we need new nuclear power stations to meet with our energy demands. The facts in this video are very wrong. you need to look at the coal power station they are going to build at kingsnorth its a waste of money and will produce a very small amount of power with very high CO2. The problem with nuclear waste is that we haven't only just got ours but the rest of the EUs this is want happens when british companies get taken over by outsiders.
Only the Clean-Energy, are The True Future, Not the Nukes, your emissions on the Air, and More "incicidents colpevolize the Men's , or are Pure Fatality" , The Nuclear Power are Obsolete, Because your Instability are Severe Damage from Chernobyl and Last Implants "New Generations" The Results are Ugually: The Instability, We Wants The Nukes? The Lobbies..Not the Pleople, and the better conseguences...Cancer...and CO.Use Your MIND!
Effectively using the heat which is currently wasted during the generating process requires decentralisation (ie more smaller plants closer to the communities which they serve). The 10 nuclear plants being proposed will all be large (1.6GW) and based on existing sites far from population centres (for obvious reasons) and so will not be able to (and are not being designed to) recycle meaningful amounts of heat to local communities - an unbelievably wasteful strategy.
So, basically because you guys have blocked the development of the Nuclear Industry and forced the requirement of Fossil Fuel power stations we are now in a situation where the major nations of this planet now face a power pandemic of growing proportions.
Tell me what is worse: Dumping nuclear waste into the deepest cravas in the ocean (In hermatically sealed units) OR Building multiple fossil fuel plants and emitting a few hundred thousand tons of carbons?
More CO2 in the air, more life on Earth. More nuclear plants, more death on Earth! Global Warming was a newspaper title invented by NewsWeek, not sceintists.
Nuclear power sounds intelligent. Sounds like greenpeace has really run out of things to complain about. Have fun fueling a steel mill with your solar/wind power. What a joke.
In 20 years we will have Fusion power clean and in exaustable. in 40 years it will be fully commercial. Britain has already demonstrated a working prototype. currently plans for a second larger prototype are being made.
Please go the Greenpeace UK site and look at the "/climate/solutions" page. There you'll see that we are not advocating renewables as a sole solution, but in conjunction with decentralised energy and energy conservation. Our current methods of electricity generation are unbelievably wasteful - 60% of the heat generated to power turbines goes straight up
the cooling towers, 3-4% more is wasted in transition.
I agree with decentralized energy generation and the beneficial use of the heat that is produced as a byproduct of electrical power production. However, I think that using atomic fission is much cleaner than using fossil fuel combustion in these smaller, distributed plants. Your advocacy of gas fired plants helps to continue the dominance and prosperity of fossil fuel companies.
Almost 70% of the heat generated by nuclear plants is harnessed by the generators, as the unit's are completely sealed and cooling only occurs if the temperature goes beyond a critical threshold. Unless this happens, the steam generated is pushed back into the reactor without been cooled back to liquid water.
Nuclear does not fundamentally require giant plants or long construction periods. In August 1960, the US Congress authorized funds to begin the design of the PM-3A a small reactor designed for electricity and heat production in Antarctica. In March, 1962, the plant was up and running in one of the most remote stations on earth. That's about a 18 Month project start to finish.
Thats because while a normal 1-2GigaWatt plant takes about 4 years to build start to finish, there is a 2 year liscensing battle they have to fight, and then they are usually halted hundreds of times during construction and final certification by anti-nuke activists. There was probably a 1-2 year planning procedure prior to the antarctic plant.
Come ON Greenpeace, we need ideas on how to tackle the nuclear waste, not grumblings about it!
Renewables are great, but I actually own a substantial amount of shares in a renewables business, and even **I** know we need something more than simply renewables!
"this 4% will be wiped out by aviation emmisions alone"
Right, I had respect for this video, up until he said the above quote.
This guy obviously is saying "oh we don't need to bother with electricity, the 4% has obviously disappeared! And of course the 4% can't possibly increase can it? Surely not!!!
I'm a lawyer, so i'm not thick and I know I have not been brain-washed by the government, but it definitely looks like Greenpeace are trying to brainwash us!
It's sad that the absolute anti-nuclear dogma of fringe groups causes bad policy. The world needs TERAWATTS of power. It will need more in the future. Wind/Solar won't cut it. They can't ever come close
There are two ways to get that much energy effectively: Nuclear energy or burning stuff (coal/oil/gas)
We've got plenty of coal, but global warming is a danger as is.
Please put aside scare tactics and misleading information. Nuclear energy is not the whole solution, but it works.
I'm so glad that NGOs like Greenpeace exist. It's so important for citizens to challenge their governments on issues exactly like this one. Nuclear power is the exact opposite of what we need to solve the energy problem this country faces. Well done Greenpeace.
we need new nuclear power stations to meet with our energy demands. The facts in this video are very wrong. you need to look at the coal power station they are going to build at kingsnorth its a waste of money and will produce a very small amount of power with very high CO2. The problem with nuclear waste is that we haven't only just got ours but the rest of the EUs this is want happens when british companies get taken over by outsiders.
everybodylikesjames 2 years ago
strong claims... "nuclear power can't fight climate change"
Saitame 3 years ago
Only the Clean-Energy, are The True Future, Not the Nukes, your emissions on the Air, and More "incicidents colpevolize the Men's , or are Pure Fatality" , The Nuclear Power are Obsolete, Because your Instability are Severe Damage from Chernobyl and Last Implants "New Generations" The Results are Ugually: The Instability, We Wants The Nukes? The Lobbies..Not the Pleople, and the better conseguences...Cancer...and CO.Use Your MIND!
chiara54 3 years ago
Misleading. It's possible to capture heat from nuclear power station if wanted to.
MokomaSusi 3 years ago
Effectively using the heat which is currently wasted during the generating process requires decentralisation (ie more smaller plants closer to the communities which they serve). The 10 nuclear plants being proposed will all be large (1.6GW) and based on existing sites far from population centres (for obvious reasons) and so will not be able to (and are not being designed to) recycle meaningful amounts of heat to local communities - an unbelievably wasteful strategy.
GreenpeaceUK 3 years ago
@GreenpeaceUK
So, basically because you guys have blocked the development of the Nuclear Industry and forced the requirement of Fossil Fuel power stations we are now in a situation where the major nations of this planet now face a power pandemic of growing proportions.
Tell me what is worse: Dumping nuclear waste into the deepest cravas in the ocean (In hermatically sealed units) OR Building multiple fossil fuel plants and emitting a few hundred thousand tons of carbons?
Thanks
snedie69er 1 year ago
Global Warming is fiction from nuclear power, so you are stooges!
JonThm 4 years ago
Global Warming in nuclear power PR. So Greenpeace are nuclear stooges!
JonThm 4 years ago
More CO2 in the air, more life on Earth. More nuclear plants, more death on Earth! Global Warming was a newspaper title invented by NewsWeek, not sceintists.
JonThm 4 years ago
Nuclear power sounds intelligent. Sounds like greenpeace has really run out of things to complain about. Have fun fueling a steel mill with your solar/wind power. What a joke.
nolstradamus 4 years ago 4
In 20 years we will have Fusion power clean and in exaustable. in 40 years it will be fully commercial. Britain has already demonstrated a working prototype. currently plans for a second larger prototype are being made.
JLees2000uk 4 years ago
what happens when these wind turbines have to be built on the greenbelt?
Surely this is a contridiction of Greenpeace advice?
kingkingkingqueen 4 years ago
Please go the Greenpeace UK site and look at the "/climate/solutions" page. There you'll see that we are not advocating renewables as a sole solution, but in conjunction with decentralised energy and energy conservation. Our current methods of electricity generation are unbelievably wasteful - 60% of the heat generated to power turbines goes straight up
the cooling towers, 3-4% more is wasted in transition.
GreenpeaceUK 4 years ago
I agree with decentralized energy generation and the beneficial use of the heat that is produced as a byproduct of electrical power production. However, I think that using atomic fission is much cleaner than using fossil fuel combustion in these smaller, distributed plants. Your advocacy of gas fired plants helps to continue the dominance and prosperity of fossil fuel companies.
atomicrod59 4 years ago
@GreenpeaceUK
Almost 70% of the heat generated by nuclear plants is harnessed by the generators, as the unit's are completely sealed and cooling only occurs if the temperature goes beyond a critical threshold. Unless this happens, the steam generated is pushed back into the reactor without been cooled back to liquid water.
snedie69er 1 year ago
If we were energy efficient we could produce the same amount of
electricity using one third of the raw materials we currently do.
But CHP (Combined heat and power) stations need to be local.
Nuclear needs a giant centalised system and new plants take
decades to come on line - it's old style centralised "command
economy" thinking at a time when wee need to be flexible,
innovative, and above all - fast.
GreenpeaceUK 4 years ago
Nuclear does not fundamentally require giant plants or long construction periods. In August 1960, the US Congress authorized funds to begin the design of the PM-3A a small reactor designed for electricity and heat production in Antarctica. In March, 1962, the plant was up and running in one of the most remote stations on earth. That's about a 18 Month project start to finish.
atomicrod59 4 years ago 2
Thats because while a normal 1-2GigaWatt plant takes about 4 years to build start to finish, there is a 2 year liscensing battle they have to fight, and then they are usually halted hundreds of times during construction and final certification by anti-nuke activists. There was probably a 1-2 year planning procedure prior to the antarctic plant.
UKRentor1605 3 years ago
"only 4% is supplied by Nuclear power"
(Which will INCREASE thus making it better!)
Come ON Greenpeace, we need ideas on how to tackle the nuclear waste, not grumblings about it!
Renewables are great, but I actually own a substantial amount of shares in a renewables business, and even **I** know we need something more than simply renewables!
kingkingkingqueen 4 years ago
"this 4% will be wiped out by aviation emmisions alone"
Right, I had respect for this video, up until he said the above quote.
This guy obviously is saying "oh we don't need to bother with electricity, the 4% has obviously disappeared! And of course the 4% can't possibly increase can it? Surely not!!!
I'm a lawyer, so i'm not thick and I know I have not been brain-washed by the government, but it definitely looks like Greenpeace are trying to brainwash us!
kingkingkingqueen 4 years ago
It's sad that the absolute anti-nuclear dogma of fringe groups causes bad policy. The world needs TERAWATTS of power. It will need more in the future. Wind/Solar won't cut it. They can't ever come close
There are two ways to get that much energy effectively: Nuclear energy or burning stuff (coal/oil/gas)
We've got plenty of coal, but global warming is a danger as is.
Please put aside scare tactics and misleading information. Nuclear energy is not the whole solution, but it works.
DrBuzz0 4 years ago
I'm so glad that NGOs like Greenpeace exist. It's so important for citizens to challenge their governments on issues exactly like this one. Nuclear power is the exact opposite of what we need to solve the energy problem this country faces. Well done Greenpeace.
lydslikestea 4 years ago