Greenwash of the Week: Going Nuclear

[Pablocv25]

RAN talks about greenwashing??? what a sick joke.



[Aanthanur]

what a dumb video, and i say that as a former green voter. had to stop to support them because of their irrational anti nuclear myths....... a shame

[zekewilson91]

The power plant that I work at came online in 1990. That is after the 1970's morons.

[nlilja]

Heheheh, more cows with wheels man! More cows with wheels!

[velifoto]

MORONS!!! i saw light switches on your walls, is your apt. all green? (and, btw, the couch blocking the door...wow THAT'S weird) listen!! i've worked in the nuclear industry for 12+ years,inspecting,and my LIFETIME DOSE of radiation is UNDER 1 R...go figure.NUCLEAR: SAFE, RELIABLE, CLEAN (yes, i said CLEAN...i ALSO work in fossil plants...YUCK!! fly-ash & heavy metals? yuppers!! give me a NUKE any day!!)

i hope you 2 aren't planning on breeding!!

[SH52DHL]

Wow, you guys really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Some research wouldn't go amiss before you think of posting a bunch of lies and inaccuracies on YouTube!

Provide some facts for your arguments and THEN we'll talk further... although, something tells me you won't. Same old boring nonsense by anti-nuke hippies who don't actually know what the hell they're talking about!

[01Finrod]

What a load of old bollocks... and I do mean OLD. Can't these people at least come up with some new lies? These stale old anti-nuke lies are the same recycled nonsense their hippie parents were hypnotised by thirty or forty years ago.

[ecologist96]

More cows with wheels FTW!

[AnarchoSyndicalistt]

great point guys

[Mypagedamit]

This video makes me laugh! DO SOME RESEARCH before making a statement in why you'd disagree with it. Most nuclear waste doesn't even have a Half life of 100,000 years. Some of it only lasts 300 years and more than half of it is recycled.

[m3141592]

The technology they're talking about is 50 years old.

High temperature gas cooled reactors could easily replace virtually all other energy sources.

And unlike water cooled reactors, they don't explode or melt if one of the systems fails.

Or even in the worst case scenario simultaneous total coolant loss and physical breach of the reactor vessel and human error/sabotage.

So I don't agree it should be abandoned.

And quit looking so fscking smug.

[Atzlann]

what if i hit it with a missle?

[m3141592]

"what if i hit it with a missle? "

I think that was covered by "physical breach of the reactor vessel and human error/sabotage". It wouldn't explode or melt down, so no superheated plume of radioactive dust, no unquenchable fire, no runaway reaction, no gamma ray burst.

You could literally stick one of the fuel pellets up your arse and survive.

Now compare that to using your missile on a population centre or an airliner. The missile is the danger, not the reactor.

[airemacil]

Ok, I can agree some of their points could use some investigation before any investment into Nuclear Power is considered, but I'm having trouble taking these two seriously. Even casting aside their obviously poor public speaking abilities (truthfully, mine suck too, I talk too fast and stutter alot), they both look like they just took a huge bong hit.

[FermentingMadness]

...However the process is lengthy and arduous thanks to lobbyists pushing against plant construction and ultimately making the process far more expensive (for the utility company) than it ever needed to be.

[FermentingMadness]

Nuclear power is also the least subsidized power source in the U.S. However it does take quite a bit of money from the tax-payers, but not in the form of subsidies, but loans. Getting these loans are no easy process, a hopeful utility company must first obtain an expensive loan guarantee (you actually have to pay to receive a loan) and then after repay the loan in full with interest. ...

[FermentingMadness]

In total the cost averages in at $40 per MWhr, or in other word $0.04 per KWhr. If were talking about price associated with the original investment to build these plant then costs average at $2000/KWe produced, as when compared to wind ($4000/KWe) and photovoltaic ($25,000/KWe) and solar-thermal ($12,000/KWe, however in my opinion are well on their way to being as cheap as nuclear, or even more so).

[FermentingMadness]

Your argument concerning the expenses of nuclear power plant is flawed. The cost of nuclear power plant is already reflected within its price. 70% of the cost of electricity derived from nuclear power is attributed to the initial investment to create the plant (construction costs), while 15% of the cost is actually from attaining, and manufacturing the fuel.

[Yaheuben66]

Terrorism is a sham-- do not sacrifice your Freedom and Liberties to cower in FEAR.

Put the waste back into the Earth in subduction zones-- it isn't contaminating the Earth-- it's where Uranium comes from, anyway.

"Green" = Eco-Fascism-- "humans are bad for the planet" I will NEVER believe that-- if so, God FUCKED UP

[TheNewOldVeteran]

Is it Realy That Har To Take The Bike Or Use Hydrogen, you Just said You are a Lazy Ass who Doesnt want to do anything. Green= Protectiong the Forest From Garbage. Green Stopped Killing Whales For Oil, Green= Distrusting whatever the govorment tells. There are many vile people out there that dont care if somebody dies. Stop It Before Chernoble Happens In The USA because it Can.

[DarthTanner]

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to think of hydrogen as a power source. And I also can't believe how stupid you'd have to be to think Chernobyl could happen outside of the incompetent Soviet Union. Your ignorance is leaving a significant carbon footprint.

[Atzlann]

your arrogance is getting the best of you. yeah, the soviet union was not perfect, but neither are we and having this "our technology is so advanced now and nothing can ever go wrong" mentality is very old, they said the same shit about Chernobyl. We have enough clean energy resources as it is, why do we need to tear apart the earth and extract resources when the natural cycles of the earth can provide all the energy we need without digging it up, shipping, and manufacturing it?

[m3141592]

"they said the same shit about Chernobyl"

That reveals your ignorance. They didn't say anything of the sort. The inspectors were warning it was an accident waiting to happen for years. Everybody familiar with the technology knew that human error or sabotage could cause a disaster, and everybody knew that making technical decisions for political reasons was idiotic and dangerous.

So get your facts straight.

[Atzlann]

and some people are saying the same thing about nuclear energy now. they said it then and it happened, they said it now... and let's see if history repeats itself. there have always been people on both sides of the arguement. people argued that it would be safe, some argued it wouldn't (that is true) and who was right?

[Atzlann]

honestly the true issue at hand with "green washing" is not just the environmental issue, it's a capitalist and a human issue. If everyone in the world was to become energy independent (on the personal not corporate level) and have solar and wind energy in their backyard (hence no more electricity oles everywhere) the energy industry would die, this is why nuclear and coal energy are being thrust into the media as "green" energy.

[m3141592]

"it's a capitalist and a human issue. "

Bingo.

"If everyone in the world was to become energy independent (on the personal not corporate level) and have solar and wind energy in their backyard"

That would require people to mine and smelt their own minerals, unless you know an efficient way to make that sort of equipment out of wood? The population of the world is too high for that anyway.

[Atzlann]

yeah and building nuclear powerplants isn't going to use minerals. psh. not to mention the radioactive materials that must be harvested. and the metal to safely dispose and contain that radiation.

[DarthTanner]

And if everyone in the world had a genie to do all their bidding and make them happy the world would be a better place. Unfortunatly we live in this thing called reality and if you interacted with it more often you would have some idea on the shear cost of producing 100% of our energy requirments locally. I'm not even sure how this would be achieved for the vast majority of the city dwelling population.

[Atzlann]

you're talking to someone who lived on the street. that means no electricity, no running water, eating out of dumpsters or stealing your food, ect. Yes, we live in reality, and the reality is that if we don't open our eyes we're going to get taken advantage of by the multimillion dollar oil, coal, and nuclear industries who are not providing the independence we need in energy. just because the world sucks doesn't mean we can't take a step forward for the best.

[DarthTanner]

So your solution is for everyone to live on the street with no electricity then? eating out of the garbage too? I am also curious who you think will be selling and making these wind turbines and solar panels, wouldn't happen to be large corporations would they?

[Atzlann]

i never said that i didn't depend on large corporations but at least i'm conserving when i can. no human has ever lived without impacting the planet to some extent and i don't intend to do that. i intend to reduce, not eliminate, my impact on the earth and reliance on corporations and by making one purchase of a solar panel, instead of multiple never-ending payments to a nuclear company i would be taking one more step towards that goal.

[DarthTanner]

so you have done the math on how much it would cost to power society through solar (guess we don't need power at night) in comparison to nuclear then? Why do you think renewables are magic tech that don't impact the environment? solar cells and wind turbines still need to be made in a factory and delivered and inspected by engineers in vans.

[Atzlann]

I never said anything about magic tech, in fact i said quite the opposite in a previous comment regarding human impacton the planet so please don't put words in my mouth. and regarding maintenance engineers in vans I have some DIY zines on how to build, maintain, and repair most of that stuff. It's a really good investment and once you've made it you can maintain it for quite a while and you won't have to rely on a power distributor, so for all you capitalists that means saving money.

[m3141592]

"We have enough clean energy resources as it is, why do we need to tear apart the earth and extract resources"

Because you can't build wind turbines or hydro or geothermal or solar out of mud and twigs.

We either use minerals or live in mud huts without running water or electricity.

[Atzlann]

true, the mechanisms for harnessing resources that are renewable are minerals taken from the ground but once we have them in place that's it, we don't need anymore. unlike nuclear, after you spend ten years building your nuclear power plant you still have to mine and ship uranium and plutonium from the source. and who is to say when we're exporting nuclear resources for dirt cheap prices from third world nations people are going to be held accountable for the health of industrial miners?

[m3141592]

"once we have them in place that's it"

Assuming they last forever and don't need maintenance, lubricants, spare parts etc.

"you still have to mine and ship uranium and plutonium from the source [...] third world nations"

You don't mine plutonium. Also, you can get uranium from first world nations, including the US, so once again it comes down to capitalism rather than the technology.

[Atzlann]

i did mention maintenance of the mechanisms from the quote you took out of context and those lubricants can be grown from plant sources, which are renewable resources. spare parts can be made from recycled parts they are replacing.

[m3141592]

"spare parts can be made from recycled parts they are replacing. "

Assuming recycling is 100% efficient, and the population and energy demands of humanity never rise.

Renewable energy is a good thing, but it's not magic.

[Atzlann]

no the recycling method isn't 100% effecient but the extra energy developed off of renewable energy resources should be suffecient enough to take care of the occasional replacement of parts with the material of the parts that are broken.

[Atzlann]

sure it's healthy for you and your community but what about the people on bottom that have to do the manual labor so you can enjoy nuclear energy?

[m3141592]

"have to do the manual labor so you can enjoy nuclear energy"

What about them? Their jobs are no more risky than farming or driving a taxi or police work.

Or are you saying that non-nuclear renewable energy doesn't require manual labour?

[Atzlann]

of course it does, but if we were energy independent we would do that manual labor ourselves, cutting out the middle man, and reinstating a sense of connection with our planet. instead of a detatched electricity bill coming in the mail. but then again that would mean everyone doing their share of the work and not being lazy, and you wouldn't want that now would you?

[Atzlann]

I'm not talking about taxi drivers and cops. I'm talking about industrial workers. these people will be at much more risk working in a uranium mine as opposed to other mines harvesting non-radioactive substances. And of course non-nuclear energy requires labor, what gave you the idea that i thought that?

[m3141592]

"people will be at much more risk working in a uranium mine as opposed to other mines harvesting non-radioactive substances."

That isn't true. Even comparing the worst uranium mine to the safest coal mine, more people die with coal for every watt-hour of electricity produced.

I don't think you appreciate just how many thousand tonnes of coal it takes to equal a pound of uranium.

Coal also contains and releases more radiation per wh of electricity, because you need so much.

[Atzlann]

true, coal is fucking horrible, and i don't condone that as well. they're both bad, but just because coal is worse doesn't mean that nuclear is good.

[m3141592]

To me it just seems like you're assuming everything about nuclear power has to be worse because you have an irrational fear of it and don't really understand how it works, which I have to say typifies the beliefs of most americans and british.

The fact remains that more people die per year from coal pollution than all of the nuclear power related deaths ever.

And more die from coal mining per year than all nuclear power deaths ever.

[Atzlann]

without a complex means of producing energy the energy providers will lose their monopolistic, financial stronghold on the people of the world. this is an energy independence issue. we need to stop relying on corporations to outsource jobs to create our energy. the world would be a lot simpler and a lot less violent if we just produced energy for ourselves out of readily available resources that are renewable, and easily accessed, instead of paying someone for processing resources that are not.

[m3141592]

"the world would be a lot simpler and a lot less violent if we just produced energy for ourselves out of readily available resources"

That's speculation. Have a look at some countries which hardly use any energy, like Uganda, D.R. of Congo, rural Indonesia etc. Some of the worst genocides in history happen there.

[Atzlann]

but who facilitates that genocide. locals who are too worried about how they're going to feed their families from the crops they can't grow because capitalist foreign nationals depleted their watertable? or totalitarian dictatorships put into power by nations supporting the capitalism that put them in this situation in the first place?

[m3141592]

"if we just produced energy for ourselves out of readily available resources that are renewable, and easily accessed"

I don't see how it's physically possible. There simply isn't enough land in the world to do that, even if we burned and ploughed every acre of natural habitat on earth.

[Atzlann]

i've lived in central chicago off of 2 solar panels on a rooftop. 7 people lived in the house and there was energy left over. we had no problem what so ever. Then again I'm pretty energy conservative and usually find ways to do things without electricity unlike most people in "developed" countries.

[m3141592]

"i've lived in central chicago off of 2 solar panels on a rooftop. 7 people lived in the house and there was energy left over."

You weren't connected to the grid at all? You used no gas or oil? Ate no food grown using modern farming methods? Used no packaging? Drank no tap water?

Electricity is one of the smallest consumers of energy in a modern household.

I just don't think you realize how much will change when oil runs out. Civilization will probably collapse.

So it's not all bad.

[Atzlann]

we were not connected to the grid. i used public transportation most of the time or i rode a bike anywhere i needed to get. I did eat food that was produced using modern farming methods but most of it was liberated from dumpsters and theoretically removed from our landfills. I did drink tap however i don't know how often.

[VisitingXenoc133]

If our nuclear plants were good terrorist targets then why did they choose the twin towers?

the reason why no new plants have opened since three mile island is because of scare tactics like yours.

[TheNewOldVeteran]

They Chose Twin Wowers Because They Are More Direct And Easier To Hit By Crashing Into A Power Station (It isnt That Hard) The Damage Can Be Collosal

[DarthTanner]

Wow, English language skills for the win. Anyway they chose the twin towers because ramming them actually resulted in mass death. Only the people on the plane and maybe some engineers who happened to be outside near the impact would be killed by ramming a power plant.

[yojox]

On a per kilowatt-hour-generated basis, renewable subsidies do exceed those of nuclear power. Furthermore, the driving forces behind an increase in construction costs is not unique to nuclear. Wind power costs have gone up drastically as well. Wind power can only survive because of federal and state subsidies. But, hey, what do I know. I've just done research. You guys have painted your wall green, which is way more important. Continue to use your computers to protest an energy source.

[webbj123]

The numbers quoted by the NRC, DOE, and the EPRI show that the most cost effective solar plant cost $7,000/kW where nuclear plants are being built now in Europe and Japan for $2,000/kW. Not to mention nuclear is running right now for 3.4 cents/kWh where solar is running for 17 cents/kWh and the daily average wind power is running at 12 cents/kWh. Im sorry but the individuals on this video have their facts wrong.

[Lunargolfball]

you two know nothing but what you have been brainwashed ( the original word ) to think by eco nuts. as for them terrrrrrist, well how about growing a pair. you can crash a 747 right into a containment dome and not breach it.

[DrBuzz0]

True, but the 747 would be destroyed, potentially with great loss of life :-P

[igmuska]

Oh shucks you are braindead. If a 747 hit one of those plants, that plant is no longer capable of producing electricity, not to mention of the catastrophic possibilities such as meltdown, air and water radiological poisoning.

[DarthTanner]

Why? Why would they deactivate the reactor just because there's a rescue operation going on outside? Unless the aircraft ripped straight through all the cables there would be no point in shutting down. And why would there be a meltdown if the concrete shell got damaged a bit, let alone the escape of radioactive materials into the environment.

[igmuska]

That is not my point. The 911 wake-up call is that we are vulnerable to terrorist monkeywrench attacks. Imagine if those 4 planes hit neighboring nuclear plants surrounding metropolitan area, taking out the electricity; no power, no rapid replacement, no life. Electricity must be distributed over vast area in renewable energy, not centralized in antiquated nuclear reactor theories.

[DarthTanner]

And again why would the plants have to be shut down, the planes are got going to do anything except scratch the concrete? Also why would taking four plants down crash the grid, you simply move electricity in from other plants or shut down heavy users like aluminium plants, its even in most major users electricity contracts that they get their power cut in case of a shortage. Also its a dam sight easier to guard four nuclear plants than forty thousand turbines or the millions of solar panels.

[igmuska]

Unfortunately, moving, or redistributing, is nearly impossible due to the lack of the necessary electrical grid infrastructure and the monopolization of the energy industry in the east. If a nuclear plant were taken down, either intentionally or accidentally, that would stress the entire electric grid; if several were taken down, catastrophe and unnecessary deaths would result.

The converse is true, if too many plants were added without the necessary electric grid, the same catastrophes result.

[DarthTanner]

er the grid is designed specifically to move that amount of electricity around, the UK gets two nuclear reactors worth of power piped under the channel for heavens sake! And how does this act as an argument against nuclear power?

[igmuska]

Your words reflect my intent. If the French decide to cut off the UK or raise the rates on the electricity doesn't that beholden the British to the French? So the UK is willing to use nuclear energy but just not in their own backyards.

Meanwhile, the French have been slowly and steadily selling ownership to the Chinese and Japanese...nuclear energy is not worth it.

[DarthTanner]

Yes because France could just turn on us at any second.... And the reason we have to import electricity from France (most of the time, some times we ship it to them) is people like you who oppose us actually generating it ourselves. Nuclear is our only option to avoid increasing use of fossil fuel power plants. I assume you want to actually do something about global warming.

[hiraku0n]

Some people CLEARLY don't know their basics. Forget science, susidy is not the same as loan guarentee. Nuclear power is NOT subsidised, however there is a loan guarentee, just like wind or solar. The need for a loan guarentee in the nuclear industry is people like you can crash a company trying to switch from coal to nuclear.

It is true that +-20% consistency of power from renewable can be achieve however the meal power is still 50% of its max potential; effectively doubling the number.

[igmuska]

^^^another lame answer...non sequitor, you missed that barn although you are standing inside knee deep in cow manure.

The people aka rate payer pay the energy industry for electricity, not the other way around, which in turn are kept in banks holding the loans for those energy plants.

[hiraku0n]

Yet another Junk.

Is this the 'american argument' or what? That, global warming is too expensive - Bush then these two nuclear is too expensive... Forgetting the obvious? It take more money to undue. The reason nuclear powerplants haven't been built in the west has been mainly due to the fact that power companies are not willing to take a risk that may be defeated by people like you claiming the 'big' risk of nuclear power.

[igmuska]

^^^ ya earned the Duh Award of the Week...you also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa.

The reason why no new nuclear plants have been built is because it is too expensive!

[DrBuzz0]

To say nuclear is "has been" or "back in the atomic age" is to run in fear from a new source of energy that is an expansion of human endeavor to an extent only once before achieved, that being the discovery of fire. "back in the combustion age.." Fire was man's first discovery of controlled chemical energy and although it can burn you, without fire there would be no civilization.

Fission is the next step because it is more fundamental as an energy source.

Small minds cannot appreciate this

[jasbcor]

It's nu-clear, not nukuler.

[ChrisPrelitz]

Bottom Line - Is nuclear is better than coal? Yes.

Is it better than renewables. Far from it!!

Plus, nukes set up future generations to deal with another finite resource (uranium) - just like we are now fossil fools.

[hiraku0n]

Uranium from land mines or any 'land source' for that matter is as you say finite. However, there has been studies into extracting uranium from the ocean - thus making it 'infinite' for all practial purpose.

[DarthTanner]

Indeed, at our current rate of consumption the Japanese (the only people willing to do the research apparently) consider the supplies of uranium available in the seas would provide about 100,000 years of energy production.

[igmuska]

Actually I'm concerned that the Japanese might exact revenge for our nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[DarthTanner]

Yes because Japan is still such an enemy of the USA. They couldn't be key military and economic allies or anything like that. And you need a bit more than nuclear power stations and uranium to make a bomb.

[Exileacid]

dear lord you guys need a life.

[maddogrunning01]

These two obviously don't understand that yes no nuclear power plants have been constructed on US soil but every US Naval submarine is powered by a nuclear power plant and all but one US Naval aircraft carrier is powered by at least two nuclear power plants. Funny how there have been ZERO nuclear accidents since all these NEW plants have gone up(with more on the way!). Plus to properly understand Chernobyl and Three Mile Island you need to learn first. Don't just listen to uneducated banter.

[Pjsalt]

Its fantastic how so many pro-nuclear advocates conveniently "forget" about the huge problem of the production of nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is far from clean, from mining to use in nuclear reactors, and produces huge amounts of toxic waste that we can't even decide what to do with today, let alone into the future.

[hiraku0n]

The management of HLW and spent fuel in the US has been indecisive mainly due to politics. In other countries, e.g. France the issue does not exist. What consititues "huge amounts" anyway? The waste from coal power plants are far more than those of nuclear.

[DarthTanner]

Ah but the waste from coal can simply be pumped into the air so that everyone has to breathe it in and get cancer. Surely thats better than that evil nuclear stuff that just sits there in secure bunkers and laboratories.

[chickenkyle123]

u guys always look stoned figures hippies

[beentonite]

How about some links to studies and articles - basically a bibliography to backup your talking points. That would help drive home the ideas and help others look past the informal delivery of these messages.

Just started watching a few of the RAN videos after reading some of John Perkin's books. I like the videos and think they are one of the best ways for getting messages out.

[sealsniper416]

global warming is a bullshit lie...who gives a shit and you people who listen to these guys are idiots...how do you take them seriouse?? playing with a fuckin cow!!

[Hithard177]

Instead of ridiculing people's ideas and calling them names, how about refuting some of their claims and arguments? Name-calling is a sign of intellectual laziness.

[Lunargolfball]

i keep all my nice words for legislators. they have the real power.

[kimberleycalling]

What would you know?!?

[progressivepathway]

An eloquent summary of the truth! Well done, kiddies!

[igmuska]

Don't forget that the uranium needed as fuel for nuclear power is found in the Great Sioux Nation, Navajo-Hopi land, Canadian Indian land and around the world in third colonized countries where the uranium legacy is lethal, killing as we speak. Not one uranium mining company has made any effort to negotiate with the people affected by uranium mining, instead they expect to force their mines on these lands with the help of their governments and puppet dictators

NO NUKES

NO COAL

NO KIDDING

[vlhamilton]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ever tell us any of this stuff? Thank you for imparting this very needed information. McCain, the war monger, loves "nuclear", almost as much as oil and gas. Thanks Robin and Bria!

[Leafgreen2]

I can tell you one reason: The biggest mainstream liberal media outlet is MSNBC, owned by GE. Google how much they are involved in nuclear power plants. (a lot)

[sjdemartini]

good video and good message, but don't say "hella". ever.

[tvgreentv]

Great information, very important to hear. The challenge ultimately is going to be to resist the mindset that we need to keep creating dirty power for the current and future demand levels and focus on efficiency, renewables and reducing consumption. We will have to tighten our belt and change to way we live and consume but at the end of the rainbow that is the only answer. Way to go you guys! I can't wait to check out more of your videos.

[jaydedman]

this is the first time ive heard the nuclear problem explained so well.

[Jeff1060]

People need to see this, especially since McCain is so gung-ho about nuclear being the answer.

[elmyrah]

Awesome video. Love you guys.

[frankodelic]

Thanks Bria... Thanks Robin, you guys rock!