Rocking nuclear industry in Finland

[wasistdortlos]

Sad, that still so many people are naive and support nuclear power.

[muistikortti]

Helvetin puunhalaajat, menkää johonkin oikeisiin töihin älkääkä kitiskö

[EgadsNo]

Greenpeace is reactionary and do not think about the statements they make. They setting the future of clean and green society back

[Psykoosi86]

If the world was run by anti-science ppl like you we would be living in the stone age with a human lifespan of only 30 years of age

[Psykoosi86]

Fucking idiots..i hate you fucking ignorant hypocrite assholes...you are really fucked up people. The main reason for your problems are that this planet is overpopulated, go ahead and do something about it, you could start with yourselves.

[Azimuth003]

We will fist fuck this whole fucknig world in order to have comfort.

[elZabba]

HIPIT HIRTEEN!

[feilongliu]

fking humans are gonna destroy this beautiful planet

[Cesium135]

Terrorists

[roney89]

fuck grempeace

[t83rg]

I really don't know why all these people giving negative comments always want to talk about coal. Coal is no option.

Saving energy is first reasonable thing to do. Second is using renevable energy sources. In Finland we have very good possibilities to do both. There's really no need for NEW nuclear power plants anymore.

[MokomaSusi]

@t83rg

There is need for more nuclear power.Good that our goverment understands this fact.

[t83rg]

Design and construction problems with this plant are undeniable facts. Areva has actually done design and re-design of critical safety systems on the fly during construction work all the time. Also use of unexpericed cheap working force and subcontractors is a fact.

Also new digital control systems used first time in huge nuclear power plant's most critical functions is an enormous "?". As an experienced engineer I am scared about it.

It's no wonder this project will be late at least 3yr.

[t83rg]

Jälkikäteen voi nyt todeta, että susi tuosta Olkiluodon voimalasta näyttää tulevan.

Toivottavasti se kuitenkin joskus tulee toimimaan, ettei yli kolme miljardia euroa suomalaista rahaa mennyt ranskalaisen l'kancculan kylän kaivoon.

[DrFunnelCakes]

I love it when stupid people protest something they know absolutely nothing about. If you ever meet one of these greenpeace campaigners, be sure to question them on the inner workings of a nuclear power plant. As well as, what radiation is. You'll be quite amused.

[diabeticcyborg]

You know theres something wrong with the stances your organization takes when one of your founders ends up leaving and calling out your bullshit. Just saying.

[ethanswish123]

Wow, this is extreme bullshit. Greenpeace is bias, hah I mean, look, 0:01 they are rolling barrels! nuclear reactors have NOTHING to do with barrels! It's funny

yeah why aren't they working on the shut down of coal plants

coal is the worst and unclean

greenpeace my juicy ass!

[diabeticcyborg]

Can't wait to see these guys try to do stuff at my work in the next few years....Ha! BRING IT!

[SaunaFinland]

Mihin sitä ydinvoimaa tai hiilivoimaa oiken tarvitaan kun sähkö kerran tulee pistorasiasta kunhan sinne vaivautuu tunkemaan töpselin?

[jerstu2]

mistä se sähkö sinne pistorasiaan tulee?

[SaunaFinland]

Toivottavasti parin vuoden päästä Olkiluoto kolmosesta. Sieltä minä ympäristöystävällistä sähköä haluaisin. Toivoisin myös että minä eläke iässä saisin nauttia fuusio energian hyödyistä, joka olisi ydinvoimaakin parempi sähkön lähde.

[t83rg]

OL3:n valmistuminen menee ainakin tuonne vuoteen 2013, ehkä pitemmällekin. Voimalassa on ollut paljon ongelmia suunnittelu- ja rakennusvaiheessa ja se tarkoittaa yleensä vielä paljon enemmän ongelmia testaus- ja ylösajovaiheessa.

Sekin on periaatteessa mahdollista, että tuosta ei tule ikinä toimivaa voimalaa. Näitä ikäviä tapauksia on nähty ennenkin ydinvoiman historiassa.

Fuusiovoimala on taas vähän kuin insinöörien graalin malja. Sitä voi tavoitella, mutta vaikeaa on...

[Saitame]

I would like to see his sources for those claims !

[stakuken]

finland sweden and the rest of the world need nuclear powerplants. we need to eat meat fore a healty life style..and olso dont forget the world has suvived fore many many many years so i think that the little shit that we do wont hurt mother earth that bad...and now of to burger king:D

[BoundByBodom]

the reason why the world has survived is that humanity hasn't mistreated it until the recent centuries. And exactly how healthy is it to eat meat and risk being exposed to nuclear radiation compared to eat less meat and risk that a wind-power station hit you in the head, or that you are so stupid that you eventually trips and fall into a Hydroelectric dam.

[TehNrk]

I work there shoot me! :)

[etplayah]

You are an idiot aswell !

[freeyourmindusa]

it takes 1,000,000,000,000 years to brake down not 20 like some dumb ass thinks.

[pioneerz450]

Fuck you FUck nuclear power

[B3llyfan]

lol If you want to use the term "Fuck Nuclear power" good luck with the whole no power issue when fossil fuels run out. anyways they have new Fusion reactors on test that almost make no pollution and have 10x more power than the sun so stop moaning shit happens if it didnt we would all live in the stone age. we need power so we need idea's so if ya would all like tell us how to create power because wind power does jack shit i know i live in a county full of em and solar is not enough either.

[seksiseppo1]

btw, mitä on okliluoto 3 nuclear power plant?

[seksiseppo1]

saatanan äpärä viherviipertäjät muuttakaa vietnamiin valittamaan puhtaasta ydinvoimasta perkele keksikää parempi energialähde!! HÄ? Ei ole vai, no sittte turpa kii jumalauta!!

[mariori16]

why they stay like dead bodiez?!?!

[pioneerz450]

its called passive resistance, if you dont fight against the police they cant charge you. thats whu they act like dead bodies

[AreThereNoMoreNames]

Well, they'll still charge them with trespassing, vandalism, and probably littering or whatever else they can. Falling down like a paraplegic isn't going to make them any more friendly to your cause.

Plus, think of the resources wasted for their little stunt. They had to use spraypaint to paint those barrels up, the gas for the police to come out there, the power for the jail they're going to be stuck in, the tax money diverted to the penal system to cover them, not helping the environment.

[DrBuzz0]

Boy... wouldn't it be better if we used coal instead?

Oh wait... yes we will switch to wind. Forget the fact that wind power is not stable and that you'd need thousands of turbines to replace a single nuke plant.

Greenpeace never cared about science or the climate. They're attention-seeking scumbags and nothing more.

I care about our environment and I'd like to see solutions start to be implemented that actually make a difference. Thus, I HATE Greenpeace.

[darthkill1]

ooooo some things never change my freind...

[soylentgreenb]

"Oh wait... yes we will switch to wind. Forget the fact that wind power is not stable and that you'd need thousands of turbines to replace a single nuke plant."

Of course, that makes Greenpeace one of Gazprom's biggest allies.

[mturkka]

GO POLICE ! Damn greenpeace environment terrorists ! Go protest on oil production instead of CO2 free nuclear power ! Oh wait... you don't have balls to do that ? I just think Greenpeace is OPEC supporter !! haha

[KalronHelldragon]

Yeah, i'ma say this again. Greenpeace are nothing but a bunch of Law Breaking Radicals on a One way Track to the Darwin awards. The earth is a self sustaining envornment, so people need to stop bitching and complaining about it... We will kill outselves off before the earth is in any REAL danger

[nolstradamus]

what a bunch of losers. That power plant looks awesome in my opinion - just beautiful.

[futurehope65]

Beautiful?! How beautiful would it look after an accidental release of radiation which gave you and generations to come cancer?

[sackese]

No it's better to be dead then due to pollution caused by all those combustion plants because smartasses like greenpeace thinks they're right....

Dead people-nomre generations-no worries.....

[futurehope65]

No, I think the point is to develop alternative sustainable energy systems such as solar, wind and wave instead of pouring billions into new nuclear plants that generate waste that lasts for billions of years. Wind and solar= no pollution.

[sackese]

But UNTIL those energy systems are powerful enough to replace ALL fossil plants you'll be dead from pollution....

Better to invest in nuclear plants that at least are safe AND where you know where the residuals are and give time to develop the others than be a stubborn idiot (not talking about you) just because you don't like nuclear energy?

ATM you need at least 200 propellers, or more typical 500, to replace ONE reactor.

[futurehope65]

I don't know where you live, but in the US there are places, where the wind blows pretty much constantly or the sun shines pretty much year round and the open spaces could be used for tens of thousands of turbines or solar farms which could export energy to other states. Maybe there are no such options for Finland, but what do I know, with the EU is energy trading possible? Seems we're doomed no matter what.

[sackese]

True. I live in Scandinavia, and the problem here is that when we need power the most the sun shines only a fraction (winter). Also wind is too insecure as it seldom blows with constant speed here (maybe far out on the sea though).

We need to take down all coal plants that exist in Europe, and atm nuclear plants are the best, relativelly small in areal for the amount of power.

[sackese]

(Cont')

The US is a history of it's own. They have a lot of dirty coal plants which are very dirty, with almost no exhaust emission control or filtration. Also the US consumes 1/4th of all oil produced.

But the most important thing is that other countries say "If the US doesn't do anything, why should we?".

So if we want to save this Earth, the US must change its attitude.

[futurehope65]

Agreed with US needing to take action, our refusal to join KYOTO was criminal, likely paid for by oil and coal industries. Just that nuclear is so bad, have you seen the photos of Iraqi mutations from Du? 600% increase in cancers from contamination there. Can we really ensure this stuff will stay safe for 4 billion years?

[sackese]

Iraqi's mutations aren't due to nucelar power, but the US military's use of low-radiation Uranium shells used to penetrate armor as U238 is almost 5 times heavier than iron. The contamination comes tue to pulverisation of these shells, and then inhaled by the population.

The military would have come up with this type of weapon indiferent of whether atomiic energy is used or not...

[futurehope65]

Yes, my point was that the dU munitions are derived from waste-products of the refining process for nuclear fuel, linking the nuclear and arms industries. Other nations rejected these weapons on the grounds that these weapons are genocidal in nature, no matter how effective.

[sackese]

The so-called depleted Uran is U238, which is a residual from enrichment to get U235, which is used in reactors.

What you get from reactors is highly radioactive, and couldn't be used as weapon without harming your own troops. So my statement still holds and is in no case motive to discontinue the use of nuclear reactors.

[sackese]

Sorry, misread your post where you in fact stated what I replied... (good that I checked again :D)

To continue: Let's make an analogy. Cars are used to create bombs, shall we stop making cars?

[soylentgreenb]

"Yes, my point was that the dU munitions are derived from waste-products of the refining process for nuclear fuel, linking the nuclear and arms industries."

DU-ammunitions save lives. Unless you drink the anti-nuclear kool-aid, they make safe and effective anti-tank rounds and replacing explosive rounds that would kill a lot more innocent bystanders.

If there was no such thing as fission, natural uranium would still be used in anti-tank weapons.

[soylentgreenb]

"[...]new nuclear plants that generate waste that lasts for billions of years."

Nuclear plants take long-lived radioactive isotopes and convert them into short-lived ones. If you take such a silly long-term perspective they reduce the radiation people will be exposed to millions of years down the road.

"Wind and solar= no pollution."

Have you ever looked into how PV panels are made? Cadmium-telluride stays toxic forever, it doesn't disappear if you wait long enough like nuclear "waste".

[isokessu]

@soylentgreenb There's many ways to make solar panels, you can make them from some shit what you can find from your home.. Btw I have some flexible solar panel what I found from some parking area, it doesn't look very toxic to me.. Why I'm not dead already? Btw if worlds every human would get electricity from nuclear power plants, then there would be so much more the waste than there is now..

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu "you can make them from some shit what you can find from your home."

I assume you mean poly-Si PV.

Silicon is everywhere. But a lump of impure quartz is not a solar panel, and solar panels without storage are not particularly useful.

In a finished panel you have all kinds of things; usually you'll find an indium tin oxide transparent conductor(with indium being very rare) and an anti reflection coating(usually silver, palladium and titanium; with the first two being rare).

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu The process of refining silicon to a purity that is usable in photovoltaics requires large amounts of chlorine gas to be shipped on rails and roads to its destination. Chlorine is shipped in not particularly sturdy containers with not particularly much care or oversight.

Silicon is converted to toxic silicon tetrachloride, which is then fractionally distilled. The impure fraction is "discarded"; which sometimes means dumped in the nearest stream stream(see China).

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu During the process of constructing and doping the different layers of the panel there is a need to etch and clean. Hydrofluoric acid is used for this. This is another one of those volatile substances shipped in flimsy, poorly garded cans on the nations roads and highways, causing spills and the need for evacuations with depressing regularity. It's a contact poison, goes through the skin an etches bone; reacts with blood calcium and may cause cardiac arrest.

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu But more importantly, these crystalline photovoltaics can never provide cheap energy, the cost of these panels has stagnated, the technology is about as mature as it ever will be. If you want cheaper solar you have to use various forms of thin-film processes to make them; these have to date invariable been made from compound semiconductors that are either scarce or toxic(GaAs, InAs, InGaAs, CdTe...).

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu "Btw if worlds every human would get electricity from nuclear power plants, then there would be so much more the waste than there is now."

Used nuclear fuel is not a waste, it's a resource.

The long-lived "waste" is transuranic actinides(TRUs), which is just another name for fuel.

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu The rest of the "waste" is fission products and neutron activated materials. Even if you treat it as waste and vitrify and dispose of it it will be less radiotoxic than the uranium you dug up out of the ground in just a few hundred years.

If you're smart you'll grab the fission platinoids and use them in industry. Recover any radioactive isotopes you can use in industry and space exploration(e.g. Sr-90 for betavoltaic cells, thickness gauges).

[soylentgreenb]

@isokessu "greens" often pride themself on supposedly self-less long-term thinking and sustainability.

Well, if that's truly the case, the best thing you can possibly do to reduce the level of background radioactivity on Earth, averaged from now and until the Earth is no longer able to sustain life, is to fission as much of the uranium and thorium as you possibly find.

[soylentgreenb]

"Beautiful?! How beautiful would it look after an accidental release of radiation which gave you and generations to come cancer?"

Back here in reality land, the 55 direct deaths and 4 000 indirect deaths that may occur from chernobyl(UNSCEAR) is equal to the deaths from coal power particulates every 7 weeks in the US(EPA, 30 000 per year).

Not to mention the fact that Chernobyl had no containment dome and was deliberately operated in an unsafe fashion.

[MrTubeAudio]

@soylentgreenb Heard about Ignalina Power Plant? It had 2 "Chernobyl-type" reactors, RBMK-1500. And worked for years wit just one failure: broken Unit 1 turbine. No nuclear leakouts or similar problems. Plant has been shut down (because RBMK's are forbidden in EU). Now they are building bigger NPP just near the old. Why? It's cheap and clean.

[powerhawk56]

the cops should have gotten the tasers out. That croud looked a little wild. Oh well, at least they got arrested.

[MokomaSusi]

There is no that many tasers yet in Finland. But now they are going to get new X-26 tasers.

[powerhawk56]

Cool so when they get them they actually will use them against this terror group greenpeace?

[MokomaSusi]

They get them probably some time next year. Few days ago police used OC-spray against greenpeace people and now greenpeace is planning to sue police force!

[powerhawk56]

Well, leets hope Greenpeace doesn't win. Knowing Greenpeace the police were probably justified.

[popyseeds5]

ok nuclear power would be better if there was safe areas to dispose of the waste.

[MokomaSusi]

There is already sape place in here Finland. Just search word "Onkalo".

[mturkka]

Finland is ideal place to use nuclear power because of stable and solid bedrock.

[petehinz]

you guys did it! i'm not sure what it was i was watching, but yay!

[SWSimpson]

environmental terrorists, endangering lives of those who have to remove them from private property. That's NOT okay.

[wenlong]

stop using thing that require electricity.Nuclear is dangerous but it is a good method to meet up with the demend.coal oil price is rising and it is very pollutent. if you think there is any better way say it. Wind and solar energy is not suitable in all country.

[japanesekoi321]

nuclear is power

[MokomaSusi]

Yes to nuclear.

[pyork2007]

Nuclear power kills people, it is morally wrong. It is expensive, it is unsafe and it is unreliable. Reactors are only being built because wealthy lobbyists pay of politicians. The toxic waste is dumped on native reserves. Good for Greenpeace!

[MokomaSusi]

"Nuclear power kills people, it is morally wrong."

No, it does not kill anyone. Finnish nuclear powerplants haven't killed anyone.

"t is unsafe and it is unreliable."

Unsafe? nope. Unreliable? you probably mean wind power.

"The toxic waste is dumped on native reserves. "

Not in here Finland.

[pyork2007]

Chernobyl killed. Finish nuclear power could very well kill in the future, since there is no method for safely storing radioactive waste for the thousands of years that it takes for that material to become safe. Future generations, as yet unborn, but nevertheless as real as you or me when they will be born, are at risk. Ergo, nuclear power is morally wrong.

[pyork2007]

Nuclear power is called "high risk, low probability" (HRLP) technology because it even though the probability of a disaster (such as Chernobyl) is low, the risk to local populations is very high if it does happen. And that risk does not justify the existence of nuclear power, especially when safer forms of power (renewables) can do the job as easily for the same price or less. Nuclear power tends to be expensive and generate cost overruns, borne by the public through taxes.

[MokomaSusi]

"Nuclear power is called "high risk, low probability" (HRLP) technology"

Only if you are working in greenpeace.

"such as Chernobyl"

Chernobyl wasn't accident. So down goes this argument...

"especially when safer forms of power (renewables) can do the job as easily for the same price or less. "

Come live to Finland and try to use solar power in winter time...when there is only few hours sunlight every day.

[pyork2007]

"High risk low probability" is an industry term known to policy experts who study and debate nuclear power, both for and against.

Chernobyl's an example of accidents that can happen with aging nuclear plants. We will see more Chernobyls this century and next.

There is no country on Earth that could not replace nuclear and coal with cleaner solar, wind, and cogeneration power coupled with conservation.

Sounds as though you are part of the nuclear industry?

[cockbeer]

thank you for your educated answer mr. scientist.

[MokomaSusi]

"Chernobyl killed. Finish nuclear power could very well kill in the future"

Aliens might invade world in future too.

"here is no method for safely storing radioactive waste for the thousands of years that it takes for that material to become safe."

Search "olkiluoto onkalo".

"Future generations, as yet unborn, but nevertheless as real as you or me when they will be born, are at risk."

No, they aren't.

[austinstock]

but if you treat the nuclear waste effectively then iot only take hundreds of years and we could store the watse deep underground in the middle of the sahara desert

or the middle of inland anarctica

[willrise]

Why put Nuclear waste in the desert? If you filled the Sahara with Solar panels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world. That's...the WHOLE world!

[soylentgreenb]

"Why put Nuclear waste in the desert?"

That's because the anti-nuclear movement has worked very hard to try and create the perception that nuclear waste is incredibly dangerous and must be burried there. In reality it's a chemically inert ceramic that just sits there.

"If you filled the Sahara with Solar panels it would provide enough electricity for the whole world."

Hardly; you'd have to flood half a continent with water to provide storage and build some insane world-spanning power grid.

[mhammy3208]

whats wrong with nuclear power, its awesome and makes the earth glow.

i also love pavement and asphalt because it makes for a smoother ride in my Hummer at 4 miles per gallon.

[havisburger]

why dont support clean nuclear energy??

[microfactory]

With the money required for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 Turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.

So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new EPR nuclear reactor delivers.

[MokomaSusi]

There is normally about 3-5 hours of sunlight in a winter time. Solar panel might be good if you are living in desert.

[microfactory]

The fact that solar modules only generate energy during day time is a great feature, since electricity use during day time is more than doubled.

If France wouldn't have all the electric heaters running at night and couldn't depend on the powerful foreign storage lakes, it wouldn't know what to do with all its unflexible nuclear energy.

Also, during maintenance, a nuclear power plant doesn't generate any power at all and this for several weeks and not just one single night.

[pyork2007]

Nuclear energy is not clean: uranium mining produces CO2, concrete for reactors procuces CO2, toxic waste is produced and will contaminate earth for 1 million years (10,000 very high toxicity), and coal is needed to fill in fluctating power demands when nuclear is used -- plus it is unsafe, unreliable, expensive.

[stodles]

Check out CANDU cycles they can use natural uranium (not enriched) with deuterium. What's more CANDU can flux power too so no need for fossil back-ups.

You say there's radioactive problems show me the biggest nuclear disaster in the past 10 years.

There's no nuclear lobby! The oil companies lobby against nuclear like there's no tommorow!

[pyork2007]

CANDU reactors in Ontario where I live are a disaster. They are constantly offline, needing repairs, they involve huge cost overruns that taxpayers are still paying for on their hydro bills. Chernobyl was the last big nuclear disaster and the risk of that happening again is not worth building new nukes when renewable power + conservation can answer our energy needs. Lastly, the nuclear lobby is real and quite good at soaking up tax dollars.

[stodles]

I can't speak for your experience, but I do know that in the US fleet CANDU reactors have been able to run at about 88% capacity versus ~80% for LWR's. Maybe it's different in Canada? But that's not the point: the point is they don't have to enrich the uranium.

[quantumhed]

are you serious? concrete? you're hysterical. Ok, so nuclear reactors contain 0.0000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000000­00000000000001% of the worlds co2 producing concrete. We gotta stop them now!!

[quantumhed]

In america, the average reactor produces 3 cubic meters of waste a year. I don't care how long the waste stays around, it's 3 cubic fucking meters. That's like one couch of waste for every reactor. Does this not strike everyone as irrelevant? no more air pollution and no more saudis. Why can't you get behind that?

[pyork2007]

It's not the volume of waste that matters as much as its toxicity and the longevity of its toxicity. It is poison being dumped into the ground and will poison future generations guaranteed. That is murder and murder is ethically wrong. Better to go with an energy source that does not entail murder and waste - if you wish to live in a moral society. But if you condone murder, what difference is that from Fascist or Stalinist nation-states?

[pyork2007]

The main source of emissions is uranium mining. And there is massive concrete use, despite your mockery. But the biggest argument is the danger to future generations up 10,000 years + from waste disposal. It is ethically irresponsible to poison anyone now or in the future to gratify the wasteful energy desires (not needs) of industrialized societies. Technicians have no plan for disposal except to dig a deep hole and bury it. They cannot guarantee that it won't leak or poison water tables.

[popyseeds5]

lol i agree!

[popyseeds5]

"unreliable" your thinking of wind power

[Digitaaliklosetti]

lol okliluoto

[Gammaclipper]

The smartest thing to do with nuclear waste is probably to reprocess and recycle the spent fuel into new fuel. Depleted uranium or U238 can be turned into Plutonium 239 by neutron bombardment common in most nuclear reactors. In fact, U238 emitts so little radiation and has such a big nucleus that it can actually be used as radiation sheilding for b-particals and g-rays. The alpha particals it emitts can be absorbed by water or candlejack. I mean candle wax. But don't let facts get in your way.

[DandHProductions]

The truth is that nuclear power plants that have had accidents like Chernobyl were shitty designs. It's like trying to protest wind power because a poorly designed turbine fell over and killed someone and unlike wind, nuclear power is reliable and doesn't ruin the landscape.

[KalronHelldragon]

Couldn't have put it beter man

[Poefacedraven]

Nice one.

It's about time someone took action to highlight the stupidity of building new nuclear power station.

Nuclear power is too expensive, leads to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, creates nuclear waste we don't have a clue what to do with, is too slow to deal with climate change and has proved beyond doubt that it is very dangerous.

[KalronHelldragon]

No, Nuclear power has been proven to be safer then Fossel Fuels and burning materials for power. Granted the Waste is a problem, but easy solution. Send it to the Sun. And second, it doesn't lead to Nuclear Weapons. There are millions of missles yes, but this was BEFORE Nuclear power was even thought of -_-

[microfactory]

Besides the dangers affiliated with this experiment, the propellant, energy and equipment required to shoot a payload of nuclear waste into the sun by using a rocket is enormous and would increase the costs of nuclear electricity to a level that no-one could afford it. (Keep in mind a trip to space costs $20 Million US-Dollars for one single person already).

[KalronHelldragon]

Thats why the governemt does what it does best, and confenscates the materials needed, therfore resulting in a Free trip to space. I mean come on, would you mind working for a day if it got twenty tons of waste off the planet?

[microfactory]

The space shuttle has a maximum capacity of 3.8 tons just to shoot its payload to the geostationary transfer orbit - to the sun the payload is further reduced. So in order to shoot only 20 tons of radioactive waste to the sun you probably need about 10 Space Shuttle trips. In addition the radioactive waste has to be heavily armored in case the rocket fails, so you might end up with several 100 Space Shuttle trips for just 20 tons of waste. Not even Bill Gates can afford such an electricity bill.

[KalronHelldragon]

You don't know Bill Gates very well then :P

Anyways alls i know is that it doesn't matter what we do, the earth will get rid of us somehow.

[futurehope65]

The waste products of refining the uranium ore (90%) is used in munitions as penetrators "dU" which has poisoned Iraq and Afghanistan. It remains radioactive for 4.8 billion years...

[SamuraiEmp]

well done greenpeace!

[gabriellemichaela]

I am inspired by all this great love and courage!!! Thankyou,Greenpeace-we are all benefiting fromyour work!!! THANKYOU!!!

[Mechinguis]

Bravo GP!! we can stop them!!

[MokomaSusi]

No you cant...hah hah.

[dzinch]

i 100% agree with tskaface comment ;)

[qwerty271984]

You're da best!

[h3lspawn666]

Keep up the good work!

[filmitfilmit]

GREAT JOB GP!

[filmitfilmit]

was that Ted Hood on the ladder?

[tskaface]

Thanks for the video. keep the world informed, people need to see the great work greenpeace does for us as a planet.

[crookedj0k3r]

Were they just messign with building material? Protest dont further violate more safety issues, lord.

"...They hired inexperienced workers to cut costs... So Im going to climb a ladder in the middle of the work process, that'll show em." I appretiate GP for some of the stuff they do but pointless random acts like this are unnecessary.

[tskaface]

did you listen to issues they brought up on the video? basic protest bring little antention, the reason greenpeace choose to do that was to bring the spotlight upon the contruction.

[sackese]

Greenpeace has lost its ccredibility a long time ago.