Nuclear Power is a death sentence for everyone. 172 recorded leaks into water sources and ground soils. We even had one hard water leak into a drinking water source in New York.
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Big change is comming soon!
last I heard the reactor was two years behind schedule, over 7 billion euros in cost, and now they are saying it may cost this much again to decommission this monster when it's old... Where's the "cheap" part of this thing? And why not go with safe renewables, when solar panels 55 years old are still working fine? I'd like to see a dirty bomb made from wind turbine parts too...
@paul8kangas Don't be silly, you're confused about the relationship between nuclear weapons (= nukes) and nuclear power. Nations will want to have nuclear weapons even if their houses are powered by solar. These have nothing to do with each other. If, on the other hand you mean that solar houses should replace nuclear power.. think a little bit harder: the economics of current solar power is just not on par with a large nuclear plant, especially for industry.
OK, as a Finnish civilian, I am OPPOSED to this BULLSHIT of a reactor!
Reason 1: there has been nothing but delays, problems with material quality and most of the workers at the site are foreign, so it doesn't contribute to people here getting work.
2: the quality of the work has been questionable.
3: the employees of the site didn't let working safety inspectors check the construction site on time on September 30th 2010. Suspicious, isn't it?
The question i ask is, is building energy plants by water good for our environment? Does it damage the ecology? How clean is it? Because There are other ways to generate electricity beside using water (steam pressure) to generate electricity.
@Rubellaaa The biggest shame is uneducated morons who don't know the technology behind these various energy choices, and do not understand how the real world works. Instead they are stuck in their own My Little Pony dream world, while posting stupid things on YouTube.
In order to understand why Finns crave nuclear energy with foaming mouths and a mad lustre of greed in their eyes you need to be aware that the dominant characteristic of our society is materialism. That is why we are a nation of demented worker ants. We don't have much culture, spirituality or identity to speak of, only technology, so we plunge head over heals to a mad technological hubris to escape the terrible emptiness of our lives.
@herrapikkarainen Wintertime the Sun does not work, they have not any oil or natural gas reserve, the wind power is little and they do not want to cut the all forests in their country.
Nuclear is not cheap...No one knows how expensive it is yet any more than we know how costly FF power will be down the road. I never heard of anyone making a dirty bomb from a solar panel though... Where are ya going to store that crap anyway? I know my clueless country hasn't found a solution yet. No one wants it in their backyard...
nuclear power is the way to go right now. I don't get how some people whines about global warming and CO2 emision, but still dosn't wan't to face the fact that nuclear power is the only thing that can help us with todays technology. We just can't get enough energy out of wind and sun with todays technology.
Agree, the energy flux density of wave and wind power is far too low to replace fossil fuels. While I disagree that CO2 is bad for the environment, there are numerous other concerns with fossil fuel burning. The gases combine with water in the atmosphere to become sulphuric acid, which kills off life in lakes and other watercourses.
wath the fuck is greanpeases problem they scream about climate change
but opose the solution to it cause nuclear power is the most enviromentaly efective way to go. wind power takes to mutch space and takes away to mutc forests hydro electric is a god choice but it destroys beautiful vaterfals solar power dosent work god enugh up in the north
@georg841984 why don't they charge a member ship fee,to help research for HOT-FUSION,the kind that "powers" the earth and keeps those green peace people alive to protest another day!
Think about this ,the sun produces enough energy in ONE SECOND, to POWER USA FOR MORE THAN A MILLION YEARS
I agree, and the fag who posted this video is most likely even not from Finland. Probably just another greenpeace propagandist nutjob, who dreams about forcing the whole world to live as hunter-gatherers.
And the only way to boycott Finnish paper companies is to not wipe your ass when in here.
This fu#%#ng dic#heads come to our country and build thous pointless plants on our ground, thatx to all the idiots sitting in FInnish parliament. They promised it will cost 4billion euro, and produce energy in 2009. Now it costs 8billion and they promise it will produce energy in 2012.really...Don't believe what they say, they say it only because someone could make lots of money, and it not gonna be the people who lives in that country.For example electricity prices have just gone up in Finland!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And how many wind turbines we coul buid for 8billion euro? These people don't want you to think, they tell you it's the biggest, and the best.. but did you know that this new type of reactor produces waist that is many times higher than exploded plant Chernobyl. So if this one will ever blow then all Scandinavia is fucked. And where will you put the extremly highly radioactive waist? Isn't it time to try some new technology? Wind power? Sun power? etc...
Where do you think wind and solar energy comes from? The sun. A Nuclear Fusion Reactor. Nuclear energy produced all life on this planet. We have already nearly exhausted the energy available to us through chemical reactions in the form of fossil fuels. The only logical step forward is to utilize the limitless potential of the most basic unit of matter itself, not gathering energy from solar radiation originating millions of miles away, and not from air currents caused by that radiation.
Where is the carbon in this Fnnish reactor? Can you show me the carbon (graphite) in this type reactor, which can burn for 10 days to sprinkle the radioactivity into the World?
wind turbines or solar pannels just aren't efficient enough. they'll continue to be that way for hundreds of years. many misinformation about the safety of nuclear power come from mostly hollywood and mass media. nowdays, nuclear reactors are triple redundant or more. Chernobyl happened in Russia, a developing nation, where basically anything goes. in a first world nation like Finland, nuclear power plants are very safe. don't make a big fuss about it based on prejudice and outdated info.
The new reactor in Finnland will be a new type reactor. This is a new construction. The second one will build in France. This reactor is the prototype.
El stupido "boycot these products" Only one who is totally relying on scare tactics and stories about Pripyat would state that nuclear power shouldn't be built. Someone who doesn't understand physics and anything related to nuclear power. Perkeleen viherpiiperö.
The Chernobil type reactor has positiv feed back effect, because of the grafite (Carbon) moderator. + There was planning mistake because the end of the regulator borone rods consist of grafite (carbon). When the experimental group in the the controler room detected the problem and put the controler rod in the reactor first the controler rod increased the reactor power instead of decreasing. The Chernobil type reactors are good to producing plutonium for military aim.
The extrem nuclear power increasing broke the water supply pipes in the graphite (graphite=CARBON) moderator body, and the water steam decayed hydrogen and oxygen with katalysis of the zirconium of the fuel rod's coat. Hydrogen and Oxygen are explosive gas and the explosion destroyed the more water pipes and the heat from the explosion and from the fuel rod ignited the GRAPHITE MODERATOR (GRAPHITE=CARBON). The carbon ignition decays the water subtract the Oxygin from the water.
The reaction the ignited graphite (GRAPHITE=CARBONE) with the water produced carbonmonoxid and hydrogen. This mixture produced huge flams which transported the nuclear waste from the broken fuel rods. These flams polluted the atmosphere.
My question is where is CARBON in a light water reactor??!!!
BTW The crew of the reactor in Chernobil made experiment. Experiment with a reactor????!!!!
20 mSv/year is the limit of the radioactive job. Some countries the job limit and natural radiation background (20+5=25 mSv/year) is less then the natural background is in Kerala state in India! By the way I do not like the Chernobyl type reaktors, but I am supporter of the light water nuclear reactors with containment.
The ionisation radiation scientist found new results. The earlier model the stochastic cancer induction from the ionisation radiation have falled. The average ionisation radiation background is 5 mSv/year in a deposit soil country, and in Kerala state in India is about 30 mSv/year. The cancer prevalency is same beetwen Kerala state and other states of India.
Untill this the thyeroid cancer prevalanciy increased only in Belarus and Ukraina, because the I-131 (this radioactive isotop can accuumlates in the thyeroide). This cancer is well treated. Very few patients died in Belorus and Ukraina. The doctors can treat wery well.
Except for the extrem big contaminations near to Chernobyl (for example the red forrest) the flora and fauna are healthy.
Which paper producer are behind the new power plants. I want to buy their products, because the nuclear power plants decrease the carbon dioxyd emission.
The light water reactors will never be Chernobyl. The enormous carbon burnt in Chernobyl. The light water reactors do not contain any carbon in it. In Hungary the price of the nuclear electricity is the cheaper.
As the time is passing the need for energy and fuel on economic grounds is being felt. New industrial machines are being manufactured consuming less power & raw material and giving out more production. The nuclear reactor on the whole is also a move towards this need of man. If it is allowed to be manufactured by the countries having attained nuclear power certificates & an internationall inspection team for checking its non-disasterous production can work it'll surely help in fast development
My opinion is that the Finnish paper industry is in troble because the management there can not do their job. They are not able to put the expences to the end product. The arabs sure know how to put the price to the oil.
I would rather kick thouse companies out of Finland. Nobody needs them. Their place is in some 3 class banana contry where they maybe can do what they will (or better yet nowhere). Finland surely does not want to get a reputation to harbour cheap nuclear energy!
i agre nuclear power is the clenest form of power beside wind solar and hydroelektric we have it is modern and safe it does not emit co2 and has to be the grenest alternative for cuntries that hawent got acses to large sites for hydroelectric dams and dont have enugh sun al year. wind power is god for smal power neds but placing whole parks of them destroys the enwiroment more than it helps think of al the birds that die in there nuclear is the greanest form of power after the renewables:)
Sweden is really green, were i live:D We have like 40 % hydro and wind becouse we can use it up here i mean theres a lot of plain fields here and 50 % is nuclear i kinda support nuclear becouse its the only good option so waiting for fusion GOGOGO
Well, first of all you should study more of nuclear power. It is one of the most clean ways to produce energy. And the reason for new nuclear power plants is industry. Finnish industry is in trouble because everyones salaries are too high and they have to kind of compensate it with low-cost energy sources. It is naive to say that those companies isn't needed in here. They mean all for Finnish economy. Even you are dependent on the economy those firms run.
Many people know where those products are used, boycotting them is not a problem. And there are also other ways. Whatever, it is important that finns know who is actually playing behind these strange new nuclear power plants. Finns have several ways to deal with them here in Finland. I don't like having a nuclear plant in my neighbourhood. I rather kick those companies out of Finland (World) than have them poisoning my country or any other country!
It's crystal clear that you don't even live in Finland or never had. Most of the population support, and have no problem with more nuclear power. Only the greenpeace nutjobs oppose it, these are poeple who would want the whole country to be forced back to live a life of hunter-gatherers.
Haha, sorry but this seems quite funny. :) You just can't boycott these companies because one can't tell from a product if it uses finnish paper or metal. I could say fe. some car makers that use Ruukki's metal but it doesn't really matter...
Nuclear power rocks. :) It's the way to decrease our CO2 emissions. That's it.
In Finland they had several other possibilities, but since they just want it cheap, they want to build more nuclear power. That is the reason I am against it. One should not always try to save money too much since the end price can be very high. Those companies try to save money so much that the destroy my country and I don't like it!
"My country" ? According to your page, you live in fuckin Fiji. Look, if you dont want affordable energy and good-paying jobs in Fiji, you don't have to. But please leave us Finns alone, we're sick of you greenpeace lunk heads.
Keep it up Finland! Nuclear power is the best way to produce baseload power, without emitting any pollution. All around the world their building more nuclear reactors, hopefully we can star building soon in the USA. I'm going to definitely tried to support UPM-Kymmene and Stora-Enso if they are in fact helping the project along.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you realize nuclear power is not the solution to the energy crisis? It takes a huge amount of fossil fuel resources to create heavily refined plutonium rods at the heart of the reactor. This is just a band-aid solution and doesn't really reduce our dependance on fossil fuels.
Wells yes every form of energy leaves a carbon footprint. But nuclear rectors require very very small amounts of fuel and refueling. And if you already have a functioning nuclear reactor you can use its electricity to make fuel rods with no emissions. Also nuclear power can be used to replace coal and charge plug in hybrid vehicles and power electric trains so it can be used to make us more independent on fossil fuels. Furthermore, Generation 4 nuclear reactors can produce hydrogen.
I don't know much about it, but I do know about the law of conservation of energy. It seems like the most fuel you could make off of one plutonium/uranium rod would be enough to make exactly one rod. How is it possible for one rod to produce enough energy to make multiples rods? Where's all that extra energy coming from? I'll tell you- fossil fuels.
Also a study by the OECD(organization for economic co-operation and development) points out that nuclear uses 11-22 GCO2/KW(CO2 per killowat) and Wind uses 11-37GCO2/KW(very close). But you cant compare Wind an intermittent source of electricity with nuclear a baseload steady power source. BTW (very nice Mazda) I'm thinking of getting one myself.
BTW: The Low Level Radiation Campaign has claimed that a 40% increase in Belarusian cancer rates has occurred, with a similar increase in northern Sweden. (This is due to the Chernobyl accident 1986)
Well I hope you're the first to see the world when 1000's of reactors are running all over the world, everyone owns an electric or fuel cell car, and global warming is as big a joke as the Y2K virus.
The Finnish paper industry is blamed for the new nuclear power plants in Finland, especially two companies: UPM-Kymmene and Stora Enso. They are very greedy and totally irresponsible. Now they are even wanting to build several additional nuclear plants in Finland! If you want to stand against those plants, stop using the products form these companies! Thank you.
Actually they are still suffering and die due to Chernobyl disaster 1986. All together they count about 15 000 persons killed directly so far. People in Ukraine still have symptoms and will have long time forward.
The last time anyone died from nuclear power was 1986. More people die from papercuts. The 441 nuclear reactors in the world are the equivalent in pollution of 425,000,000 cars. Nuclear reactors save tens of thousands of lives a year.
Ma'am, "something" will always go wrong with everything but 28,000 people a year die because of the coal we burn. Nuclear has taken 51 years to kill 3,000 people and the reactors keep getting safer.
You would have to live near a nuclear power plant for 2,000 years to be exposed to the same amount of radiation as one x-ray. By the way, what would you do with my 85 penises?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you really THAT stupid? 3.000 people? wtf!
Have you ever heard about places like chernobyl or mayak? I quess not. There are lots of people dying because of radiation, but this issue isn't discussed enough. I can see you're from USA, the level of your education tells it all.
You make me sick. There has only been one major nuclear accident in the history of the world and that was Chernobyl. Everyone is exposed to radiation all the time. If you live near a nuclear reactor for 2,000 you get the same amount of radiation as one x-ray. Nuclear is the only energy we have control over. Fossil fuels are finite and harder and harder to get to, hydroelectric is played out, and solar just plain sucks. And yes I am from the USA where our reactors don't kill.
Mayak wasn't major accident? And because of chernobyl and mayak there has been tens of tousands dead. The official statistics are always wrong. And what about harvesting the uranium and such? DO you know what shit that does around the globe. Of course not, you haven't seen it. It destroys the local life totally. Wind power FTW \o
Nuclear power is so dirty! And it is so dangerous! Whic his no surprise, as it was developed from bomb technology. Molecular nuclear fusion is safe, clean and cheap. Adn kills nothing. Nuclear power kills so well! God help us if they get more plants!
Es ist interessant zu erfahren das der Konzern (UPM) in den ich arbeite solche Unternehmen laufen hat. Konnte dies erst hiermit erfahren! Ich bin dieser Energieform jedoch nicht abgeneigt natürlich sollte man die Entsorgung noch in den Griff bekommen.
Labore sind jedoch soweit Atommüll in kleinen Mengen zu vernichten!
Is this a science fiction idea..Atomic Plant atomic clock. Can be powered and energized by a solar clock but doesn't use sun power but only by laser light which is absorbed in clock's solar panel cells or photo voltaic cells which absorb laser light and sends it to it's atomic plant clock.The reason to use this. Not smart to have any electrical wires any were around atomic things;not fire safe, compared to laser beam which is safe even if cut.
Ich bin für die Kernenergie. Heute ist die Technologie viel besser; einen Unfall wie Tchernobyl ist zurzeit zu schwer vorzukommen. Atomenergie ist üppig, sicher und ohne Luftverschmutzung. Das Problem ist der Kernabfall..
Not only nuclear waste but also mining of uranium is a big problem. At the moment there are plans to open new mines also in some peripheral regions of Finland. And why should we power up capitalism when it's destroying everything?
Nuclear waste is a minor technical problem. Even doing something as totally reckless as glassifying the waste and dumping it straight into the ocean causes less deaths than coal power, even with the linear dose dependency cancer rate model.
"but also mining of uranium is a big problem."
Leeching.
"And why should we power up capitalism when it's destroying everything?"
If you prefer misery that's your choice, but not your choice to make for me.
The containment sump (also known as emergency or recirculation sump) in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) is part of the emergency core cooling system. Every nuclear power plant is required by regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 50.46) to have an emergency core cooling system to mitigate a design basis accident. The emergency core cooling system is one of several safety systems required by the NRC.
Goodness, I am an environmentalist, but not an ignorant one... Those who live next to a nuclear power plant experience 0.001 mrems per year. Your average X-ray machine exposes you to over 5000 mrems. Those few that speak against nuclear power have gained so much attention. Society must thrive on terror...
A combined power plant is actually more efficient. A hydro power plant doesn't require any ultimate disposal place, doesn't require any mining, is less expensive and can control its power output within seconds.
How do you build a dam? A park? A Recycling plant? It's tough to avoid emmisions, impossible. However, nuclear power has no immediate effects to its local environment (save the ground it was built on).
Again you cannot disregard greenhouse gases produced within the entire nuclear energy production chain. True, even a dam indirectly emits greenhouse gases but only once, since mining, transports and processing are not necessary.
They mean that the fish like the warm water. It is the cooling water which comes from the sea. That is not radio active (at least should not be). It is not the Baltic Sea, it is the Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden and Finland.
what the hell do they mean the water WHICH COOLS the URANIUM RODS goes straight into the baltic sea and the fish love it..... something is wrong here.
My information is based on a Naval nuclear power plant, but the cooling water does not ever come in contact with the control rods. Also the half-life of water (pure) is about 7 seconds; if a leak was to occur, the water would be drinkable before it ever left the plant
LOL! One of the most pollutating country is worried?? HAHAAHAHAH!!We must remember that Finland's pollutating in history is hundreds thousands times less than Germany have. It's rediculous that they are worried
Big countries are already ruined our air..Why we should keep the less pollutating civilized state title? We could make hundreds plants more and after that we are in same line with Germany (if we look at far diraction)
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.
At least, there shouldn't be any investment in new nuclear plants as long as there are alternatives energy sources - particularly not in countries where there are plenty of renewable energy sources already in place - e.g. Australia.
Not least, because renewables such as solar power (heat and electricity) and increase of efficiency (e.g. insulation) boosts the local economy and nuclear doesn't.
If solar power is the panacea its proponents make it out to be, why aren't said proponents buying and using solar panels themselves? Solar is best suited to low-load applications. Nuclear is still a feasible option for high-demand applications. Why are solar-energy advocates opposed to nuclear power? Any specific reasons?
Solar panels are placed on roofs by their proponents. High power demand is not needed by most of the customers. Also, there are solar power plants in the MW range and of course photovoltaics on several Million roofs creates several thousand MW.
Why are nuclear advocates opposed to renewable power? Any specific reasons?
Most nuclear advocates I know are not opposed to nuclear; in fact, most of us want renewables and nuclear resources both utilized (I cring to think of all the firewood I've cut over the years!). Most of us see the eventual freedom from fossil fuels accelerated by using both renewables and nuclear. I just don't see this as an either/or question. Do you have any particular objections to nuclear power usage?
That's interesting. I probably shouldn't be surprised. I've heard that here in Oklahoma some of the coal utilities have given money to environmental organizations to oppose the building of nuclear power plants here. What reasons do they give for opposing renewables? I'm very currious to hear them.
For example, they make fun of the fact that photovoltaics doesn't produce electricity at night. Which is particularly ironic as the powerful pumps of the Swiss storage lakes run every night to store the unflexible energy produced by the Swiss and French nuclear plants.
To more thoroughly answer your question, many nuclear-power advocates feel frustrated by renewables-advocates opposition to nuclear power usage. Also, it is very frustrating to hear people pontificate about what power-generating sources we should use, and then see them joy-ride around in their gas-guzzling, out-of-tune vehicles on under-inflated tires. At the very least, it would be nice to see people practive what they preach.
When you can produce more energy with a given investment by installing renewable sources than with nuclear power, why even bother? Besides, Uranium235 is not an ever lasting source either and a switch to a fast breeder creates new issues. And then there's things like missing insurance, terrorism, waste, hindering of local economies etc.
To answer your concerns singly, lets start with the "terrorism" issue. Plutonium generated from civillian power plant production is unsuitable for weapons production. This is due to its low concentration (about 1%, weapons grade is about 90%) and the fact that it is present as 3 isotope: Pu-239, 240, and 241. Weapons grade plutonium (Pu-239) has to be specifically prepared as to rigorously exclude the other two isotopes, due to their being spontaneously fissionable.
If bad educated people wanted to provoke melt down they could. And even if they wouldn't, what if they just damage a plant to a level that it takes month or years to repair it? With renewables the risk concentration is not there or at least drastically reduced.
Although the supply of U-235 is not infinite, why would it need to be? By that line of reasoning, since the sun is going to go nova someday, we shouldn't use solar power either? There is enough U-235 to last for quite a while. Also, we can use fast-neutron reactors to fission U-238, which is 99.3% of all naturally occuring Uranium.
Well the sun goes to nova in 4 billion years and not few decades or a couple of hundred years (less than the age of America). Also as Uranium concentration goes down, energy needed to collect it and with it its costs, go up.
Thats the point of the breeder, to produce Pu-239. What is it about a breeder reactor that makes it riskier? If we "only" have a few hundred years of easily recoverable U-235 left, why not use it? We can also start using Thorium if we run out of easily recoverable Uranium (by which time, we would probably have feasible fussion technology developed).
Don't worry, U235 is being used and this process accelerates.
With Pu-239 one can produce weapons. A breeder runs at higher temperatures, requires a sodium (corrosive and burnable) material to cool and has no moderator (which could evaporate and stop the reaction) and again its costlier.
But we can actually get power from fission. The technology for fission reactors will more likely than not be the result of research moneys from fission plants.
Not persuading? To whom? Please try to keep an open mind with regards to nuclear power. If there was ever a topic misunderstood and misrepresented more than nuclear power, I sure haven't heard about it!
Nuclear energy is the only option for the future. Global warming is not the only problem for fossil fuels, peak oil is another reason to go nuclear. When you find that these new reactors are alot safer than the old ones you really have to consider the motives of the people telling us that nuclear terrorism and accidents are a major concern. We know global warming is the biggest accident in human history, why are we still carrying on with it.
Don't forget refining. It takes huge amounts of energy to remove the useful isotope from the ore, maybe 2 percent at most and the ore is still radioactive, "depleted" uranium and needs to be disposed of somehow... Oh, wait, it gets turned into munitions!
Don't hang around blown out tanks?! If Du is so safe then, why not? What about all the rounds that missed their targets? What about all the du dust that's blown downrange into farms? Those blown-out tanks have been playgrounds for children in Iraq, but then those children didn't get the memo... Look up Maj. Doug Rokke, an expert on radiological weapons and former head of the Pentagon Depleted Uranuim project.
Hah hah hah haa...´allesisthepis´ comment is very funny..hah..(well it really doesn´t ahve anything to do with nuclear power plants ar ´ustij´...but I think nuclear power plants are more dangerous to the world than just some being a muslim..(addressing to ´ustij´) (There can NEVER be 100% safety in nuclear power...)(we must search for other sources to have energy..)(maybe there is free energy right in front of us..?)(just thinking...)
i wish we could use the new generation reactors in the U.S. too bad people are too fucking stupid to want something safer installed. they hear radiation and freak the fuck out. i bet they don't even know what the fuck radiation is or does
It was being shipped to the U.K. but after some close calls near accidents with the U.K. handling it Germany just decided it was best to do away with them as the U.K. is not smart enough to handle the waste with care and Germany does not want the waste in their country.
What about the waste???????
zs6djm 1 month ago
Nuclear Power is a death sentence for everyone. 172 recorded leaks into water sources and ground soils. We even had one hard water leak into a drinking water source in New York.
TimeKeeperEnigma 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
REAL Free energy technology exists!But the Oil coporations life depends on covering this up,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Big change is comming soon!
ivylsp 1 year ago
last I heard the reactor was two years behind schedule, over 7 billion euros in cost, and now they are saying it may cost this much again to decommission this monster when it's old... Where's the "cheap" part of this thing? And why not go with safe renewables, when solar panels 55 years old are still working fine? I'd like to see a dirty bomb made from wind turbine parts too...
waterworldengineer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No insurance company will insure
any nuclear power plant.
Why?
Because the risk is so great.
Youtube: paul8kangas
paul8kangas 1 year ago
No insurance company will insure
any nuclear power plant.
Youtube: paul8kangas
paul8kangas 1 year ago
The best way to stop Nukes
is to build 1 million new stand alone solar power houses.
Youtube: paul8kangas
paul8kangas 1 year ago
@paul8kangas Don't be silly, you're confused about the relationship between nuclear weapons (= nukes) and nuclear power. Nations will want to have nuclear weapons even if their houses are powered by solar. These have nothing to do with each other. If, on the other hand you mean that solar houses should replace nuclear power.. think a little bit harder: the economics of current solar power is just not on par with a large nuclear plant, especially for industry.
arcadesj 1 year ago
OK, as a Finnish civilian, I am OPPOSED to this BULLSHIT of a reactor!
Reason 1: there has been nothing but delays, problems with material quality and most of the workers at the site are foreign, so it doesn't contribute to people here getting work.
2: the quality of the work has been questionable.
3: the employees of the site didn't let working safety inspectors check the construction site on time on September 30th 2010. Suspicious, isn't it?
YuppiBum 1 year ago
The question i ask is, is building energy plants by water good for our environment? Does it damage the ecology? How clean is it? Because There are other ways to generate electricity beside using water (steam pressure) to generate electricity.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
The biggest Finnish shame :(
Rubellaaa 1 year ago
@Rubellaaa The biggest shame is uneducated morons who don't know the technology behind these various energy choices, and do not understand how the real world works. Instead they are stuck in their own My Little Pony dream world, while posting stupid things on YouTube.
arcadesj 1 year ago 2
In order to understand why Finns crave nuclear energy with foaming mouths and a mad lustre of greed in their eyes you need to be aware that the dominant characteristic of our society is materialism. That is why we are a nation of demented worker ants. We don't have much culture, spirituality or identity to speak of, only technology, so we plunge head over heals to a mad technological hubris to escape the terrible emptiness of our lives.
herrapikkarainen 1 year ago
@herrapikkarainen Wintertime the Sun does not work, they have not any oil or natural gas reserve, the wind power is little and they do not want to cut the all forests in their country.
avenaoat 1 year ago 2
All the nuclear waste should be dropped on Iran. They want nuclear so we should give it to them, problem solved. lol
hawkermustang 2 years ago
Nuclear is not cheap...No one knows how expensive it is yet any more than we know how costly FF power will be down the road. I never heard of anyone making a dirty bomb from a solar panel though... Where are ya going to store that crap anyway? I know my clueless country hasn't found a solution yet. No one wants it in their backyard...
waterworldengineer 2 years ago
nuclear power is the way to go right now. I don't get how some people whines about global warming and CO2 emision, but still dosn't wan't to face the fact that nuclear power is the only thing that can help us with todays technology. We just can't get enough energy out of wind and sun with todays technology.
tipo2106 2 years ago 6
Agree, the energy flux density of wave and wind power is far too low to replace fossil fuels. While I disagree that CO2 is bad for the environment, there are numerous other concerns with fossil fuel burning. The gases combine with water in the atmosphere to become sulphuric acid, which kills off life in lakes and other watercourses.
Nuker1337 2 years ago
nucear is mutsch bether than coal
wath the fuck is greanpeases problem they scream about climate change
but opose the solution to it cause nuclear power is the most enviromentaly efective way to go. wind power takes to mutch space and takes away to mutc forests hydro electric is a god choice but it destroys beautiful vaterfals solar power dosent work god enugh up in the north
so beside fosil oil coal gas that emit co2
nuclear is besst it does not emit any co2
so go nuclear be grean!!!
georg841984 2 years ago 4
So, you agree that global warming may be true? Finns are smarter than Americans! Cheers mate, say Hi to the Dudesons for me!
waterworldengineer 2 years ago
@georg841984 why don't they charge a member ship fee,to help research for HOT-FUSION,the kind that "powers" the earth and keeps those green peace people alive to protest another day!
Think about this ,the sun produces enough energy in ONE SECOND, to POWER USA FOR MORE THAN A MILLION YEARS
THAT'S CLEAN
captinseperoth 1 year ago
Thats progress right there. Screw the political correct ignorant fags. Go Finland!
Magellan1002 2 years ago 6
I agree, and the fag who posted this video is most likely even not from Finland. Probably just another greenpeace propagandist nutjob, who dreams about forcing the whole world to live as hunter-gatherers.
And the only way to boycott Finnish paper companies is to not wipe your ass when in here.
iais502 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This fu#%#ng dic#heads come to our country and build thous pointless plants on our ground, thatx to all the idiots sitting in FInnish parliament. They promised it will cost 4billion euro, and produce energy in 2009. Now it costs 8billion and they promise it will produce energy in 2012.really...Don't believe what they say, they say it only because someone could make lots of money, and it not gonna be the people who lives in that country.For example electricity prices have just gone up in Finland!
oneofusall 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And how many wind turbines we coul buid for 8billion euro? These people don't want you to think, they tell you it's the biggest, and the best.. but did you know that this new type of reactor produces waist that is many times higher than exploded plant Chernobyl. So if this one will ever blow then all Scandinavia is fucked. And where will you put the extremly highly radioactive waist? Isn't it time to try some new technology? Wind power? Sun power? etc...
oneofusall 2 years ago
Where do you think wind and solar energy comes from? The sun. A Nuclear Fusion Reactor. Nuclear energy produced all life on this planet. We have already nearly exhausted the energy available to us through chemical reactions in the form of fossil fuels. The only logical step forward is to utilize the limitless potential of the most basic unit of matter itself, not gathering energy from solar radiation originating millions of miles away, and not from air currents caused by that radiation.
tsumetaikage 2 years ago 2
that's right.
omenakookos 2 years ago
Where is the carbon in this Fnnish reactor? Can you show me the carbon (graphite) in this type reactor, which can burn for 10 days to sprinkle the radioactivity into the World?
avenaoat 2 years ago
wind turbines or solar pannels just aren't efficient enough. they'll continue to be that way for hundreds of years. many misinformation about the safety of nuclear power come from mostly hollywood and mass media. nowdays, nuclear reactors are triple redundant or more. Chernobyl happened in Russia, a developing nation, where basically anything goes. in a first world nation like Finland, nuclear power plants are very safe. don't make a big fuss about it based on prejudice and outdated info.
bluemonolith88 2 years ago 12
The new reactor in Finnland will be a new type reactor. This is a new construction. The second one will build in France. This reactor is the prototype.
Look at the Net for information.
avenaoat 2 years ago 2
El stupido "boycot these products" Only one who is totally relying on scare tactics and stories about Pripyat would state that nuclear power shouldn't be built. Someone who doesn't understand physics and anything related to nuclear power. Perkeleen viherpiiperö.
Pharmaecopia1 2 years ago 3
The Chernobil type reactor has positiv feed back effect, because of the grafite (Carbon) moderator. + There was planning mistake because the end of the regulator borone rods consist of grafite (carbon). When the experimental group in the the controler room detected the problem and put the controler rod in the reactor first the controler rod increased the reactor power instead of decreasing. The Chernobil type reactors are good to producing plutonium for military aim.
avenaoat 2 years ago
The extrem nuclear power increasing broke the water supply pipes in the graphite (graphite=CARBON) moderator body, and the water steam decayed hydrogen and oxygen with katalysis of the zirconium of the fuel rod's coat. Hydrogen and Oxygen are explosive gas and the explosion destroyed the more water pipes and the heat from the explosion and from the fuel rod ignited the GRAPHITE MODERATOR (GRAPHITE=CARBON). The carbon ignition decays the water subtract the Oxygin from the water.
avenaoat 2 years ago
The reaction the ignited graphite (GRAPHITE=CARBONE) with the water produced carbonmonoxid and hydrogen. This mixture produced huge flams which transported the nuclear waste from the broken fuel rods. These flams polluted the atmosphere.
My question is where is CARBON in a light water reactor??!!!
BTW The crew of the reactor in Chernobil made experiment. Experiment with a reactor????!!!!
avenaoat 2 years ago
Those who are against nuclear power. Stop using electricity!!!
saulizanar 2 years ago 3
The world needs more nuclear power plants, not fewer.
TSmirk 2 years ago
why don't you boycott russian RBMK reactors?
eerocks 2 years ago 3
20 mSv/year is the limit of the radioactive job. Some countries the job limit and natural radiation background (20+5=25 mSv/year) is less then the natural background is in Kerala state in India! By the way I do not like the Chernobyl type reaktors, but I am supporter of the light water nuclear reactors with containment.
avenaoat 2 years ago 4
The ionisation radiation scientist found new results. The earlier model the stochastic cancer induction from the ionisation radiation have falled. The average ionisation radiation background is 5 mSv/year in a deposit soil country, and in Kerala state in India is about 30 mSv/year. The cancer prevalency is same beetwen Kerala state and other states of India.
avenaoat 2 years ago
Untill this the thyeroid cancer prevalanciy increased only in Belarus and Ukraina, because the I-131 (this radioactive isotop can accuumlates in the thyeroide). This cancer is well treated. Very few patients died in Belorus and Ukraina. The doctors can treat wery well.
Except for the extrem big contaminations near to Chernobyl (for example the red forrest) the flora and fauna are healthy.
avenaoat 2 years ago
Which paper producer are behind the new power plants. I want to buy their products, because the nuclear power plants decrease the carbon dioxyd emission.
avenaoat 2 years ago
The light water reactors will never be Chernobyl. The enormous carbon burnt in Chernobyl. The light water reactors do not contain any carbon in it. In Hungary the price of the nuclear electricity is the cheaper.
avenaoat 2 years ago 2
nuclear energy is prolly the best type on energy as well as hydro..fuck all the green peace fags who think otherwise
andrewd556 2 years ago 4
im from finland
teemuautio 2 years ago
Nuclear rules !
kutvizz 2 years ago
I would rather use a different source of energy instead of using all the harmful ones.
3dsmaxuser7 3 years ago
your a faggot
yoGOES 3 years ago
Just because I consider different sources of energy means I'm a faggot. Wow.
3dsmaxuser7 3 years ago
As the time is passing the need for energy and fuel on economic grounds is being felt. New industrial machines are being manufactured consuming less power & raw material and giving out more production. The nuclear reactor on the whole is also a move towards this need of man. If it is allowed to be manufactured by the countries having attained nuclear power certificates & an internationall inspection team for checking its non-disasterous production can work it'll surely help in fast development
yahoovisitor 3 years ago
Here is how the deal goes with paper industry:
-Customers get cheap paper with low prices (most of wood is stolen or very cheap from Russia and energy is coming from cheap nuclear power plants).
- Owners get huge profits, that money goes mostly outside Finland.
- Finns get only the waste of the paper manufacturing process including the nuclear waste of nuclear power plants.
- There are too few jobs left in those companies, the automation already took care of that.
conradsh451 3 years ago
My opinion is that the Finnish paper industry is in troble because the management there can not do their job. They are not able to put the expences to the end product. The arabs sure know how to put the price to the oil.
I would rather kick thouse companies out of Finland. Nobody needs them. Their place is in some 3 class banana contry where they maybe can do what they will (or better yet nowhere). Finland surely does not want to get a reputation to harbour cheap nuclear energy!
conradsh451 3 years ago
You can take your opinions and shove them up your gaping greenpeace ass.
iais502 2 years ago
i agre nuclear power is the clenest form of power beside wind solar and hydroelektric we have it is modern and safe it does not emit co2 and has to be the grenest alternative for cuntries that hawent got acses to large sites for hydroelectric dams and dont have enugh sun al year. wind power is god for smal power neds but placing whole parks of them destroys the enwiroment more than it helps think of al the birds that die in there nuclear is the greanest form of power after the renewables:)
georg841984 2 years ago
Sweden is really green, were i live:D We have like 40 % hydro and wind becouse we can use it up here i mean theres a lot of plain fields here and 50 % is nuclear i kinda support nuclear becouse its the only good option so waiting for fusion GOGOGO
mrcss 2 years ago
Well, first of all you should study more of nuclear power. It is one of the most clean ways to produce energy. And the reason for new nuclear power plants is industry. Finnish industry is in trouble because everyones salaries are too high and they have to kind of compensate it with low-cost energy sources. It is naive to say that those companies isn't needed in here. They mean all for Finnish economy. Even you are dependent on the economy those firms run.
Toifeli 3 years ago 6
Many people know where those products are used, boycotting them is not a problem. And there are also other ways. Whatever, it is important that finns know who is actually playing behind these strange new nuclear power plants. Finns have several ways to deal with them here in Finland. I don't like having a nuclear plant in my neighbourhood. I rather kick those companies out of Finland (World) than have them poisoning my country or any other country!
conradsh451 3 years ago
It's crystal clear that you don't even live in Finland or never had. Most of the population support, and have no problem with more nuclear power. Only the greenpeace nutjobs oppose it, these are poeple who would want the whole country to be forced back to live a life of hunter-gatherers.
iais502 2 years ago 3
Haha, sorry but this seems quite funny. :) You just can't boycott these companies because one can't tell from a product if it uses finnish paper or metal. I could say fe. some car makers that use Ruukki's metal but it doesn't really matter...
Nuclear power rocks. :) It's the way to decrease our CO2 emissions. That's it.
Toifeli 3 years ago 6
chernobyl was unsafe because russians dont care about safety
tomppa00 3 years ago 8
In Finland they had several other possibilities, but since they just want it cheap, they want to build more nuclear power. That is the reason I am against it. One should not always try to save money too much since the end price can be very high. Those companies try to save money so much that the destroy my country and I don't like it!
conradsh451 3 years ago
"My country" ? According to your page, you live in fuckin Fiji. Look, if you dont want affordable energy and good-paying jobs in Fiji, you don't have to. But please leave us Finns alone, we're sick of you greenpeace lunk heads.
iais502 2 years ago
Keep it up Finland! Nuclear power is the best way to produce baseload power, without emitting any pollution. All around the world their building more nuclear reactors, hopefully we can star building soon in the USA. I'm going to definitely tried to support UPM-Kymmene and Stora-Enso if they are in fact helping the project along.
andresfusion 3 years ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you realize nuclear power is not the solution to the energy crisis? It takes a huge amount of fossil fuel resources to create heavily refined plutonium rods at the heart of the reactor. This is just a band-aid solution and doesn't really reduce our dependance on fossil fuels.
polaris911 3 years ago
Wells yes every form of energy leaves a carbon footprint. But nuclear rectors require very very small amounts of fuel and refueling. And if you already have a functioning nuclear reactor you can use its electricity to make fuel rods with no emissions. Also nuclear power can be used to replace coal and charge plug in hybrid vehicles and power electric trains so it can be used to make us more independent on fossil fuels. Furthermore, Generation 4 nuclear reactors can produce hydrogen.
andresfusion 3 years ago 5
I don't know much about it, but I do know about the law of conservation of energy. It seems like the most fuel you could make off of one plutonium/uranium rod would be enough to make exactly one rod. How is it possible for one rod to produce enough energy to make multiples rods? Where's all that extra energy coming from? I'll tell you- fossil fuels.
polaris911 3 years ago
Also a study by the OECD(organization for economic co-operation and development) points out that nuclear uses 11-22 GCO2/KW(CO2 per killowat) and Wind uses 11-37GCO2/KW(very close). But you cant compare Wind an intermittent source of electricity with nuclear a baseload steady power source. BTW (very nice Mazda) I'm thinking of getting one myself.
andresfusion 3 years ago 2
90% of statics can be changed 50% of the time.
NO neutral party has ever conducted an unbiased study as to how much Fossil Fuel energy goes into creating fuel rods for Nuclear Power Plants.
However, I have seen statistics that show the the energy used to construct the Plant itself is paid back by the Plant in less than 6 months.
The the real question is how much energy goes into the rods (and how much can be supplied by Nuclear Power itself, negating more CO2 pollution).
nucflashevent 3 years ago
your an idiot go kill yourself faggot
yoGOES 3 years ago
BTW: The Low Level Radiation Campaign has claimed that a 40% increase in Belarusian cancer rates has occurred, with a similar increase in northern Sweden. (This is due to the Chernobyl accident 1986)
conradsh451 3 years ago
Actually much of the radiation we get comes straight from nature itself...and isn't even man made. Good job Finland!
DragonDeLuce 3 years ago 4
Free them from a pollution less and cheap energy source.
We should all be so unfortunate!
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
Please all comments in english!
conradsh451 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear power uses bomb technology, and kills millions opf people: So not clean and safe!
JonThm 3 years ago
Nuclear power is to nuclear bombs what machine guns are to glue guns. Where is your evidence for these "millions" of people???
braddockakalatis 3 years ago 5
Ask the peopel of Chernobyl. We can't east Welsh lamb even now! We should use nuclear fusion from water, like the deep sea does!
JonThm 3 years ago
Well I hope you're the first to see the world when 1000's of reactors are running all over the world, everyone owns an electric or fuel cell car, and global warming is as big a joke as the Y2K virus.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
I agree the earth is going through a phase, just like the ice age.
sidekick3iskool 3 years ago
The Finnish paper industry is blamed for the new nuclear power plants in Finland, especially two companies: UPM-Kymmene and Stora Enso. They are very greedy and totally irresponsible. Now they are even wanting to build several additional nuclear plants in Finland! If you want to stand against those plants, stop using the products form these companies! Thank you.
conradsh451 3 years ago
Actually they are still suffering and die due to Chernobyl disaster 1986. All together they count about 15 000 persons killed directly so far. People in Ukraine still have symptoms and will have long time forward.
conradsh451 3 years ago
Has ppl forgotten Tjernobyl and Harrisburg (I think it was Harrisburg?)?
turkkisydamessani 3 years ago
There must be simple ways to commit suicide than back nuclear power, but I can't think of any!
JonThm 3 years ago
The last time anyone died from nuclear power was 1986. More people die from papercuts. The 441 nuclear reactors in the world are the equivalent in pollution of 425,000,000 cars. Nuclear reactors save tens of thousands of lives a year.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago 3
Fuel rods pollute and kil ltoday. Chernobyl killed millions at once. Nuclear power kills daily, by the dozen: Today. You first I hope!
JonThm 3 years ago
Chernobyl didn't kill millions at once. Get your facts straight.
Thedutchjelle 3 years ago
Yes it did.
And all the negitives of nuclear energy are outweighing the positives.
Something will always go wrong.
sidekick3iskool 3 years ago
Ma'am, "something" will always go wrong with everything but 28,000 people a year die because of the coal we burn. Nuclear has taken 51 years to kill 3,000 people and the reactors keep getting safer.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago 2
Fuck you, its not safe you uninformed stupid son of a bitch.
If it's so fucking safe then go in water close to a power plant and end up with 85 penises.
sidekick3iskool 3 years ago
You would have to live near a nuclear power plant for 2,000 years to be exposed to the same amount of radiation as one x-ray. By the way, what would you do with my 85 penises?
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
Feed the to the poor.
sidekick3iskool 3 years ago
You must be a democrat.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
nope
sidekick3iskool 3 years ago
Libertarian?
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you really THAT stupid? 3.000 people? wtf!
Have you ever heard about places like chernobyl or mayak? I quess not. There are lots of people dying because of radiation, but this issue isn't discussed enough. I can see you're from USA, the level of your education tells it all.
drothgord 3 years ago
Dear Monkey,
You make me sick. There has only been one major nuclear accident in the history of the world and that was Chernobyl. Everyone is exposed to radiation all the time. If you live near a nuclear reactor for 2,000 you get the same amount of radiation as one x-ray. Nuclear is the only energy we have control over. Fossil fuels are finite and harder and harder to get to, hydroelectric is played out, and solar just plain sucks. And yes I am from the USA where our reactors don't kill.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago 4
Only one, yyyeeeeeeah.
Mayak wasn't major accident? And because of chernobyl and mayak there has been tens of tousands dead. The official statistics are always wrong. And what about harvesting the uranium and such? DO you know what shit that does around the globe. Of course not, you haven't seen it. It destroys the local life totally. Wind power FTW \o
drothgord 3 years ago
lol everybody have heard of chernobyl u freak
teemuautio 2 years ago
warum nicht außerirdisch entsorgen?
WavelinerMDMA 3 years ago
Don't speek Finish! Molecular nuclear fusion turns water into power, with no toxic death or CO2!
JonThm 3 years ago
thats not finnish
zakopayne 3 years ago
Nuclear power is so dirty! And it is so dangerous! Whic his no surprise, as it was developed from bomb technology. Molecular nuclear fusion is safe, clean and cheap. Adn kills nothing. Nuclear power kills so well! God help us if they get more plants!
JonThm 3 years ago
Es ist interessant zu erfahren das der Konzern (UPM) in den ich arbeite solche Unternehmen laufen hat. Konnte dies erst hiermit erfahren! Ich bin dieser Energieform jedoch nicht abgeneigt natürlich sollte man die Entsorgung noch in den Griff bekommen.
Labore sind jedoch soweit Atommüll in kleinen Mengen zu vernichten!
radmitti 3 years ago
Is this a science fiction idea..Atomic Plant atomic clock. Can be powered and energized by a solar clock but doesn't use sun power but only by laser light which is absorbed in clock's solar panel cells or photo voltaic cells which absorb laser light and sends it to it's atomic plant clock.The reason to use this. Not smart to have any electrical wires any were around atomic things;not fire safe, compared to laser beam which is safe even if cut.
humexavier 3 years ago
Ich bin für die Kernenergie. Heute ist die Technologie viel besser; einen Unfall wie Tchernobyl ist zurzeit zu schwer vorzukommen. Atomenergie ist üppig, sicher und ohne Luftverschmutzung. Das Problem ist der Kernabfall..
Aushoelle 3 years ago 2
Not only nuclear waste but also mining of uranium is a big problem. At the moment there are plans to open new mines also in some peripheral regions of Finland. And why should we power up capitalism when it's destroying everything?
kuparanto 3 years ago
"nuclear waste..."
Nuclear waste is a minor technical problem. Even doing something as totally reckless as glassifying the waste and dumping it straight into the ocean causes less deaths than coal power, even with the linear dose dependency cancer rate model.
"but also mining of uranium is a big problem."
Leeching.
"And why should we power up capitalism when it's destroying everything?"
If you prefer misery that's your choice, but not your choice to make for me.
soylentgreenb 3 years ago 4
i wonder what 3 billion euros equals to in amaerican dollars...
jacko39 4 years ago
around 4.4billion
tompi88 4 years ago
From 5,5 million people
Tibberia 3 years ago
PWR Sump Performance
The containment sump (also known as emergency or recirculation sump) in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) is part of the emergency core cooling system. Every nuclear power plant is required by regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 50.46) to have an emergency core cooling system to mitigate a design basis accident. The emergency core cooling system is one of several safety systems required by the NRC.
jndv213 4 years ago
Which depends on the location of the damn (cold or hot climate, elevation, whether the water is moving and whether the matter is recycled or not).
microfactory 4 years ago
Goodness, I am an environmentalist, but not an ignorant one... Those who live next to a nuclear power plant experience 0.001 mrems per year. Your average X-ray machine exposes you to over 5000 mrems. Those few that speak against nuclear power have gained so much attention. Society must thrive on terror...
Fritzer73 4 years ago
The water used for electric power generation is a CLOSED system. None of that water will ever be introduced to the outside environment.
Nuclear power is ultimately the safest, more efficient, least pollutent form of modern electrical generation.
Fritzer73 4 years ago
A combined power plant is actually more efficient. A hydro power plant doesn't require any ultimate disposal place, doesn't require any mining, is less expensive and can control its power output within seconds.
microfactory 4 years ago
Hydro power plants may still have a devestating effect on local ecosystmes. Nuclear power is clean, no emmissions, just clean fresh water.
Fritzer73 4 years ago 4
No emmissions? How do you mine, process and transport Uranium? How do you dig and build a disposal place to store radioactive waste?
(Bullodozers and trucks are not nuclear powered).
microfactory 4 years ago
How do you build a dam? A park? A Recycling plant? It's tough to avoid emmisions, impossible. However, nuclear power has no immediate effects to its local environment (save the ground it was built on).
Fritzer73 4 years ago
Whether it has an effect to its local or non-local environment is irrelevant.
Besides, if there's an accident, it does indeed have an impact on its local environment.
microfactory 4 years ago
Yes, definately an effect. Still though, with new technologies and safety restrictions, that chances are tremendously slim.
In any event, nuclear power serves hundreds of millions safely, efficiently, and without the emission of greenhouse gasses.
Fritzer73 4 years ago 2
Again you cannot disregard greenhouse gases produced within the entire nuclear energy production chain. True, even a dam indirectly emits greenhouse gases but only once, since mining, transports and processing are not necessary.
microfactory 4 years ago
They mean that the fish like the warm water. It is the cooling water which comes from the sea. That is not radio active (at least should not be). It is not the Baltic Sea, it is the Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden and Finland.
caliberdigital 4 years ago
what the hell do they mean the water WHICH COOLS the URANIUM RODS goes straight into the baltic sea and the fish love it..... something is wrong here.
GCHILE 4 years ago
that cooler water is warm and fish and plants love it. Pollution of st petersburg and poland ruin baltic sea not that.
ustij 4 years ago 3
My information is based on a Naval nuclear power plant, but the cooling water does not ever come in contact with the control rods. Also the half-life of water (pure) is about 7 seconds; if a leak was to occur, the water would be drinkable before it ever left the plant
floydn 4 years ago 4
Thats so funny!
jepujee200 4 years ago
Noo.... Not finland... no .... no.... nooooo!
madeleine185 4 years ago
What? dont by anti-nuke propaganda.
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
LOL! One of the most pollutating country is worried?? HAHAAHAHAH!!We must remember that Finland's pollutating in history is hundreds thousands times less than Germany have. It's rediculous that they are worried
Big countries are already ruined our air..Why we should keep the less pollutating civilized state title? We could make hundreds plants more and after that we are in same line with Germany (if we look at far diraction)
Hayha1 4 years ago
Nuclear power forever! I'm going into a career in Nuclear Engineering, and enjoy videos like this. :)
c06031983 4 years ago 3
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.
microfactory 4 years ago
Is this really an "either/or" scenario? Why can't we use BOTH solar and nuclear power?
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
At least, there shouldn't be any investment in new nuclear plants as long as there are alternatives energy sources - particularly not in countries where there are plenty of renewable energy sources already in place - e.g. Australia.
Not least, because renewables such as solar power (heat and electricity) and increase of efficiency (e.g. insulation) boosts the local economy and nuclear doesn't.
microfactory 4 years ago
If solar power is the panacea its proponents make it out to be, why aren't said proponents buying and using solar panels themselves? Solar is best suited to low-load applications. Nuclear is still a feasible option for high-demand applications. Why are solar-energy advocates opposed to nuclear power? Any specific reasons?
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
Solar panels are placed on roofs by their proponents. High power demand is not needed by most of the customers. Also, there are solar power plants in the MW range and of course photovoltaics on several Million roofs creates several thousand MW.
Why are nuclear advocates opposed to renewable power? Any specific reasons?
microfactory 4 years ago
Most nuclear advocates I know are not opposed to nuclear; in fact, most of us want renewables and nuclear resources both utilized (I cring to think of all the firewood I've cut over the years!). Most of us see the eventual freedom from fossil fuels accelerated by using both renewables and nuclear. I just don't see this as an either/or question. Do you have any particular objections to nuclear power usage?
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
Oops! errate: change second use of nuclear to renewables.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
Actually the largest Swiss electricity producer is currently running an ad-campaign against renewable energy (owns Swiss and French nuclear plants).
microfactory 4 years ago
That's interesting. I probably shouldn't be surprised. I've heard that here in Oklahoma some of the coal utilities have given money to environmental organizations to oppose the building of nuclear power plants here. What reasons do they give for opposing renewables? I'm very currious to hear them.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
For example, they make fun of the fact that photovoltaics doesn't produce electricity at night. Which is particularly ironic as the powerful pumps of the Swiss storage lakes run every night to store the unflexible energy produced by the Swiss and French nuclear plants.
microfactory 4 years ago
To more thoroughly answer your question, many nuclear-power advocates feel frustrated by renewables-advocates opposition to nuclear power usage. Also, it is very frustrating to hear people pontificate about what power-generating sources we should use, and then see them joy-ride around in their gas-guzzling, out-of-tune vehicles on under-inflated tires. At the very least, it would be nice to see people practive what they preach.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
When you can produce more energy with a given investment by installing renewable sources than with nuclear power, why even bother? Besides, Uranium235 is not an ever lasting source either and a switch to a fast breeder creates new issues. And then there's things like missing insurance, terrorism, waste, hindering of local economies etc.
microfactory 4 years ago
To answer your concerns singly, lets start with the "terrorism" issue. Plutonium generated from civillian power plant production is unsuitable for weapons production. This is due to its low concentration (about 1%, weapons grade is about 90%) and the fact that it is present as 3 isotope: Pu-239, 240, and 241. Weapons grade plutonium (Pu-239) has to be specifically prepared as to rigorously exclude the other two isotopes, due to their being spontaneously fissionable.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
If bad educated people wanted to provoke melt down they could. And even if they wouldn't, what if they just damage a plant to a level that it takes month or years to repair it? With renewables the risk concentration is not there or at least drastically reduced.
microfactory 4 years ago
Although the supply of U-235 is not infinite, why would it need to be? By that line of reasoning, since the sun is going to go nova someday, we shouldn't use solar power either? There is enough U-235 to last for quite a while. Also, we can use fast-neutron reactors to fission U-238, which is 99.3% of all naturally occuring Uranium.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
Well the sun goes to nova in 4 billion years and not few decades or a couple of hundred years (less than the age of America). Also as Uranium concentration goes down, energy needed to collect it and with it its costs, go up.
And a breeder is more risky and produces Pt-239.
microfactory 4 years ago
Thats the point of the breeder, to produce Pu-239. What is it about a breeder reactor that makes it riskier? If we "only" have a few hundred years of easily recoverable U-235 left, why not use it? We can also start using Thorium if we run out of easily recoverable Uranium (by which time, we would probably have feasible fussion technology developed).
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
Don't worry, U235 is being used and this process accelerates.
With Pu-239 one can produce weapons. A breeder runs at higher temperatures, requires a sodium (corrosive and burnable) material to cool and has no moderator (which could evaporate and stop the reaction) and again its costlier.
microfactory 4 years ago
The investment in new nuclear power plants with the current technology is not very persuading, considering all the arguments.
Future fusion reactors would be more convincing.
microfactory 4 years ago
But we can actually get power from fission. The technology for fission reactors will more likely than not be the result of research moneys from fission plants.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
At least in Europe more tax money goes to the research of nuclear fusion than the research of renewable energy.
microfactory 4 years ago
Not persuading? To whom? Please try to keep an open mind with regards to nuclear power. If there was ever a topic misunderstood and misrepresented more than nuclear power, I sure haven't heard about it!
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
It is nuclear lobby that spread propaganda about the nuclear. Nuclear can directly kill people.
lonympics 4 years ago
the pronunciation of Olkiluoto was damn funny
jvam715 4 years ago
america is getting stupider every day damn george bush its all his fault
uiop988 4 years ago
What the hell this has to do whit USA?
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
Nuclear energy is the only option for the future. Global warming is not the only problem for fossil fuels, peak oil is another reason to go nuclear. When you find that these new reactors are alot safer than the old ones you really have to consider the motives of the people telling us that nuclear terrorism and accidents are a major concern. We know global warming is the biggest accident in human history, why are we still carrying on with it.
MrTeaB 4 years ago
Just a question I want answered: Doesn't it take a lot of energy to mine and ship uranium?
Moose134609 4 years ago
Minute in comparison to the amount of energy nuclear power creates.
limitlessaviator 4 years ago 6
Don't forget refining. It takes huge amounts of energy to remove the useful isotope from the ore, maybe 2 percent at most and the ore is still radioactive, "depleted" uranium and needs to be disposed of somehow... Oh, wait, it gets turned into munitions!
futurehope65 4 years ago
"Don't forget refining. It takes huge amounts of energy to remove the useful isotope from the ore..."
The EROI is ~60:1 with centrifuges.
""depleted" uranium and needs to be disposed of somehow... Oh, wait, it gets turned into munitions!"
No more dangerous than lead. Don't hang around blown out tanks.
soylentgreenb 3 years ago
Don't hang around blown out tanks?! If Du is so safe then, why not? What about all the rounds that missed their targets? What about all the du dust that's blown downrange into farms? Those blown-out tanks have been playgrounds for children in Iraq, but then those children didn't get the memo... Look up Maj. Doug Rokke, an expert on radiological weapons and former head of the Pentagon Depleted Uranuim project.
futurehope65 3 years ago
if nuclear power is safer and more robust than older methods like fossil fuels, then why are we still useing them?
thehefercow 4 years ago
Becos hippies dont want us to built Nuclear Power.
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
Because technophobes masquerading as environmentalists oppose nuclear power plant construction.
chemistofdarkness 4 years ago
I am from Turkey my family live in Germany and ı lıke finnish girl because they are very sweety : )))
allesisthepi 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a fuck that have doing with nuclear power plant? muslims...
ustij 4 years ago
To allesisthepi: :)
turkkisydamessani 3 years ago
Hah hah hah haa...´allesisthepis´ comment is very funny..hah..(well it really doesn´t ahve anything to do with nuclear power plants ar ´ustij´...but I think nuclear power plants are more dangerous to the world than just some being a muslim..(addressing to ´ustij´) (There can NEVER be 100% safety in nuclear power...)(we must search for other sources to have energy..)(maybe there is free energy right in front of us..?)(just thinking...)
turkkisydamessani 3 years ago
use breeders to reuse and erase much of waste, at least that is what I read.
dotcant 4 years ago
i wish we could use the new generation reactors in the U.S. too bad people are too fucking stupid to want something safer installed. they hear radiation and freak the fuck out. i bet they don't even know what the fuck radiation is or does
redpunk 4 years ago
hello rushcliffe school how do you do. Is my grey teaching you well. It all about MR.gulis , ya get me
currymad1 4 years ago
It's ridicilous to say nuclear waste would be a real problem.
nahkatakkimies 4 years ago 4
Indeed, indeed. Thats why there is "onkalo".
MokomaSusi 4 years ago
It was being shipped to the U.K. but after some close calls near accidents with the U.K. handling it Germany just decided it was best to do away with them as the U.K. is not smart enough to handle the waste with care and Germany does not want the waste in their country.
firemanstud1981 4 years ago