Greenpeace only shouts out the problem, but never take the initiative to get to an solution.That's why they suck. They lag world technology in environmental improvements. New technology asks sacrefices. Nuclear powerplants are needed for efficient use of the worlds energy.
Greenpeace would be effective on maybe a 12 year old girl who got caught having sex, they would sit and watch making her uncomfortable and stop, but this tactic doesn't work for whaling, etc
@RipFlm Yea. Whalers don't care if you are there with protest signs. Direct action tactics like those employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are what's effective. If Greenpeace wants to document whats going on, cool, they should do that. But they shouldn't waste their resources, and petroleum fuel, on ineffective protests.
Reply to stefnir94(tube wont let me reply)But you are careful when you exit the bathtub,right. You dont take any risks.Why take risks with nuclear energy while there are other viable,risk-free options
i think nuclear power is good, sure the wastes is really dangerous, but what are the options? cole powerplants? solarcells (HAHAHA! Those ones really sux, it takes about 10 years to pay of the energy it costed to pure the silicon), waterpowerplants are good, and wavepower, not windpowerplants and so on. We can't take the nuclear power away, not yet.
Its funny greanpeace is so opposed to nuclear power, considering its completely clean except for the waste which just has to be safely stored. why dont they go fight coal and oil power?
they r sayin that they r not taking care of it in sweden yesterday I was a a facility called CLAB where they r storing it as well as taking care of it
The expense of building two advanced technology nuclear reactors was originally estimated at around $7 billion. The price tag recently rose to $14 billion and construction hasnt even begun. This high cost and government support for nuclear are gobbling up money that could help develop less established industries.
There is still a risk of a catastrophic reactor accident due to a natural catastrophe or terrorist attack, as well as significant waste disposal problems with nuclear. Uranium mining also endangers the health of miners, people living near mines, and the environment, as radioactive ore waste has been shown to contaminate surface and groundwater.
Underlying a nuclear chain reaction in both an energy reactor and weapon is an isotope called uranium-235. Reactor grade uranium requires a 3-5 percent concentration of U-235, while weapon grade needs 90 percent concentration. Therefore anyone possessing U-235 and the necessary equipment can make either nuclear energy or bombs.
The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that to keep cool a typical 1,000 megawatt reactor requires approximately 476,500 gallons of water a minute be pumped through its system, a number that could nearly triple in some of the new, larger facilities. In some systems, the warmed water returned to its source—lake, river, ocean—contains low level radioactivity. Also aquatic life circulated through the cooling system can be killed.
...then type in "Nuclear Energy: Good or Bad?" in the search bar above the left hand side tool bar or whatever; that's my source (i have others but i'm too lazy...). It's lists pros and cons of nuclear energy; I personally am not impressed w/the idea of powering our country with nuclear plants. I don't think it's the perfect solution.
alright first of all, the water used to cool the nuclear reactors is in a closed circuit which is conected to another one and then to another one and then to the lake, river, or ocean. (at least thats the way we do it in Spain and our power plants are really old) which doesn't contaminate the outside water.
Since there's gonna be a high need for electricity in the next few years goverments around the world are building nuclear powerplants which are expensive at first but cheap to produce elctri
research takes a long time, and we need the electrical power right now!!!
besides i would much more rather take all that money and time and spend it on the research on nuclear fusion which is much more interesting envioronmentally talking for example.
I agree that fusion is much more productive and much less polluting or dangerous than fission,but the research needed to reach a good level of development with fusion is as much as with solar,if not more.
@firkopersson At the current stage of development maybe it's not very efficient,but maybe with more research-if,that is,more capital was given to research solar instead of ,say,fusion.
@m4trix87 um....you value solar power over fusion? You do know that the light produced from the sun which powers the solar panels is actually produced by fusion. The power a fusion plant could potentially make would be so massive it would make those solar panels obsolete.
@brianng999 To have fusion in the sun,MILLIONS of km from Earth is not the same as having it a few km from where you live,and on the planet,with the possibility of accidents heavily damaging the environment.
@m4trix87 You do know that the exact process by which fusion occurs means that it is impossible to have a meltdown? Exactly 0% chance.
The energy produced will be many times more than that of fission. Also, radioactive waste produced will be significantly less than that of fission and far easier to handle.
Alternative "green" tech like solar and wind are expensive to set up, are very land intensive, low energy yield, and do not provide a steady flow of energy. Nuclear esp fusion wins hands down
@m4trix87 No matter how efficient you make solar panels they will never compare to the power of fission and fusion power plants. Not to mention you can't harvest solar energy at night...
Actually it is estimated that it will take 50 years to produce the first fusion power plant...but when that DOES happen it would be like an energy AGE for mankind. Electricity would be dirt cheap...and we can all throw away those lame solar panels
Yes the investment made has been ridiculous but it will pay off
@m4trix87 Every single scientific creation had to go through an experimental phase.. of course in the meantime we should invest in alternative green tech...in fact China is pretty much a leader in that area now. But for long-term investment...fusion is the key.
With regards to "accidents"...most of every major engineering project has had people die in its creation. The nature of manufacturing itself is prone to accidents. But with the smartest minds the risk is sure to be minimal.
@brianng999 ".but when that DOES happen it would be like an energy AGE for mankind. Electricity would be dirt cheap...and we can all throw away those lame solar panels" Hellyeah! i agree! And if they can make the fusion reactor compact enough. People could have one in their backyard.
@m4trix87 nope, i've read about it. solar power sux AAAASSSSSSSS. I've got somesolarcells at home. if u power them all the day it can't last half the night
@firkopersson If you have all lights on all night,tv and computer and stereo,and not have ecological lighters,and generally do not try to also save energy,ofc its not enough.
@m4trix87 im talking about one lamp. ONE LAMP! And we also have solarpowered batteries, wich u can plug in a mobile phonr or batterycharger. We got it 2 months ago, and it stil isn't fully powered (it's not a crappy one, we bought it for about 50$ (350SEK/7=50)).
Then how do you know that countries that have nuclear energy capabilities won't start using that capability as a head start in creating nuclear weapons?
what does it have to do a nuclear power plant with creating nuclear weapons? do you seriously think anybody can take a nuclear power plant and build nuclear weapons?
Greenpeace are clueless idiots who just come up with crazy reasons to complain about something. They only want attention. I pity all the retards who belong to Greenpeace who don't do anything better with their lives!
im glad to see that the maritime security stopped these terrorists from attempting to block a nuclear waste ship from taking the waste and recycling it in england then reusing it to cleanly and efficiently provide electricity. in time greenpeace may lose its ignorant ways and join the sane world.
@m4trix87 Well, they aren't only putting their self to great danger, The ship who caries the load, what if the nutheads just headed for the boat and it had to swerve and it would capsize because it couldn't drive in the clear driveway because of GP. wouldn't that be worse that all that waste would land in the water instead of going to the UK where they are taking care of it? They are dangerous GP. Terrorist to my eyes.
And Greenpeace seems to do a lot of shit by INTENTION. especially when it comes to disruption of other countries economy. If they were actually trying to do good for at least man or the environment. They would of been trying to at least RESEARCH alternative means instead of relying heavily on the companies they BITCH at to do so.
@m4trix87 Od course my friend...and thank god today we have the technology and the necesary materials to create protection equipment. The real problem about nuclear techonolgy is the ignorance. Nuclear energy helps the planet, and today is the best way we have to reduce CO2.
@m4trix87 Of course my friend...and thank god today we have the technology and the necesary materials to create protection equipment. The real problem about nuclear techonolgy is the ignorance. Nuclear energy helps the planet, and today is the best way we have to reduce CO2.
@m4trix87@m4trix87 Od course my friend...and thank god today we have the technology and the necesary materials to create protection equipment. The real problem about nuclear techonolgy is the ignorance. Nuclear energy helps the planet, and today is the best way we have to reduce CO2.
@m4trix87 I think most environmentalist are exposed to radiation inside their brain cells because they cannot think before saying something. They just say it. like
@EpiDemic117 No,there are scientifical evidence-as well as practical-that even a small dose of radiation hurts.It's your "anti-NWO" conspiracy theorists that shout "DRILL,BABY,DRILL!"
@m4trix87 "even a small dose of radiation hurts." Everything hurts. You smash your thumb it hurts. you get a headache from you tube IT FUCKING HURTS!
"conspiracy theorists that shout "DRILL,BABY,DRILL!" If it is economically viable then yes. If not then NO. This is the only way i look at it. If fusion can make it being highly cost effective than i support it 100% down the line.
However alternates such as wind and solar are NOT viable. Thus they will not work in full replacement of oil
"And as i said with enough research solar will become viable."
They have been researching it since the 70's and it still hasn't worked. Wind and solar do not supply a steady flow of energy like coal and nuclear. I live right by the worlds largest wind farm and it still doesn't produce as much energy as a regular coal or nuclear station. Barely even 600MW.
Nuclear station = 1300 -1500MW And now they are concerned about it decapitating birds! hippies never stop.
@EpiDemic117 How much capital do you think went in researching solar?Much more went into trying to make nuclear energy safe-and still they havent succeeded.
@m4trix87 "How much capital do you think went in researching solar?" TONS
"Much more went into trying to make nuclear energy safe"
Which it has been. Reactors within the united states have been operating for DECADES without any major incidents. Three mile island? That was an incident but without any casualties. People who say they got cancer from it are full of shit. ANYTHING can cause cancer.
@EpiDemic117 "People who say they got cancer from it are full of shit. ANYTHING can cause cancer. "
Yeah,so anyone who says something that contradicts what you claim is "full of shit"-no other explanation required.And anythingt can cause cancer?That's an argument FOR the environmentalists,showing how by promoting products/behaviors people like you claim to be safe has made us unhealthy.
@m4trix87 "And we were lucky there weren't any REALLY serious accidents in the US." It's not luck. It was better understanding and engineering methods used in the west. The soviets could give less of a shit about safety as the Americans did. And the new reactors they are soon going to build are only going to get safer and more reliable.
@m4trix87 And what greenpeace wants you to do as well as some of the other media propagandist is to fear things without any further look into what it really is. Don't listen to those cockholes. They change their minds ever 5 years about what's good or what's bad for you. In turn, They barely know jack shit. That's why one of greenpeaces co founders Patrick Moore left. Because he was fed up with the bullshit and some of the lies they were spewing. You should search videos on patrick. He's
@m4trix87 "They change their mind if science comes up with new conclusions. " No They change their mind so they can keep feeding bullshit to try to scare people like you. Greenpeace does not listen to reason they listen only to their bullshit emotions which don't have any real backing behind it. instead of working with companies about issues they have. They instead just immediately protest. They have gone really Cult like wit their motives.
@m4trix87 "Working with companies?The same companies who only care about profit,not giving a shit for people?"
That's basic generalization for you. Do people give a shit about most people in general? Greenpeace is definatly one of those groups that really don't. They were responsible for convincing some of the piss poor African nations to reject GE crops that could of saved THOUSANDS of lives. It has already saved 2 BILLION from starvation and greenpeace fucking opposes that.
@EpiDemic117 "Do people give a shit about most people in general?" Yes,that's the capitalist mentality.Don't give a shit about anyone and it's ok!Just "don't tread on me"...
GE crops are a totally different issue.And the reason 3rd world is poor is western exploitation.They have LOTS of resources they cant take advantage of themselves because of foreign corporation exploitation.Not GP.
@m4trix87 "Don't give a shit about anyone and it's ok!" That's a common stereotype about capitalism but it more applies for the rest of the world and how the nature of life really is. No one will reward you virtue.
@EpiDemic117 There is no "nature" of life.It's the way we were TAUGHT to think.If we were taught differently we would think differently.Scientifical studies actually show solidarity to each other is the thing in our nature-until the age of two when so-called "social values" like only give when you take creep in.Blame education.
@m4trix87 "It only takes ONE serious accident to turn a whole state-mb even half the country- " Which just doesn't happen. Every reactor within the west and other countries has a THICK concrete encased containment facility. Even if there were a meltdown. No harmful radiation would be able to escape and even by then they would have already disposed of it.
@m4trix87 "It is scientifically proven that radiation exposure can cause cancer." Did you also know that it could cure cancer? search up thyroid cancer and how they treat it.(with radioactive iodine)
@m4trix87 "After all,being able to cure cancer by destroying cancer cells means it has the ability to destroy healthy cells as well if uncontrolled. "
As with every other form of medicine. MY point is that radiation should not be generalized as something bad. It can also have health benefits to. Nuclear energy is still one of the safest forms of energy. The demand for more nuclear power plants will only grow while whiny blind liberalist groups such as greenpeace fail to try to oppose the idea
@EpiDemic117 No,they will not.And even if they are forced by big corps to fail,the majority of people outside the brainwashed by corporate media-aka Faux-USA are AGAINST nuclear energy.And no it is not one of the safets,as there are many others with no hazards.Im not saying using radiation for ie cancer treatment is bad-but nuclear power stations are something different.
@m4trix87 "And no it is not one of the safets,as there are many others with no hazards"
It is and has been one of the safest. And it's proven technology. Everything else has risks towards it as well. How many people are killed annually in the oil industry compared to nuclear? and even to use "renewable" sources such as wind, geo, and solar require fossil fuels as well to be built. But i honestly don't give a shit about CO2 emissions. Carbon is naturally everywhere and Algore can lick my nuts.
@EpiDemic117 Oil has nothing to do with the subject here.As for solar deaths,you are telling us more people get killed during construction of solar stations etc than during construction of nuclear power stations?Why should that apply?Is it more dangerous to construct solar panels or radiation control rods?Everything else has risks but nuclear much more.
@m4trix87 "As for solar deaths,you are telling us more people get killed during construction of solar stations etc than during construction of nuclear power stations?" No if you read properly I am saying more people are killed in the oil industry than compared to the nuclear power industry. in fact there are NO casualties when construction plants. I'm talking about getting the oil off of rigs and other areas that are highly dangerous. OF course refinery are incredibly safe. Getting oil is un.
@EpiDemic117 "But i honestly don't give a shit about CO2 emissions. Carbon is naturally everywhere and Algore can lick my nuts. "
Open your soul,man.Freely.Say it.You don't give a SHIT about the environment!After all,the rich have air conditioning and the poor can go fuck themselves,right?
@m4trix87 "As for carbon being everywhere,yes,but in a certain level that shouldnt increase." Carbon isn't really the issue for this claimed climate change. It's mostly due to water vapor. And i doubt our planet will heat up like venus. Every time a super volcano has erupted on this planet. It's actually COOLED the atmosphere due to some of the sulfur out in the volcanic clouds. Cars also emit some sulfur. Oh TEH NOES! GLOBAL COOLING IS HAPPENING! all in caps. Prepare for another iceage
@EpiDemic117 There HAS to be a certain level of greenhouse effect to keep the heat in.And thats the role of water vapor and natural carbon.Increase the carbon,increase the effect beyond proper limits,meaning not only retention of heat but increase in temperatures.
@EpiDemic117 That video doesnt say anything else than what you already say.Ofc fusion is safer and cleaner than coal or oil,but not safer or cleaner than solar.Inefficient?As i said,matter of research.Though we really arent so far back as you-or that video-say.
@m4trix87 "but not safer or cleaner than solar" Actually it's much cleaner. Solar panels are filled with all kinds of different chemicals. Some being toxic and others being hard to dispose of. And where do you think solar panels collect their energy from? Oh yeah that's right the sun. a GIANT fusion reactor. Of course the ones they are doing right now are in a much more controlled environment. The likely hood of a meltdown in a fusion reactor like someone else said is 0%!
@m4trix87 "Hurts as in "permanent health damage" and "dna mutations"
I don't know of any reports of people having these issues that live next to one. The only disaster which has caused this was Chernobyl. And that was due to faulty soviet reactor design.
Please read on the wiki about nuclear energy before debating about it.
have you heard of braincell dimming thats a very big global warming affect
Hey greenpeace I'm still waiting for you to go to Iraq and save the world over there,you know "depleted uranium" and when you do please take Bono with you i'm sure he will fix their poverty issues not morons!! wakeup people.
The "waste" was actually being taken for reprocessing into additional fuel. The materials which could not be used for more fuel are separated out and allowed to decay. Anything remaining is then solidified into a glass-like material which is less radioactive than naturally occurring minerals.
This is part of a closed fuel cycle intended to remediate waste and generate more fuel.
Greeenpeace is opposed to nuclear energy by religion. They're just as fanatical.
Greenpeace is one of the most dishonest and dishonorable organizations on the face of the earth and have generally worked more to harm standards of living and enviornmental standards around the world far more than helping them.
You are more likely to die drowning in your bathtub or falling from your bed than being killed by the escape of radiation from a nearby nuclear power station.
greenpeace sucks balls, nuclear energy is efficient and safe, plus they dont really "dump" nuclear waste. they dont just push it off the boat into the ocean, they properly dispose of it as to negate any negative effects, nuclear waste is highly regulated and taken care of. if you want a cause, donate to people starving that have real problems instead of creating issues where there are none. greenpeace can piss off
You know, people who champion solar and wind talk about how they can provide energy for hundreds of thousands of people with a single plant (already worthless in countries measuring in the hundreds of millions) but don't seem to realize a Steel or Aluminum Manufacturing Plant will use that much energy IN 30 MINUTES.
Solar and Wind have their place for intermediate load, right behind Nuclear Energy for base load supply. Nuclear is the ONLY think that can reasonably replace Coal.
The WG plutonium is from the 70s when Sweden had a nuke program. If morons like greenpeace hadn't been so anti-nuke power Sweden would still have the capability to process it for fuel. Now it had to be shipped to the UK instead.
Greenpeace is a profit organization to collect money. They do not reveal the details of their expenditure. Do not donate any money to them. Give foods to the African children who are starving instead.
If humanity only knew how ridiculous and unevolved we look, in our excellence in creating tecnologies and products that are bad for life, pose risk to our race, that we don't know where to dispose of, and that no one else wants!
right now, sweden is pretty green friendly, you should be ramming whaling ships, "we wont do that again", you say, but when you did do that, more people were for you then against you.
ever thought of making your own micro nation?
then you could wage a (relativley) peacefull war on (insert evil doers name here) without some of the political tension of your home countries.
since when because a country is greener-friendly means green light to bad behaviour? Trying to dump nuclear waste somewhere else (producing nuclear waste in the first place) is absolutely unjustifyable - independent of it being in slightly greener Sweeden or anywhere else!!
As an actual Sellafield worker I can say a lot of what people say about this is a load of crap. The fuel comes to Sellafield to be reprocessed where roughly 97% is re used in new fuel and the remaining 3% is classed a waste. So from 4.8 tons you will get roughly 0.14 tons of unusable waste.
This waste is mixed with molten glass to form extremely stable waste which is sealed inside stainless steel flasks. This will be then sent back to Sweden and the remaining radioactive material is re-used in new fuel.
The 1.2kg of "super weapons grade plutonium" is within the fuel as the process of using the fuel creates plutonium and other radioactive isotopes such as caesium and polonium. This is extracted during repossessing and used in the manufacturing of MOX fuel.
This 1.2kg is probably the potential amount of weapons grade plutonium you could extract as it is highly doubtful that Sweden would send it to another country because Sweden is not a country that possess' or produces nuclear weapons.
Except the waste isn't going to be dumped, it's going to be reprocessed to separate the really nasty waste from the reusable parts.
That way you reduce the volume of waste to manage by a factor of 50 and avoid mining more uranium by recycling that hich is recovered. Isn't that a good thing?
i do think we sould fight for the nature, but nuclear power is something we will have to use. The treat of global warming is bigger than the treat of a nuclear catastroph, if we stop using nuclear power, we must use cole instead, wich is MUCH badder for the planet.
we need to use renewable energy sources, for example we could use nukes as energy, but not as you think...
the center of the earth is molten for 3 reasons:
1 the massive pressure of the above weight
2 the solar radiation of the sun
and 3 the huge amounts of radioactive elements in the earths core,mantle,yada yada
in outback australia there is a huge amount of all 3! hot rocks (sun) and deeper below, geothermal and residual radioactive, the ultimate geo power station!
I love the last part, on the Police boat, still raising the banner. Never give up! They might catch us, which is easy, for greenpeace doesn't run. But they cannot silence us!
Good work greenpeace. We don't want that stuff moved here either.
The people apologising for the nuclear industry need to read up on it's history. Other dangers aside we would only have about 10 years of nuclear fuel for reactors if nuclear power was our main energy source for those who
I think you mean Anti Nucular. Nucular
DLongmuir16 2 months ago
go sweden :)
abbebabbe12 9 months ago
no xrays for greenpeace supporters!
roboleo 9 months ago
Greenpeace only shouts out the problem, but never take the initiative to get to an solution.That's why they suck. They lag world technology in environmental improvements. New technology asks sacrefices. Nuclear powerplants are needed for efficient use of the worlds energy.
209275chu 10 months ago
Greenpeace is such a waste of time! They are just uneployed thugs and hippies, or people who want to be!
QQQMR 10 months ago
@QQQMR Uhum, without groups like green-peace the world would collapse underneath our feet.
drummit222 4 months ago
If the world was run by anti-science ppl like you we would be living in the stone age with a human lifespan of only 30 years of age
Psykoosi86 11 months ago
Greenpeace would be effective on maybe a 12 year old girl who got caught having sex, they would sit and watch making her uncomfortable and stop, but this tactic doesn't work for whaling, etc
RipFlm 1 year ago
@RipFlm Yea. Whalers don't care if you are there with protest signs. Direct action tactics like those employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are what's effective. If Greenpeace wants to document whats going on, cool, they should do that. But they shouldn't waste their resources, and petroleum fuel, on ineffective protests.
purplemutantas 6 months ago
Some one please nuke the Greenpeace wankers! The are nothing but a useless bunch of loons.
Kingsimbaca 1 year ago
Sweden should just start FedExing low-level waste to Greenpeace Headquarters instead.
OriginalAcrimonious 1 year ago 6
HAHAHAAAA i hope Greenpeace gonna die a painfull death :D
(i bet this comment gonna get thumps down....or massive antithingy comments.....)
DonLollio 1 year ago
Í hope u tnakt upp the boats at BP ... lol
xxxbageraxxx 1 year ago
Reply to stefnir94(tube wont let me reply)But you are careful when you exit the bathtub,right. You dont take any risks.Why take risks with nuclear energy while there are other viable,risk-free options
m4trix87 1 year ago
i think nuclear power is good, sure the wastes is really dangerous, but what are the options? cole powerplants? solarcells (HAHAHA! Those ones really sux, it takes about 10 years to pay of the energy it costed to pure the silicon), waterpowerplants are good, and wavepower, not windpowerplants and so on. We can't take the nuclear power away, not yet.
firkopersson 1 year ago
Its not like they are dumping it at sea.
Britain makes billions from other countries who want to get rid of their nuclear waste.
Trustisaliability 1 year ago
Wow didnt know we exported that shit.
Carlsarv 2 years ago
You guys are nuts.
InTheNavy47 2 years ago
i think thats makes some sense becuse there is people dumb enufe to dump nucelear waste in to the ocean aka östersjön and bottenviken
Skid00everest340 2 years ago 6
Its funny greanpeace is so opposed to nuclear power, considering its completely clean except for the waste which just has to be safely stored. why dont they go fight coal and oil power?
XxHolyPoptartxX 2 years ago
Tell that in Chernobyl
m4trix87 2 years ago
They DO fight them.
m4trix87 2 years ago
Vad i hel***e XD de har ju kustbevakningens båt haha =P
Baboutoo 2 years ago
fucking hippies!
CrownPrinceofSweden 2 years ago
sweden does not play whit nuclear shit!
flingan95 2 years ago
Run then ove, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!!
umahuma4 2 years ago
hippies!
ImHereForPornzz 2 years ago
Making fun of people for not being serious while having that username.
Interesting.
m4trix87 2 years ago
Gamma strålning e gött som själve faan
MesohaRny 2 years ago
they r sayin that they r not taking care of it in sweden yesterday I was a a facility called CLAB where they r storing it as well as taking care of it
NNsomic 2 years ago
Dumpa inte kärnavfallet=Dont dump the nuclear waste were not dumping the waste we give the probelm to someone else.............
alexlinde56 2 years ago
shoot at greenpeace
gunnerman22 2 years ago
all those speedboats are producing more CO2 than a single nuclear power plant.
dankspain 2 years ago
but far less radioactive waste, eh?
veganpuddings 2 years ago
yeah and? radioactive waste we can keep more or less controled.
dankspain 2 years ago
The expense of building two advanced technology nuclear reactors was originally estimated at around $7 billion. The price tag recently rose to $14 billion and construction hasnt even begun. This high cost and government support for nuclear are gobbling up money that could help develop less established industries.
veganpuddings 2 years ago
(cont...)
There is still a risk of a catastrophic reactor accident due to a natural catastrophe or terrorist attack, as well as significant waste disposal problems with nuclear. Uranium mining also endangers the health of miners, people living near mines, and the environment, as radioactive ore waste has been shown to contaminate surface and groundwater.
veganpuddings 2 years ago
(cont...)
Underlying a nuclear chain reaction in both an energy reactor and weapon is an isotope called uranium-235. Reactor grade uranium requires a 3-5 percent concentration of U-235, while weapon grade needs 90 percent concentration. Therefore anyone possessing U-235 and the necessary equipment can make either nuclear energy or bombs.
veganpuddings 2 years ago
(cont...)
The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that to keep cool a typical 1,000 megawatt reactor requires approximately 476,500 gallons of water a minute be pumped through its system, a number that could nearly triple in some of the new, larger facilities. In some systems, the warmed water returned to its source—lake, river, ocean—contains low level radioactivity. Also aquatic life circulated through the cooling system can be killed.
veganpuddings 2 years ago
You can go to care 2 . co m...
...click on healthy & green living...
...then type in "Nuclear Energy: Good or Bad?" in the search bar above the left hand side tool bar or whatever; that's my source (i have others but i'm too lazy...). It's lists pros and cons of nuclear energy; I personally am not impressed w/the idea of powering our country with nuclear plants. I don't think it's the perfect solution.
Peace :D
veganpuddings 2 years ago 8
alright first of all, the water used to cool the nuclear reactors is in a closed circuit which is conected to another one and then to another one and then to the lake, river, or ocean. (at least thats the way we do it in Spain and our power plants are really old) which doesn't contaminate the outside water.
Since there's gonna be a high need for electricity in the next few years goverments around the world are building nuclear powerplants which are expensive at first but cheap to produce elctri
dankspain 2 years ago
Why not use solar?
Or hydrogen?
m4trix87 2 years ago
cos solar it's not very effective and hydrogen?¿ what do you mean using hydrogen?? (energy is needed to produce it...)
dankspain 2 years ago
There are HUGE reservoirs of liquid hydrogen at the bottom of the seas.
And solar can BECOME effective,just needs more research
m4trix87 2 years ago
wtf dude? you are talking nonsense in order to have liquid hydrogen you need very low temperatures (-200ºC)
it could become but we have to deal for our situation right now
dankspain 2 years ago
Then maybe solar?
And wind?
Nuclear is NOT a solution.
Just remember Chernobyl.
m4trix87 2 years ago
solar is not worth it
wind is a part of the solution if the mills are placed correctly (off shore)
dankspain 2 years ago
Why not worth it?
With research it can become much less costly.
m4trix87 2 years ago
research takes a long time, and we need the electrical power right now!!!
besides i would much more rather take all that money and time and spend it on the research on nuclear fusion which is much more interesting envioronmentally talking for example.
dankspain 2 years ago
I agree that fusion is much more productive and much less polluting or dangerous than fission,but the research needed to reach a good level of development with fusion is as much as with solar,if not more.
m4trix87 2 years ago
it is not more productive, it could be (in the future)
anyway don't compare solar with fusion in amount of energy!! fusion if contolled could generate way more power than solar could ever dream of
dankspain 2 years ago
Solar can provide ud with the energy we need,if we also learn to not waste it.
m4trix87 2 years ago
@m4trix87 NO solar power can NOT provide us with almost any energy. they really sux, it takes about hlf their lifetime just to pay themselves off...
firkopersson 1 year ago
@firkopersson At the current stage of development maybe it's not very efficient,but maybe with more research-if,that is,more capital was given to research solar instead of ,say,fusion.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 um....you value solar power over fusion? You do know that the light produced from the sun which powers the solar panels is actually produced by fusion. The power a fusion plant could potentially make would be so massive it would make those solar panels obsolete.
brianng999 1 year ago
@brianng999 To have fusion in the sun,MILLIONS of km from Earth is not the same as having it a few km from where you live,and on the planet,with the possibility of accidents heavily damaging the environment.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 You do know that the exact process by which fusion occurs means that it is impossible to have a meltdown? Exactly 0% chance.
The energy produced will be many times more than that of fission. Also, radioactive waste produced will be significantly less than that of fission and far easier to handle.
Alternative "green" tech like solar and wind are expensive to set up, are very land intensive, low energy yield, and do not provide a steady flow of energy. Nuclear esp fusion wins hands down
brianng999 1 year ago
@brianng999 We just need more research to make them more efficient.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@brianng999 On the other hand,fusion is still experimental.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@brianng999 So,more extra research is needed for fusion than solar.And they DO provide a steady flow if you install panels in say a desert.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 No matter how efficient you make solar panels they will never compare to the power of fission and fusion power plants. Not to mention you can't harvest solar energy at night...
Actually it is estimated that it will take 50 years to produce the first fusion power plant...but when that DOES happen it would be like an energy AGE for mankind. Electricity would be dirt cheap...and we can all throw away those lame solar panels
Yes the investment made has been ridiculous but it will pay off
brianng999 1 year ago
@brianng999 Depends how many accidents we have in yet-experimental fusion plants...
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 Every single scientific creation had to go through an experimental phase.. of course in the meantime we should invest in alternative green tech...in fact China is pretty much a leader in that area now. But for long-term investment...fusion is the key.
With regards to "accidents"...most of every major engineering project has had people die in its creation. The nature of manufacturing itself is prone to accidents. But with the smartest minds the risk is sure to be minimal.
brianng999 1 year ago
@brianng999 ".but when that DOES happen it would be like an energy AGE for mankind. Electricity would be dirt cheap...and we can all throw away those lame solar panels" Hellyeah! i agree! And if they can make the fusion reactor compact enough. People could have one in their backyard.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 or you could have one in your chest like iron man ;)
brianng999 1 year ago
@m4trix87 nope, i've read about it. solar power sux AAAASSSSSSSS. I've got somesolarcells at home. if u power them all the day it can't last half the night
firkopersson 1 year ago
@firkopersson If you have all lights on all night,tv and computer and stereo,and not have ecological lighters,and generally do not try to also save energy,ofc its not enough.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 im talking about one lamp. ONE LAMP! And we also have solarpowered batteries, wich u can plug in a mobile phonr or batterycharger. We got it 2 months ago, and it stil isn't fully powered (it's not a crappy one, we bought it for about 50$ (350SEK/7=50)).
firkopersson 1 year ago
@firkopersson Doubt it.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 well im not exactly talking about a big solarcell, im talking about one mounted on top of the lamp.
firkopersson 1 year ago
@firkopersson I have personal experience with good-quality solar lamps.One day's light is enough for one night.
m4trix87 1 year ago
It's not only about safe storage of nuclear waste.There is always danger of accidents.
m4trix87 2 years ago
chernobyl ended up like that because of its bad use, the machinery was in very poor conditions not as the nuclear power plants nowadays
dankspain 2 years ago
Even with top-grade and well-maintained machinery the danger is still there-though not as such.
Think human error-or sabotage.
m4trix87 2 years ago
even a dam can get sabotaged and flood huge areas...
WIth top grade and well-maintained machinery the risk of a failure such as chernobyl is almost imposible
dankspain 2 years ago
Then how do you know that countries that have nuclear energy capabilities won't start using that capability as a head start in creating nuclear weapons?
And that IS a threat.
m4trix87 2 years ago
what does it have to do a nuclear power plant with creating nuclear weapons? do you seriously think anybody can take a nuclear power plant and build nuclear weapons?
dankspain 2 years ago
check this,i have nothing else to say myself
google
greenpeace campaigns nuclear
(the 1st result of the search)
m4trix87 2 years ago
you've never seen a nuclear power plant?
dankspain 2 years ago
Greenpeace are clueless idiots who just come up with crazy reasons to complain about something. They only want attention. I pity all the retards who belong to Greenpeace who don't do anything better with their lives!
Redandrichbaron 2 years ago
im glad to see that the maritime security stopped these terrorists from attempting to block a nuclear waste ship from taking the waste and recycling it in england then reusing it to cleanly and efficiently provide electricity. in time greenpeace may lose its ignorant ways and join the sane world.
coverchenko 2 years ago
idiots....
neckmeister94 2 years ago
greenpeace, its not a organization it is a freaking terrorist group is it only me that noticed that?
lefnord 2 years ago
@lefnord Yeah,and the US government who is bombing civilians is what?
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 Well, they aren't only putting their self to great danger, The ship who caries the load, what if the nutheads just headed for the boat and it had to swerve and it would capsize because it couldn't drive in the clear driveway because of GP. wouldn't that be worse that all that waste would land in the water instead of going to the UK where they are taking care of it? They are dangerous GP. Terrorist to my eyes.
lefnord 1 year ago
@lefnord By that definition,most of the reckless drivers everywhere are terrorists!Are you serious?Terrorism means do it by INTENTION.
m4trix87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m4trix87 "Terrorism means do it by INTENTION."
And Greenpeace seems to do a lot of shit by INTENTION. especially when it comes to disruption of other countries economy. If they were actually trying to do good for at least man or the environment. They would of been trying to at least RESEARCH alternative means instead of relying heavily on the companies they BITCH at to do so.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@lefnord But ofc the conservative right brands everyone not agreeing with them "terrorist"-see Dubbya.
m4trix87 1 year ago 4
@lefnord At least they dont bomb civilians.
m4trix87 1 year ago
Fuck greenpeace
Sovietunion1337 2 years ago
I dont like this clip. Maybe pepole from other countrys see it and think that all Sweds are this stupid.
cruisemate 3 years ago
if they were swedish, greenpeace should be dead now
Wardude1993 2 years ago
What's wrong about nuclear bombs? they're funny!
Imhornydadcomeinside 3 years ago
I strongly recommend this activists to go to the near Library and read at least the basics about nuclear energy.
The weed is consuming your brain
Madpianist09 3 years ago
@Madpianist09 So everyone who is against nuclear energy smokes weed?
Even so,weed is better than plutonium.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@Madpianist09 And the basics i believe include the potential hazards of radiation exposure.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 Od course my friend...and thank god today we have the technology and the necesary materials to create protection equipment. The real problem about nuclear techonolgy is the ignorance. Nuclear energy helps the planet, and today is the best way we have to reduce CO2.
Madpianist09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m4trix87 Of course my friend...and thank god today we have the technology and the necesary materials to create protection equipment. The real problem about nuclear techonolgy is the ignorance. Nuclear energy helps the planet, and today is the best way we have to reduce CO2.
Madpianist09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m4trix87 @m4trix87 Od course my friend...and thank god today we have the technology and the necesary materials to create protection equipment. The real problem about nuclear techonolgy is the ignorance. Nuclear energy helps the planet, and today is the best way we have to reduce CO2.
Madpianist09 1 year ago
@m4trix87 I think most environmentalist are exposed to radiation inside their brain cells because they cannot think before saying something. They just say it. like
"HEY IM GOING TO SAVE THE WORLD, MAN IS BAD!!"
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 No,there are scientifical evidence-as well as practical-that even a small dose of radiation hurts.It's your "anti-NWO" conspiracy theorists that shout "DRILL,BABY,DRILL!"
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "even a small dose of radiation hurts." Everything hurts. You smash your thumb it hurts. you get a headache from you tube IT FUCKING HURTS!
"conspiracy theorists that shout "DRILL,BABY,DRILL!" If it is economically viable then yes. If not then NO. This is the only way i look at it. If fusion can make it being highly cost effective than i support it 100% down the line.
However alternates such as wind and solar are NOT viable. Thus they will not work in full replacement of oil
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Hurts as in "permanent health damage" and "dna mutations"
And as i said with enough research solar will become viable.
And cost effective is good,but with a destroyed planet cost effectiveness is worthless.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87
"And as i said with enough research solar will become viable."
They have been researching it since the 70's and it still hasn't worked. Wind and solar do not supply a steady flow of energy like coal and nuclear. I live right by the worlds largest wind farm and it still doesn't produce as much energy as a regular coal or nuclear station. Barely even 600MW.
Nuclear station = 1300 -1500MW And now they are concerned about it decapitating birds! hippies never stop.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 How much capital do you think went in researching solar?Much more went into trying to make nuclear energy safe-and still they havent succeeded.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "How much capital do you think went in researching solar?" TONS
"Much more went into trying to make nuclear energy safe"
Which it has been. Reactors within the united states have been operating for DECADES without any major incidents. Three mile island? That was an incident but without any casualties. People who say they got cancer from it are full of shit. ANYTHING can cause cancer.
Just watch this video please
watch?v=Qf4y8fWTp5Y
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 "People who say they got cancer from it are full of shit. ANYTHING can cause cancer. "
Yeah,so anyone who says something that contradicts what you claim is "full of shit"-no other explanation required.And anythingt can cause cancer?That's an argument FOR the environmentalists,showing how by promoting products/behaviors people like you claim to be safe has made us unhealthy.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 And we were lucky there weren't any REALLY serious accidents in the US.
m4trix87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m4trix87 "And we were lucky there weren't any REALLY serious accidents in the US." It's not luck. It was better understanding and engineering methods used in the west. The soviets could give less of a shit about safety as the Americans did. And the new reactors they are soon going to build are only going to get safer and more reliable.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@m4trix87 And what greenpeace wants you to do as well as some of the other media propagandist is to fear things without any further look into what it really is. Don't listen to those cockholes. They change their minds ever 5 years about what's good or what's bad for you. In turn, They barely know jack shit. That's why one of greenpeaces co founders Patrick Moore left. Because he was fed up with the bullshit and some of the lies they were spewing. You should search videos on patrick. He's
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 They change their mind if science comes up with new conclusions.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "They change their mind if science comes up with new conclusions. " No They change their mind so they can keep feeding bullshit to try to scare people like you. Greenpeace does not listen to reason they listen only to their bullshit emotions which don't have any real backing behind it. instead of working with companies about issues they have. They instead just immediately protest. They have gone really Cult like wit their motives.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Working with companies?The same companies who only care about profit,not giving a shit for people?
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "Working with companies?The same companies who only care about profit,not giving a shit for people?"
That's basic generalization for you. Do people give a shit about most people in general? Greenpeace is definatly one of those groups that really don't. They were responsible for convincing some of the piss poor African nations to reject GE crops that could of saved THOUSANDS of lives. It has already saved 2 BILLION from starvation and greenpeace fucking opposes that.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 "Do people give a shit about most people in general?" Yes,that's the capitalist mentality.Don't give a shit about anyone and it's ok!Just "don't tread on me"...
GE crops are a totally different issue.And the reason 3rd world is poor is western exploitation.They have LOTS of resources they cant take advantage of themselves because of foreign corporation exploitation.Not GP.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "Don't give a shit about anyone and it's ok!" That's a common stereotype about capitalism but it more applies for the rest of the world and how the nature of life really is. No one will reward you virtue.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 There is no "nature" of life.It's the way we were TAUGHT to think.If we were taught differently we would think differently.Scientifical studies actually show solidarity to each other is the thing in our nature-until the age of two when so-called "social values" like only give when you take creep in.Blame education.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Check Nicholas Wade
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 google nicholas wade tomasello and visit some biologists find an urge in nature to help
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 And in my opinion scientists matter more than teabaggers.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 Then Greenpeace shouldn't matter to you. Since they are nothing more than tea beggars and tree hungers.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 I meant the tea party movement.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87
watch?v=x2ZTt8O__zk
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@m4trix87 You should search videos on patrick Moore. He's what a TRUE environmentalist is. He far more understanding than those media rated groups.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 It only takes ONE serious accident to turn a whole state-mb even half the country- into Chernobyl.
m4trix87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m4trix87 "It only takes ONE serious accident to turn a whole state-mb even half the country- " Which just doesn't happen. Every reactor within the west and other countries has a THICK concrete encased containment facility. Even if there were a meltdown. No harmful radiation would be able to escape and even by then they would have already disposed of it.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 It is scientifically proven that radiation exposure can cause cancer.
Check radiation poisoning in wikipedia.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "It is scientifically proven that radiation exposure can cause cancer." Did you also know that it could cure cancer? search up thyroid cancer and how they treat it.(with radioactive iodine)
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 When controlled it can cure.When uncontrolled...
After all,being able to cure cancer by destroying cancer cells means it has the ability to destroy healthy cells aswell if uncontrolled.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "After all,being able to cure cancer by destroying cancer cells means it has the ability to destroy healthy cells as well if uncontrolled. "
As with every other form of medicine. MY point is that radiation should not be generalized as something bad. It can also have health benefits to. Nuclear energy is still one of the safest forms of energy. The demand for more nuclear power plants will only grow while whiny blind liberalist groups such as greenpeace fail to try to oppose the idea
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 No,they will not.And even if they are forced by big corps to fail,the majority of people outside the brainwashed by corporate media-aka Faux-USA are AGAINST nuclear energy.And no it is not one of the safets,as there are many others with no hazards.Im not saying using radiation for ie cancer treatment is bad-but nuclear power stations are something different.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "And no it is not one of the safets,as there are many others with no hazards"
It is and has been one of the safest. And it's proven technology. Everything else has risks towards it as well. How many people are killed annually in the oil industry compared to nuclear? and even to use "renewable" sources such as wind, geo, and solar require fossil fuels as well to be built. But i honestly don't give a shit about CO2 emissions. Carbon is naturally everywhere and Algore can lick my nuts.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 Oil has nothing to do with the subject here.As for solar deaths,you are telling us more people get killed during construction of solar stations etc than during construction of nuclear power stations?Why should that apply?Is it more dangerous to construct solar panels or radiation control rods?Everything else has risks but nuclear much more.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "As for solar deaths,you are telling us more people get killed during construction of solar stations etc than during construction of nuclear power stations?" No if you read properly I am saying more people are killed in the oil industry than compared to the nuclear power industry. in fact there are NO casualties when construction plants. I'm talking about getting the oil off of rigs and other areas that are highly dangerous. OF course refinery are incredibly safe. Getting oil is un.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 As i said,oil is irrelevant here.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 "But i honestly don't give a shit about CO2 emissions. Carbon is naturally everywhere and Algore can lick my nuts. "
Open your soul,man.Freely.Say it.You don't give a SHIT about the environment!After all,the rich have air conditioning and the poor can go fuck themselves,right?
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 As for carbon being everywhere,yes,but in a certain level that shouldnt increase.
m4trix87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@m4trix87 "As for carbon being everywhere,yes,but in a certain level that shouldnt increase." Carbon isn't really the issue for this claimed climate change. It's mostly due to water vapor. And i doubt our planet will heat up like venus. Every time a super volcano has erupted on this planet. It's actually COOLED the atmosphere due to some of the sulfur out in the volcanic clouds. Cars also emit some sulfur. Oh TEH NOES! GLOBAL COOLING IS HAPPENING! all in caps. Prepare for another iceage
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
Comment removed
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 There HAS to be a certain level of greenhouse effect to keep the heat in.And thats the role of water vapor and natural carbon.Increase the carbon,increase the effect beyond proper limits,meaning not only retention of heat but increase in temperatures.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 That video doesnt say anything else than what you already say.Ofc fusion is safer and cleaner than coal or oil,but not safer or cleaner than solar.Inefficient?As i said,matter of research.Though we really arent so far back as you-or that video-say.
wikipedia solar power-nothing more to say.
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "but not safer or cleaner than solar" Actually it's much cleaner. Solar panels are filled with all kinds of different chemicals. Some being toxic and others being hard to dispose of. And where do you think solar panels collect their energy from? Oh yeah that's right the sun. a GIANT fusion reactor. Of course the ones they are doing right now are in a much more controlled environment. The likely hood of a meltdown in a fusion reactor like someone else said is 0%!
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 The sun is MILLIONS of miles away from Earth.And i guess there arent any toxical chemicals in nuclear reactors,right?
m4trix87 1 year ago
@m4trix87 "Hurts as in "permanent health damage" and "dna mutations"
I don't know of any reports of people having these issues that live next to one. The only disaster which has caused this was Chernobyl. And that was due to faulty soviet reactor design.
Please read on the wiki about nuclear energy before debating about it.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
@EpiDemic117 I found something else on the Internet-not in wikipedia,but...
google us nuclear accidents
So,are you sure it was faulty soviet design?
And i'm talking about health damage in case of accidents
m4trix87 1 year ago
have you heard of braincell dimming thats a very big global warming affect
Hey greenpeace I'm still waiting for you to go to Iraq and save the world over there,you know "depleted uranium" and when you do please take Bono with you i'm sure he will fix their poverty issues not morons!! wakeup people.
houuaecr 3 years ago
Only 4.8 tons? Seems like nothing at all. Not compared to how people go on about massive stockpiles of the stuff. Or am I mistaken?
hrthrhs 3 years ago
They belive its unethical not to let nuclear waste be dumped in somebodys garden?
Red0100 3 years ago
The "waste" was actually being taken for reprocessing into additional fuel. The materials which could not be used for more fuel are separated out and allowed to decay. Anything remaining is then solidified into a glass-like material which is less radioactive than naturally occurring minerals.
This is part of a closed fuel cycle intended to remediate waste and generate more fuel.
Greeenpeace is opposed to nuclear energy by religion. They're just as fanatical.
DrBuzz0 3 years ago
Greenpeace is one of the most dishonest and dishonorable organizations on the face of the earth and have generally worked more to harm standards of living and enviornmental standards around the world far more than helping them.
DrBuzz0 3 years ago
You are more likely to die drowning in your bathtub or falling from your bed than being killed by the escape of radiation from a nearby nuclear power station.
Stefnir94 3 years ago 3
greenpeace sucks balls, nuclear energy is efficient and safe, plus they dont really "dump" nuclear waste. they dont just push it off the boat into the ocean, they properly dispose of it as to negate any negative effects, nuclear waste is highly regulated and taken care of. if you want a cause, donate to people starving that have real problems instead of creating issues where there are none. greenpeace can piss off
stevebosox 3 years ago
@stevebosox "Efficient and safe"
Tell that to Chernobyl.
Yes,they dispose it,but the real problem is the possibility of accidents.
m4trix87 1 year ago
This video is probaganda => full Shit
Greenpeace is Shit talking!
RunninRoskis 3 years ago 3
You know, people who champion solar and wind talk about how they can provide energy for hundreds of thousands of people with a single plant (already worthless in countries measuring in the hundreds of millions) but don't seem to realize a Steel or Aluminum Manufacturing Plant will use that much energy IN 30 MINUTES.
Solar and Wind have their place for intermediate load, right behind Nuclear Energy for base load supply. Nuclear is the ONLY think that can reasonably replace Coal.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
The WG plutonium is from the 70s when Sweden had a nuke program. If morons like greenpeace hadn't been so anti-nuke power Sweden would still have the capability to process it for fuel. Now it had to be shipped to the UK instead.
signatory 3 years ago 2
Whatever you all do ..mindless people are still going to continue ruining the world.
Sad but true...
balikorhan 4 years ago
Greenpeace is a profit organization to collect money. They do not reveal the details of their expenditure. Do not donate any money to them. Give foods to the African children who are starving instead.
chinese5angel 4 years ago 2
At least it's known that this waste is being transported. Also, it's not being put in barrels and dumped in the ocean like France once did.
I bet other countries (India, Pakistan, China, etc) get rid of it in secret and irresponsible ways.
But still, why does Sweden not have its own permanent storage solution?
a1mint 4 years ago
We can reuse the radioactive material but people are stupid and dont do it. Japan reuses their radioactive material.
faucet66 4 years ago
If humanity only knew how ridiculous and unevolved we look, in our excellence in creating tecnologies and products that are bad for life, pose risk to our race, that we don't know where to dispose of, and that no one else wants!
Continue the invaluable work!
nicoleroitberg 4 years ago
right now, sweden is pretty green friendly, you should be ramming whaling ships, "we wont do that again", you say, but when you did do that, more people were for you then against you.
ever thought of making your own micro nation?
then you could wage a (relativley) peacefull war on (insert evil doers name here) without some of the political tension of your home countries.
just throwing ideas arond here.
noobwithagun 4 years ago
since when because a country is greener-friendly means green light to bad behaviour? Trying to dump nuclear waste somewhere else (producing nuclear waste in the first place) is absolutely unjustifyable - independent of it being in slightly greener Sweeden or anywhere else!!
nicoleroitberg 4 years ago
ok, ok nukes are bad, i should have said that.
noobwithagun 4 years ago
As an actual Sellafield worker I can say a lot of what people say about this is a load of crap. The fuel comes to Sellafield to be reprocessed where roughly 97% is re used in new fuel and the remaining 3% is classed a waste. So from 4.8 tons you will get roughly 0.14 tons of unusable waste.
doglog123 4 years ago
This waste is mixed with molten glass to form extremely stable waste which is sealed inside stainless steel flasks. This will be then sent back to Sweden and the remaining radioactive material is re-used in new fuel.
doglog123 4 years ago
The 1.2kg of "super weapons grade plutonium" is within the fuel as the process of using the fuel creates plutonium and other radioactive isotopes such as caesium and polonium. This is extracted during repossessing and used in the manufacturing of MOX fuel.
doglog123 4 years ago
This 1.2kg is probably the potential amount of weapons grade plutonium you could extract as it is highly doubtful that Sweden would send it to another country because Sweden is not a country that possess' or produces nuclear weapons.
doglog123 4 years ago
Greenpeace has in my opinions some good thoughts but this is EMBARRASING. They won't dump it. :S
oskarthaman 4 years ago
Except the waste isn't going to be dumped, it's going to be reprocessed to separate the really nasty waste from the reusable parts.
That way you reduce the volume of waste to manage by a factor of 50 and avoid mining more uranium by recycling that hich is recovered. Isn't that a good thing?
Number1BadBoyInnit 4 years ago
i do think we sould fight for the nature, but nuclear power is something we will have to use. The treat of global warming is bigger than the treat of a nuclear catastroph, if we stop using nuclear power, we must use cole instead, wich is MUCH badder for the planet.
AnkanDIF 4 years ago
"Treat"? Lol. There are more efficient resources than nuclear power, and a nuclear catostroph is very bad. Nuclear power is not a reliable solution.
alexkvaskov 4 years ago
we need to use renewable energy sources, for example we could use nukes as energy, but not as you think...
the center of the earth is molten for 3 reasons:
1 the massive pressure of the above weight
2 the solar radiation of the sun
and 3 the huge amounts of radioactive elements in the earths core,mantle,yada yada
in outback australia there is a huge amount of all 3! hot rocks (sun) and deeper below, geothermal and residual radioactive, the ultimate geo power station!
noobwithagun 4 years ago
I love the last part, on the Police boat, still raising the banner. Never give up! They might catch us, which is easy, for greenpeace doesn't run. But they cannot silence us!
globalrevolution 4 years ago 2
Good work greenpeace. We don't want that stuff moved here either.
The people apologising for the nuclear industry need to read up on it's history. Other dangers aside we would only have about 10 years of nuclear fuel for reactors if nuclear power was our main energy source for those who