because those advocating to protect them are destroying their habitat just so the advocates can feel good.
All that acreage was not empty.
The working panels during the day kill every flying animal that flies over them. The blades of the turbines kill 1 million birds per year.
So lets get this straight. You are destroying the environment ... to protect the environment. I think that you are lying. First to yourself, and then to everyone around you.
I would add that your solar system only covers your partial daytime usage which leaves all the loads on the grid during the nighttime. That leads to the next solution is to add even more solar as to cover daytime usage and excess to store in batteries for the night. This leads to the eventual power dececit in winter and fall which requires either pulling from the grid or using a even more dirty generator to make up the difference. The solution is nuclear power.
Is this where we need to mention that Solar panels cannot be fully recycled at this time?
And this is why I have never been tempted to join the likes of Greenpeace, despite having a huge interest in environmental matters and conducting my life and work accordingly.
Although you have a personal interest in nuclear energy, you are happy to explain the pros and cons of your industry, so people can make a more informed choice.
On this and many other topics, the world needs more people like you to give calm and rational arguments.
The game Greenpeace is playing in the blog post between nukes and nuclear power is called "motte and bailey". A common Strawman type trope among everyone from sophists to the average internet person.
I have no idea why this channel was recommended to me, but I sure am glad it was. Fantastic video. Love the content
Same.
Sometimes I search for "Greenpeace Owned" and get a few. I think that's why I was tagged.
I know why it was recommended to me. Because i watch content i might not or do not agree with.
How else should one form a balanced opinion?
By the way, i disagree with greenpeace.
As for solar/wind being cheaper is also not true. Why? Because you still need a full grid and backup generators when it is not sunny or windy. If you want a practical example of this, look at the German Energiewende. Germany literally built 200% overcapacity of solar and wind of their PEAK usage to cover for those days that were calm and cloudy. Despite this, Germany still gets less than 50% of their electrical needs from renewables. Germany has spent an estimated 2 Trillion Euros over 20 years on this project. Had Germany spent say one quarter of that money, say 250 billion Euros on nuclear power plants, even with the cost overruns, they would not only have produced more than they needed, they could produce so much that the unit price would be low enough to get everyone to heat their homes with electricity and sell the excess to the rest of Europe as pure profit. The anti-nuclear folks are horrible at math, horrible at business, and horrible at common sense. Greenpeace and organizations like them are like umbrella makers, they pray for rain everyday to make good money. When people wake up and realize nuclear can do the heavy lifting for the energy transition and we have solid solutions for safe operation and waste storage, they should tell the activists to stay home and let the engineers do their jobs.
1) Got a Source for that 2 trillion number? All I find is about 500 Billion from 2000 until 2025.
2) Less than 50% is such a wierd way to say 49% in 2022. You're correct but still...
3) Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Hinkley Point C the expensive? 37 Billion € for 3200 MW of power. For current baseload purposes of 40-60 GW we'd need between 13 and 19 of those. So only 480-700 billion Euros for the baseload. I'm lazy and will add 100 Billion for 3 Backup plants that cover maintenance and refueling cycles. Probably should be more for safety reasons but YOLO. I'll also add another 15 Billion for expanding the energy grid because those plants will have to go to the coast to avoid shutdowns from the rivers running out of water.
So 800+ Billion € just for baseload power (heating would significantly increase that number). Then there's the fact that actually running those plants is more expensive than Solar and Windpower. The only real problem remains long term storage
You didn't mention that they shutdown their own nuclear power plants and now import lots of French, nuclear produced, electricity to cover their shortfall. Major fail.
@@stevemawer848 They also had to re-open coal powerplants to cover the baseload that renewables can't guarantee, and isn't the main politician behind the whole german nuclear phase-out now a high level Gazprom executive?
@@stevemawer848 When you actually look at the list of the French units and why they were offline, over half were offline because they needed refuelling. If France used CANDU nuclear reactors like what we have in Ontario Canada, the reactors can refuel WHILE they are still running. That's why many of the top records for 24,/7 performance are CANDU reactors. If France invested in a handful of the CANDUs, the French could change the refuel timing of their traditional reactors so half the fleet don't need to refuel at the same time, and the spent fuel can go into the CANDUs for extra power and reduction of waste...exactly what the Chinese are doing with their CANDU reactors.
@@heyho4770 1) here is the reference - it’s Peter Zeihan ua-cam.com/video/BD0sq5GN7xc/v-deo.html. Searching the internet, the number vary wildly - and thats becuase no proper and standing accounting has been done. Whether 2 trillion Euro, or 500 billion euro - either number is way too high. 2) 49% under 50% your point is no point. 3) Bruce Nuclear power plant in Ontario Canada is a CANDU design - generates 6550 MW. The cost - $7.8 billion CAD (Wikipedia). So using your 60 GW number, you can cover baseload for the UK with say $75 billion CAD. Build $250 billion worth, youll generate so much, the UK can bring building heating to zero emission, and still have so much left over to sell to the rest of Europe and make money.
Greenpeace’s approach to nuclear energy is like saying we should ban air travel because of the history of crashes, ignoring the leaps the industry has taken in safety as a result of them.
I find it amazing that the green left simultaneously rages against climate change, and also rages against the single best replacement for coal.
I am "green left" and I don't support Greenpeace over their anti-nuclear stance.
Yes.
ELINA: _"It...sounds almost as if they have something to gain out of this sentence."_
Color me SHOCKED...🙄
@Utoobe Izkaka yes but it's still safer than what you'd think.
Go on Elina, tell it how it is!
Thank you for this, it's good to have some evidence based pro and cons instead of a one sided witch hunt
5:48 - I can’t repeat the sentence “The nuclear age is over” without breaking out into laughing mid sentence.
We need to talk about this. Mostly about how Greenpeace thinks the nuclear age is over. 😂
(It’s just getting started 💪)
Right?😅
Shut down all the nuclear power plants and the world comes to a full stop.
@@bryandraughn9830
They really need to upgrade their website and follow the developments in nuclear power.
About 10 years ago, or so, there were 410 nuclear plants with licenses to operate (I refer to license because some of japans sites are shutdown but still retain their license in hopes of going back on line), today there are 435 operating plants, even with many plants shutdown.
There are 59 plants globally being built, 101 planned and 345 proposed.
Unclear is far from dead.
No, its dead. Only big uranium wants us to live in a nuclear wasteland
@@LSuschena That will only hapen if wef tells them to do so.
@@LSuschena If 435 people worldwide jumped to their death, 59 are going to, 101 may jump and 345 are thinking about it, are you jumping too?
If I were a betting man I'd feel confident on the odds that Greenpeace would vigorously protest fusion powerplants when we get those going.
They already oppose fusion actually.
@Utoobe Izkaka They don't want people to have access to cheap energy. They live by the malthusian argument that raising people from poverty is going to cause issues for the planet. This is argued despite the fact that the rise of middle class decreases population growth and make population more concerned about the environment without exception.
@Utoobe Izkaka Thanks for showing everyone that anti-nuclear sentiments are motivated by communist ideology and class hatred and not science.
@Utoobe Izkaka They want people to be poor. And for there to be fewer people.
@Utoobe Izkaka First of all, nuclear energy technology in terms of tangible commercial development is heading towards de-centralized direction (small modular reactors) so that alone kills your first argument, not to mention other Nostradamus-like problems it has.
Secondly, the so called "greens" tend to use Malthusian argument hence I brought it up. It's correct that it has been flawed argument ever since the green movement begun in 1930s Germany.
Thirdly, your claim about middle class being illusion is ridiculous. Simply, the very fact that no country with strong middle class culture has ever fallen into communism should be enough of a data point to prove it. Not to mention that it is essentially defined class by the leftist ideology. Their whole shtick about bourgeoise is a convenient way for them to de-classify people into "evil right wing variant" of the working class.
Imagine that, ideologs being intellectually dishonest. Who'd have thought?
Dr Petr Beckmann, "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" 1977 We've known this for a long time, over 50 years.
Their reasoning is the equivalent of "water causes drowning accidents therefore water bad"
I think after not just one, but three reactors melted down in Japan, the country is still very much intact.
And a nice sized chunk of the Russian army camped in the contaminated area of the Chernobyl exclusion zone, oddly entirely failing to die.
Well, at least not from radiation or cancer, just high speed lead poisoning.
@@spvillano I've already read rumors that people already died from having been exposed to radioactive dust there....
The Fukushima ELE has already slaughtered more life than anything else since the Asteroid Impact ELE of 66 million years ago. And it's still only in its beginning state. The Fukushima ELE still has an extremely long time yet to run its course. Many, many, many thousands of years.
The radiation from the Fukushima ELE is killing off the phytoplankton and atmospheric oxygen levels have been dropping because oxygen is no longer being replenished like it used to be. It doesn't take long for oxygen to be used up in one way or another.
Once the phytoplankton are gone, they're gone, baby, they're gone.
Permanently. And oxygen will never again be replenished back to its usual equilibrium.
You she entity lifeforces (including she entity lifeforces existing in XY DNA template bodies) only see and hear what you want to see and hear and completely ignore everything else.
Cognitive bias much?
You she entity lifeforces (including she entity lifeforces existing in XY DNA template bodies) don't process information sufficiently. You just go as far as whatever satisfies your Personal Opinions and gives you an immediate endorphin/dopamine/whatever rush kickback. And there you stop because you're drug addicts for those rushes and nothing else matters to you except satisfying your drug addiction.
Personal Opinions that instantly and automatically replace any and all actual facts because it's their Personal Opinion that their Personal Opinions do.
That your Personal Opinions can be proven to be wrong? You don't care. You're drug addicts.
Drug addicts don't care about anything except getting their drug rush.
They talk about the cost of nuclear energy but where do they think the money goes? It goes to the people who work building the plants, components and infrastructure. You could argue that too much goes to corporations and their CEOs, but that’s a problem that ALL energy companies have.
ALL companies have LOL !
I wish it went to people who actually build nuclear plants. Reality is, most of it goes to paper-pushers who are complying with NRC requirements. Before the NRC we had the AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, and nuclear plants were being built in ~4 years. After the NRC was formed about 50 years ago, not a single nuclear plant has gone from design to competition.
Coal is more expensive than nuclear if you include externalities (carbon dioxide emission.)
@@MrSunrise- I ❤ CO₂ and you should too
CO₂ is not a pollutant. Only externalities to consider of Coal is sulfur, particulates, and other true pollutions. I have no problem with coal, if done right, but since climate alarmist have a problem with CO₂, then if they advocate CO₂ free nuclear power we can all agree. Current wind and solar are not a solution, just grift.
I remember the other day on the Highway I saw some gasoline-powered American Corvette sportscar with the typical red sticker "Nuclear power ? No thanks."
The flipping irony could be cut with a knife.
would love to hear their explanation how did they come up with this number of expected nuclear meltdowns to happen once a decade
if so far not a single gen 3 reactor ever had a meltdown. no reactor with passive safety systems in place ever had a meltdown.
Chernobyl sure happened - but lets not forget a reactor of this kind of design would never be allowed to be build anywhere outside of soviet union
Fukushima sure happened - but it took once in a 1000 years earthquake (one of the strongest in recorded history) to make it happen. And still - should these, 50 years old, reactors had passive safety systems nothing would have happened there.
Which leaves us with 3 mile island accident - which sure caused huge financial losses, but not much more than that. And again - should this reactor had passive safety systems, nothing would have happened there.
3 mile island was more of a mediatic panic than anything, nothing too serious actually happened there. the other reactor is actually still working to this day.
Fukushima wasn't that bad. While some safety systems failed, others worked fine and minimized the problem. There was literally one death.
And even Chernobyl pales in comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. 🤷♂️
@ not really, no.
Fukushima was as bad as it could possibly get, without a breach in reactor containment structure.
Sure, plenty of mistakes have been made. And even then it took a fair bit of bad luck for it to lead towards that disaster. Heck of a lot of it was avoidable.
What few of the eco idiots recognise is Fukushima Daiichi wasn't the only nuclear plant hit by that earthquake and tsunami.
It wasn't even the one closest to the epicentre.
Which immediately brings a question if the other plants, hit by the same wave, survived then why didn't this one?
@@mikez2779 it's kinda complex, but the chain of reasons boils down to TEPCO not listening to concerns raised as early as 2003 about a tsunami event like that seen in 2011, and failing to correct design deficiencies such as the emergency generator layout and control room design.
Onagawa, just up the coast, was fine. Its lead engineer basically forced the construction of a higher seawall to be undertaken despite the company's execs being against it, which ultimately protected the plant from the worst of the Tohoku tsunami.
IMHO this all happened due to cost saving. Cleaning up the mess is payed through taxes. From a business perspective that's just fine. Although I wouldn't want one of the old french plants in my backyard.
Great analysis Elina, I'm with you. I think developing safe nuclear technology and wisely using it in our power grids is essential going forward.
We'll built one within 2KM's from your home.
How long will it take you to pack up your stuff and move ?
@@Jila_Tana I know I'm from the USA but I'm not one of the ignorant, scared, and stupid ones.
@@tombudd1281 I wasn't saying anything like that.
I feel all those who are in favor of Nuclear power plants, don't want one in their backyard.
Where the US is a large country with certain area where the population density is very low, the contrary is true for my country, the Netherlands.
If we build an NPP, WHERE do we build it ?
If it is 100% safe, we can build it in the middle of Amsterdam, but will they ? No of course not, it has to be build over 150 KM's away from the economic heart.
Why ?
If it is so safe, then why can't it be build near the area where the most Yes-men live?
I will never get an answer to it.
@@Jila_Tana They are developing reactors that you could fit in ur basement and be safe enough to fully operate without any issues.
So yea the ppl educated, aka ppl in the nuclear industry, would be totally fine with.
Outside my local nuclear research facility is a town where all those ppl live.... so not sure where ur getting ur info from lol 😂
What I would of like to see is examples or charts of what they claim. They say a bunch of stuff but I don't see anything to back it up. Also, shocking is the fact that there is a powerful lobby behind coal. Somewhere in the USA they blocked a project from Hydro Québec because, amongst other things, the towers don't look nice... 🤦♂
The aesthetics of energy is very important! Bad looking plants make for dirty energy. Or, at least that's what I've been told to believe.
@@scillyautomatic it can however devaluate properties by a LOT because of "bad aesthetics", and that is enough to create enough pushback to stop any project like this.
A sea of wind turbines and solar collectors is very ugly
@@davidabulafia7145 i view them as futuristic and beautiful
@@BlackBoxEnte Beauty is in or out of the eye of the beholder!
I remember when they called an expert (?) whose suggestion to the camera was we should shut down our nuclear power plant and burn lignite - the dirties, worst coal - what we could mine from the forested mountains. After the awareness of global warming and the devastating effects of air pollution raised a little bit, somehow this expert (?) disappeared. (It was in Hungary, we have one nuclear plant which produces about 40% of the country's electric energy.)
Brutal reality- building 1 nuclear powerplant helps the planet more than all the vegetarians together :D
(nuclear waste can be stored pretty good and the amount of fossil fuels it saves is insane)
(and if you think the waste will be a problem long term, we can store it on the other planets or moons)
Wow I can only recommend the kurzgesagt(in a nutshell) video on this topic. Storing nuclear waste on other planets is the worst idea ever. And other forms of eco friendly energy production dont produce this waste, so why on earth should anyone consider nuclear?
You don't need to store it on another planet or the moon. You just need to launch it in a trajectory that will cause it to crash into the sun.
@@e-curb Still can recommend the video. It is just not possible
@@e-curb Literally the hardest thing to do but ok
@@e-curb tl; dr: That doesn't work.
I got asked about this a few decades ago, thought it was an interesting idea, and tried to run some numbers. This is what I came up with.
When you launch anything from Earth, it carries with it most of Earth's orbital velocity (18 miles a second, so it's reckoned) and so it falls into a solar orbit near the planet. To get it to fall into the sun, you have to get rid of all that kinetic energy some way or another. This is not an opinion, it's just true. What follows is my opinion, and I'm happy to be challenged: from the numbers I could find, I estimated that the amount of energy needed to get the waste, given how heavy it is, out of our gravity well and down into the Sun was greater than the amount of energy the fuel could have generated in the first place. If you go down this route, it would make more sense to build a power plant that runs on rocket fuel and not involve the nuclear bit at all.
Did I get my numbers wrong, physicists? 😀
Elina Charatsidou "Brainwashing, which I don't agree with." Lol 😂 Now that's a statement we can all get behind.
Love your videos keep up the keep up the good work!
The amount of nonsense on this Greenpeace article shows how they didn't even care to talk to nuclear physicists and plant engineers before writing it. Thanks for the video Elina, it is enlightening!
One major thing these people do not understand is, ENERGY DEMAND WILL GO UP, our needs are getting greater every year, and these low efficiency green energies cannot keep up, we NEED reliable sources of energy, so it will be coal or nuclear. Obviously nuclear is the clear option, I am not opposed to coal but if environmental zealots are going to have a heart attack over energy, it might as well produce no emissions.
Nuclear power, along with renewables, will have an important role to play in de-carbonizing our energy sector. At this time, renewables can't replace fossil fuels on their own. Greenpeace's stance is over 50 years old, formed before the full impact of anthropogenic climate change was understood, and before the development of modern nuclear power technologies.
Greenpeace? Is that the group that use fossil fueled cars, trains, airplanes and boats to get around the planet? Or the other one that use pushbikes, billycarts, footpower, gliders and swimming?
And funded by fossil fuel companies.
I'm a physics student in Germany, and one of my professors has told the class or used examples as part of the lecture related to why nuclear energy is important and shutting down our reactors is the wrong move considering *climate change*
not to mention wind turbines have their own negative environmental impact with the killing of birds/insects, spreading microplastics and the fact that they can't currently be recycled so they just bury them.
So true, so much to the point. And I AM a physicist, albeit not directly in the nuclear field. The other problem is that they create a very modest supply of energy on average, as well as failing to provide any for periods of time, such as calm nights. I'm not sure how you run industry that way.
Those problems exist but they've been found to be mostly minor issues. Am German and because of our whole renewables shenanigans plenty of studies have been done
For the entirety of there are an estimated 100.000 birds killed by Wind Turbines each year. Confirmed overall deaths are ~4000.
Compare that to Glass Windows with 18 Million and Cats with 200 Million estimated killed birds...
Insect deaths are an estimated 1400 tonnes each year or 1/375th of whats eaten by birds. It absolutely pales against other human interventions into nature like pesticides or overuse of fertilizer
Microplastic is estimated at ~1% of the annual Microplastic generated by tires and 1/7th of the annual emissions of our shoes.
The Material the Wings are made of is being used widely. Production numbers are consistently at ~200.000 tons each year and waste from wind turbines will probably reach 20.000 tons each year soon
Seems like exaggerrated problems to me
Also the industrial process used to produce the neodymium magnets for wind turbines generates radioactive waste as a byproduct.
Greenpeace suck. Glad you made this video
9:46 One nuclear meltdown per decade? Where's the data to back that claim?
In addition to that, for intellectual honesty the dat should be akin to reporting major incidents per number of plants; or, possibly better, number of incidents per unit of energy produced.
You can get that average if you include the experimental reactors of the 50s that were intentionally induced to have core damage events in a controlled environment to understand the effects.
To get that number they MUST be assuming that all power is nuclear power.
At the end to the day nuclear meltdowns are not *that* disastrous: even if they did happen once per decade. Coal plants release more radiation due to trace elements in the fuel they burn.
I absolutely LOVE this take!! What a shitshow these hypocrites are. Your firsthand experience is _critical_ in this discussion.
I lived near a nuclear power plant once, and the cost of electricity was extremely cheap compared to more traditional methods
The initial investment is not that much higher than a gas, coal or oil fired power plant, it's relatively cheap to run a nuclear power plant in comparison to anything else. It makes sense to combine nuclear together with solar and wind power to reduce both the cost and environmental impact of energy generation.
Finland has just brought a new nuclear power plant on line and the cost of electricity has dropped. Energy security should be a political priority, not some very expensive part time power sources!
@@0cypher0 wind and solar do not reduce costs or impact
@Utoobe Izkaka I take it you don't live far into the northern hemisphere.... Short sunshine in the winter....
@Utoobe Izkaka bullshit. a system that actually functions for a house is over a 100 grand. post the system up on your 'this channel has no content' page
This thumbnail is on point! 😂
I’m really surprised by what Greenpeace writes. Thank you for the analysis. I’m wondering whether the people behind have hidden interests and what industries they actually support. Simulations from several years ago showed that the most effective solution consists in a mix of different energy sources.
My bet is big oil.
@@d3ly51d More likely, big wind !
Or, maybe they're just a religious cult, selling pardons, starting from 25$ a month. The devil, of course, being nuclear anything.
Anti-nuclear movements were financed by big oil companies from the very beginning. This should be no surprise: nuclear is still the only energy source that can really impact fossil fuel demand. Wind and solar still needs at least natural gas as a backup to work (energy storage is growing very fast, but it's still in its infancy and we need decades to install a decent amount of this tecnologies).
Greenpeace literally invested in and sold methane gas burning electricity plants for a time.
I'm glad the algorithm recommended your channel! 👍🙂 I would love for you to do an explanatory video regarding the differences between todays nuclear power plants and those of the 60's - 80's. And your thoughts on how future reactors will build on what has been learned.
Thanks!
Moreover, a video on what was learned from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
@@e-curb
Chernobyl -> Don't let drunk soviets run your reactors.
Fukushima -> Protect your backup generators for cooling better.
Three Mile Island -> Don't leave your emergency feed water lines closed ffs.
Aka. 2/3 were purely technical & human f-ups, 1/3 was being soviet.
If you actually look up 'Death rates per unit of electricity production' then nuclear, even including all the accidents, is among the safest energy sources available.
@Utoobe Izkaka fair point but let's talk about those numbers in a fair way shall we? Let's talk major meltdowns Chernobyl, well in order to discuss this one we have to address the cause of the meltdown incompetent people decided to make a test and removed some of the dampeners (which would be like cutting the breaks in a car) then kept the reactor online. Honestly if you told me that the goal here was to cause a nuclear meltdown I would've believed you as a kid. Still not entirely convinced otherwise. So next prominent example is of course Japan. A Tsunami hit. Umm, Tsunamis are natural disasters, yeah um still safer than fracking. Cause sinkholes suck.
@Utoobe Izkaka well unfortunately that requires a lot of maintenance and luck over the years and well I'm sure you're aware of Murphy's law. Anything that can go wrong will. That said I would prefer Thorium reactors but unfortunately the tech just isn't there yet.
@Utoobe Izkaka that said more people have died from all other forms of energy far worse. That said most of those lives saved are due to lessons in safety we learned before we tried to harvest it as a power source.
@Utoobe Izkaka No, you're dead wrong about that. Because, again we've already HAD uncontrolled meltdown, and even with that factored in, it is STILL the safest.
@Utoobe Izkaka LMAO! LMFAO!!! That's not how any of this works!
If you could just take random Uranium from a nuclear reactor and melt it into a blob and get a nuclear blast like that, countries wouldn't spend literally billions on centrifuges for refining out the correct isotopes.
As to your assertion that it could render all of Europe uninhabitable, holy shit you're a walking joke! The area immediately surrounding the plant itself isn't even uninhabitable. It would be a bad idea to inhabit it, as it would raise your chance of cancer a lot, but the fact you think you could spread the waste to an area many millions the size and render it all uninhabitable is HILARIOUS!
I want that "your friendly nuclear physicist" t-shirt.
but, i'm not a nuclear physicist.
just print "wannabe" on the t-shirt after you receive it
@@tronche2cake I didn't get this. (wannabe)
While I do have a certain degree of respect for people who are totally committed to a cause I really wish they would consider the real world consequences if what they were asking for ever became a reality!
They believe they do understand the consequences - Just, their consequences.
Nuclear explosions (because Nuclear Power Plants can totally do that, right? Riiight?), nuclear waste flooding the streets, babies being born with additional limbs.. etc. etc. etc.
I've heard plenty of these. It's their reality, if it has basis in other people's reality however.. mhm.
This winter we saw some of the Green Peace consequences -- electricity hit $1.12/kWh in parts of Europe. But, I suppose we could just turn off everything and live in the middle ages again, maybe get a wooden furnace, polluting our apartment (blocks) - killing who knows how many. Or of course we could just eat things not needing heat to prepare. And you're correct - I'm not denying the involvement of the war in these prices -- certainly not helped by Germany shutting down their nuclear plants however.
They’re idiots. Every single form of energy production is going to have inherent risk and environmental impact, including renewables. All we can do is weigh the risks and impact vs gain, to determine the best bang for the buck. Per Petawatt hour, nuclear has among the lowest death rate of any energy source out there. Wind is actually a lot deadlier. It also has one of the lowest environmental impacts, as far as mining and processing. This is supported with actual data and numbers, ie, facts. The only way we get totally away from any risks, or any environmental impacts, is to go back to the 18th century. I notice nobody proposes that…..
Greenpeace needs to shout - people have not been listening for fifty years. Laughter was the first reaction - if there was one, now we have anger, next - and soon - shall be acceptance of the basic points. Sadly shouting makes a difference.
When an idiot shouts i laugh even louder
Not shout but shut up. Greenpeace needs to shut up.
Thank you for uncovering such blatantly false statements from Greenpiece.
It seems that they are nostalgic of the Stone Age.
Greetings,
Anthony
The stone age was when all the trouble began... ;)
@Utoobe Izkaka What the highest amount of money to pay for electricity that you are willing to go?
The average energy used by US household is 10600 kWh per year.
$0.10/kWh -- $1,060/yr (lower class and above can afford)
$1.00/kWh -- $10,600/yr (upper middle class and above can afford)
$10.00/kWh -- $106,000/yr (upper class and above can afford)
$100.00/kWh -- $1,060,000/yr (upper upper class people making around $30 million per year can afford this)
Now bear in mind that the cost of Industrial sized Lithium Ion battery farms is around $137/kWh according to Statista.
My main interest is in seeing that the lower and the middle class can continue to afford electricity.
@Utoobe Izkaka Ideally you convert the majority of it into new fuel long before that time frame. For the small portion you can't convert -- bury it.
@Utoobe Izkaka Have you ever heard of the naturally formed Oklo Gabon Nuclear Reactor from Central Africa?
There is nothing that we can do that will not leave some kind of a mark or a change in the environment in which we live. Have you never seen South America's lithium extraction fields that cause soil degradation, water shortages, biodiversity loss, damage to ecosystem functions and exacerbate global warming?
One 1GW nuclear reactor produces around 3 cubic meters of nuclear waste per year. 60,000 tonnes of lithium requires digging up on the scale of 20-30 million tonnes of Earth.
Anything we do has an effect on the environment. The theoretical damage from an animal interacting with one ruptured container of HLNW is far less than that of an entire herd of bison suffocating under a cloud of hydrogen sulfide in Norris Geyser Basin in Yellowstone National Park.
HLNW deposit sites are highly unlikely to cause a 10% decrease in flamingo populations like the lithium mining sites in Selar de Atacama in the Lithium Triangle have.
And yet... if we want to have an electrical grid 100% composited of wind and solar -- we will need some energy storage mechanism that won't bankrupt the middle and lower classes. We will need some energy storage mechanism because, as Europe has learned Dunkelflaute -- or periods of low pv production and low wind production occur. Germany fires up it's coal plants and imports energy from it's neighboring countries when dunkleflaute happen.
Do you propose that we eschew electricity and technology entirely?
Grew up with a ZPG sticker (Zero Population Growth) on my dunes buggy and worked with musician’s during the No Nukes Concerts, they nicknamed me the Pro Nuker of the No Nukers.Heading to London on the 21st to protest with XR. 50+ years of Lies by fossil fuel interests and Greenpeace who exploit ignorance. Love your work❤
Don't worry, Gaia will sort out the overpopulation problem. You watch ! Will it be : Flood, drought, pestilence, war? Probably the latter!
If you must protest in London, can I suggest you do it in a way that doesn't alienate people, which is very counter-productive. Getting people onside is a far better way than acting like a bunch of disruptive miscreants intent on making life miserable for ordinary people.
@@linmal2242 Stop that gaia nonsense
The more environmentalist i become, the more i hate Greenpeace
I think the websites creators are a bit environ-mental
I was reactor operator on a nuclear submarine. The US Navy operates more reactors than anyone else, and has never had a major incident.
well isnt that proof of is safety?
theres 200+ nuclear submarines in the middle of the sea
imagine one blowing up only one
no one in their sick minds would let a ticking bomb in the middle of the sea
but because they are safe enough it never happened
doesnt that show how safe they actually are?
@@xxizcrilexlxx1505 I mean, if it's never actually went off, and the designs are built in a way that makes replicating Chernobyl an impossibility, yeah I'd say it's pretty safe.
@@romanscum5678 yeah thats what i said
as having 200+ nuclear subs and no one went off shows proof of the modern desings and how safety they are
@@xxizcrilexlxx1505 Oh my bad, it's just that the way you structured your comment made it sound like you were being sarcastic.
@@romanscum5678 well i was kinda
with the ticking bomb thing
Crazy how they put nukes and national security in the argumentation.
I'm pretty sure that nuclear deterrance is both off topic and more complex than "no nukes = no promblem"
Yeah, shredding fish (hydropower) and killing birds (windpower) are definitely way more environmentally friendly than using nuclear power, wich is (more or less) carbon-neutral and, if done right, without danger for the environment and public.
We can blame them (nuclear power producers) for choosing the uranium types of plants because the wasteproducts can easily be turned into nuclear weapons. Thorium reactors produce non weaponizable wasteproducts that have, as far as I know, a way shorter halflive, as the now regular fission reactors wasteproducts.
If the final storage of nuclear wasteproducts is done right, we can harvest the contained energy to the last millisivert.
Just burrying it under ground is not the right way to do that. Constant accessability is the key to get as much out of it, as possible. A few degrees in temperature still can be an energysource. Talking about geothermal energy gain and heat exchanger/heatpumps.
Just dumping things has never been an acceptable solution.
If done right, nuclear power is much cleaner than hydro- and windpower.
And btw. fearmongering is a common thing in politics andd activism. Spot it, don´t fall for it!
Fearmongering is more common, than people believe it is.
Thanks for the insight and keep it up, Elina! :)
"shredding fish" reveals your ignorance of the true level of destruction caused by hydro. The most productive part of any temperate ecosystem is the river bottomlands. A hydro reservoir destroys the bottomlands. A hydro development does not have an "environmental impact" - it is an environmental disaster.
The waste products of a commercial nuclear powerplant CAN NOT be turned into nuclear weapons. The long irradiation periods breed not only Pu 239, but also Pu 240. The spontaneous fission rate of Pu 240 prevents the creation of a fissionable assembly - in plain English, a bomb made from commercial powerplant waste will result in a very expensive bunny fart. (India used a Canadian designed *research* reactor to build their first bomb, not a commercial power reactor. The reactor that Iraq hoped to use to build weapons before the Israelis bombed it was a *research* reactor.)
@@MrSunrise- To the topic of shredding fish: Either you´ve not read my comment propperly, or you´re not familiar with sarcasm. :)
I just said in short, what you described.
Maybe i just wasn´t sarcastic enough?
To the topic of nuclear waste: Yeah, you´re actually right. I remembered that fact wrong. They chose the plutonium option, because with the same production industry you can serve both: powerplants and bomb manufacturing. One enrichment facility, two options to use the product. Serves the military more than the civil use. How surprising this is, don´t you agree? :)
But thanks for correcting me on that. :)
Let’s not forget the fact that renewable takes infinitely more space and also works like half of the time especially wind and solar
And burning fossil fuels feeds the building blocks of all life. But fear mongering is bad right...