Greenpeace and nuclear energy

[bibbyandal]

Nuclear power provides less than 4% of the UK's power? Sizewell B provides 3% on its own, Heysham 2 another 3% and thats two out of 10 operating plants. Moron

[gamble180]

There is no sciene that can make a windmill produce energy when the wind isn't blowing.

[00Billy]

Canada has lots of oil.....screw Nuclear buy Canadian. USA customers- dont worry we have the pipeline cleared and construction is underway...UK customers you need to ask the colonials nicely.

[visini14]

@00Billy Um what is the Pipeline for? Most of Canada's oil is in sands which has 170 Billion barrels of Hydrocarbons mixed in it. It is the Athabasca oil sands.

[00Billy]

@visini14

do the math....$96 USD per barrel. and the price will be up over 200 in 5 years. 600 billion in debt (Canada) ...thats 3.5% of our oil. @200/brl = 1.7%. Canada will be the last to agree to environmental restrictions. USA is our main addict.

Imagine the beer store connected direct feed pipes into heavy drinkers houses.

[memk]

MORE Wind farm huh? ok, let those guys win and see what'll happen when wind energy supply 80% of our PLANET's energy demand.

And if you still dont get it please google "Conservation of energy". Even if the ultra SF version of "Green windfarm" have 100% energy convertion rate, energy still lost when you take energy to do work(that's WHY you have those farm right?), all this makes wind SLOWER, and shit WILL happen.

Oh, please dont do that within this 100 year, I don't wanna live in that world.

[EddGrimes]

Nuclear sourced energy is now not classed as a clean way of creating electricity from the UN

[EugeneLancelot]

so how does radiation affect people? How does a nuclear plant work? What safety mechanisms do they have in place to prevent accidents? What maintenance is done to ensure everything works properly? What material do we use as fuel and what happens in the nuclear reaction? How do we get energy from it? What does the "waste" consist of? How do we control the reactors power when it is critical? What does it mean when the reactor is critical? I would like these answered by a greenpeace person please

[captinseperoth]

why do we bury it on land, WHY"?

We could -un-obliviously got out thousands of miles into deep sea

after we get there we send highly over engineered casks

( bundles of spent fuel,in rods form are put in casks or xtreamly built and

engineered containers )

and sink those casks into the deepest parts of oceans,on areas known as subduction zones.

These zones are where the massive tectonic plates of the crust sink under each other.

over time the waste will be adsorbed into crust!

[RightRocks]

In the words of Richard Dawkins - 'He is suffering from a delusion'.

[Malusregnum]

Ha, Nuclear fussion? soon we shall have Nuclear Fusion and our energy troubles will be a thing of the past. ALL HAIL NUCLEAR FUSION.

[AussiePolitics]

@Malusregnum mate there's a joke amongst physicists that nuclear fusion is always 20 years away. they've been saying it for more than half a century. dont get me wrong, nuclear fusion would be the most freaking awesome thing for the planet and humanity in a long time, but we've got to be practical. i hope it does work, but at the end of the day, when you heat atoms up as hot as the sun, then contain it, its difficult to get more energy out of the reaction then you put in.

[Starpremie]

Guys, re-educate yourselves by reading ‘Atomic Suicide?’ by Dr Walter and Lao Russell; then come back with your arguments. I’m already convinced. This is serious stuff. If you don’t want to see it, shame on you.

[Starpremie]

These pro nukers try to intimidate the no nukers because they are not strong on science. No nukers are very strong on COMMON SENSE, where pro nukers are just foolish & ignorant of universal law. They need to de-educate themselves and balance their thinking. If the issue were not so serious, they would be very entertaining and humerous to listen too. I'm grateful, I am aware of how futile this energy source is. Too bad it will take a long, long time for these.......s to figure it out.

[Mypagedamit]

@Starpremie "No nukers are very strong on COMMON SENSE," When trying to explain something as complex as nuclear industry with common sense. You are indeed making a terrible mistake.

"They need to de-educate themselves and balance their thinking." And become stupid? Is that what you are sugesting? For us all to become simple minded pot smoking hippies like the whole greenpeace propaganda? May god help you. Or if there is a god.

[brianng999]

@Starpremie Yea...so we should use common sense instead of science when we send people into space or when building 30 floor apartment buildings....very enlightened you are. 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.

[duck24x]

Greenpeace has proposed solutions for decades, but media and big governments have denied them a voice.

Solar, wind, geotheormal and reduction in consumption.

Other groups propose MORE, such as mandatory reduction in population.

Irresponsible anti-environmentalists simply don't like to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.

[duck24x]

This "interviewer" is a fucking obsessed douche, clearly anti-Greenpeace in his agenda, allowing the pro-nuclear person to speak, while talking over the Greenpeace person and refusing to let them discuss Greenpeace's plans in details, instead asking the Greenpeace guy bullshit loaded "generalities" about science.

[bimmjim]

The nuclear industry presents fake commercial science to the public. The fact that they can't get insurance proves that the risk calculations on nuclear plants don't work. I did metallurgy on parts for N-reacters and as a result of what I learned, I don't want to live on the same planet with nuclear reactors.

[cragwolf]

Nice to hear someone from Greenpeace admit that it's not about the science. For Greenpeace, it has always been about the spreading the dogma. Nuclear power is the greatest technological invention in the history of mankind, and the fact that it is not the primary source of electricity for the entire globe is clear evidence of the emotional immaturity of our civilisation.

[ronaldvanbell]

I once donated money to them, but after finding out about their lies, like man made global warming, opposition to nuclear energy - I realized that in the top there are nothing more than a political group with political agenda. someone is pulling the strings behind that group, and he is agenda.

[fishontuesday]

its true he didn't get to talk. However Greenpeace really needs to update its policies! its not the 70's ppl! Nuclear plants are safe now!

[Elboxo123]

the interviewers are such arses!! they don't let Charlle Kronick talk at all!

[QuarereAude]

This "interview" was a perfect example of how to set up and then shoot down an opposing argument. Of course, I didn't hear any argument because the Greenpeace representative was not allowed to speak.

[hiraku0n]

"There is no science that deals with the issue of nuclear waste..."?

Nuclear waste is processed all the time. If he's asking for "no radiactivity" from waste - simply ridiculous. Everything has some level of radioactivity, including him.

Greenpeace only proposes ideas, never solutions. Certainly, ideas are welcomed but they should not claim them to be solutions. IF Greenpeace proposed solutions, it would be made up of scientists and engineers, not activists.

[BeondaPale]

Fact: nuclear waste MUST be stored for thousands of years.

What science exists that can extrapolate that far into the future?

[mkarnerfors]

"What science exists that can extrapolate that far into the future?"

The planet itself. Is an experiment of 1700 million years be enough for you?

In Oklo, Gabon, Africa, 1.7 billion years ago there was a natural fission reactor due to a very high concentration of uranium ore in one place. This ran for a few hundred thousand years. Examinations of this site showed what happened to the dangerous actinides.

The verdict was clear: they didn't move at all. They bind to rock very hard.

[mkarnerfors]

Besides it is not a fact that nuclear waste must be stored for thousands of years.

In the old, ineffiecient fuel cycles we are using today, yes, then it's true. But concidering that those cycles have a horrendously poor burn-up rate, we're talking less than 5%, we will not use those much longer.

In Generation IV reactors, fast breeders, you can get a theoretical burn-up of more than 90-95%. The upshot of this is that the danger-time for the spent fuel is only about 500 years.

[mkarnerfors]

What Giles Chichester is saying here in the video relates to what I said about the Oklo site. He says: "The finns and the swedes are already setting about doing it one way...".

What he is talking about here is the Swedish deep geological storage method: KBS-3. This draws on science done at natural nuclear fission reactors at Oklo. Oklo proved the extreme affinity that nuclear waste has for ordinary rock. That alone is actually enough. But KBS-3 expands this and adds 4 additional barriers.

[bimmjim]

Here are some sources for you:

Scientific American magazine, issue Jan 2008 article on storing solar energy.

Go to Stanford University, find department of civil and environmental engineering. There you will find a guy named Jacobson. He has done some great research on wind energy.

He says that there is enough wind energy, easily available in the U.S. to provide 7 times the U.S.'s present energy needs.

Check out these good sources of information and stop reading crap.

[juscurious]

University Campuses are the chief repository of fools and buffoons, even prestigious schools like Stanford. There is no feasible way to store energy from wind farms and solar facilites and hence these sources of energy can on provide a very small amount of the energy we require. And they do nothing at all for transportation fuels. We must have Nuclear Power and in a big way if we are to have any future in this country. Wind and Solar are for fools and buffoons.

[BeondaPale]

Gee, I wonder where ALL NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS come from. Oh, that's right, University Campuses - the chief repository of fools and buffoons.

Shoot yourself in your own foot and destroy your own credibility why don't you?

[juscurious]

You need to learn logic. University Campuses are repositories of fools and buffoons. Ever hear of Timothy Leary or Ward Curchill? This is not to say that everyone on a college campus is a fool or a buffoon. The only place a fool or buffoon could survive is on a college campus. This is especially true if you have tenure. These folks are mostly in the liberal arts departments.I know this to be a fact, I spent 6 years on two college campuses earning two engineering degrees. I know of what I speak.

[BeondaPale]

"There is no feasible way to store energy from wind farms and solar facilites (sic) and hence these sources of energy can on (sic) provide a very small amount of the energy we require."

1st look up the word feasible, then 2nd look up "vanadium redox flow cell" technology and see if it doesn't fit the definition.

So, YOU spent a lot of time on a college campus yourself, which means logically that there is no possibility that YOU are a fool or a buffoon, right?

[juscurious]

You need to look up Rube Goldberg. And also tell me where this wonderful Vanadium redox flow cell technology is being used today even on an experimental basis? Give me some examples. You can do just about anything in a labratory but when it comes to the real world that's a different story.

[BeondaPale]

You said it wasn't feasible. It is now being manufactured in Japan by Sumitomo Electric Industries and is being exported around the world. Sorry about your little problem with reality.

You speak of Rube Goldberg when you favor highly subsidized nuclear power which requires triple fail safes, a serious security regime, and specially designed containers to store waste for 1000's of years?

Meanwhile green energy solutions like the Bulge Wave Anaconda are the very model of simplicity.

[mkarnerfors]

Mark Jacobson is a douche because he is abusing people's trust in science to try to paint wind power as the silver bullet that fixes everything while flinging mud at everything else. For instance: in the balance sheet against nuclear power, he throws in the cost of nuclear world war(!), for no reason at all!

It's bullshit and his LCAs are not dependable, because he decided already before he started what result he wanted.

[bimmjim]

Most large electrical energy grids now operating have a mixture of different sources.

eg:Hydro, fossil fuel, nuclear, wind, solar etc. As you add more of the intermittent types like wind, solar, tidal they will tend to fill in the gaps of the other types. This is working now, to some extent, in Europe and North America. At this time we should be proceeding in the direction of renewable natural energy.

[bimmjim]

The real science is in the risk calculations. When you calculate the down side of the risk of the next chernobyl you can see that nuclear power cannot work.

[sourcerror]

Demagogue.

[braddockakalatis]

3,000 deaths in 51 years is good enough for me. GO NUCLEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pouyo3]

You couldn't be more wrong. Chernobyl didn't have reactor shielding or safety precautions in use today. Nuclear power is very safe.

[sottese]

r u joking!?!? chernobyl was a shity power plant doomed to fail that is why we rejected the design

[darthkill1]

looks like greenpeace just got owned

[Lilacsspriter]

Its not unusual for GP to be pwn'd.

[warchild81]

Greenpeace is just a fundamentalist religion at this point. Where is the rest of this interview?

[dwight2121]

Greenpeace can just go back and live in the caveman days and we will continue to use nuclear power.

[lisaannstiles]

Greenpeace's Kronick finally admits what most people have suspected for years In response to the question "Is there any science that could convince you that nuclear power should be part of the mix?" He says, "Well, I don't think science is what you should be looking at." Priceless

[warchild81]

Of course, because Greenpeace is a religion.

[damiwri1975]

Nuclear energy is not a viable option because:

1)Too expensive. A nuclear plant has a lifespan of 20 years, it costs billions to build, billions to maintain, and billions to protect. Not to mention the costs of getting the uranium and the costs of transporting and safeguarding the waste.

2)Inherently dangerous. Every nation that has nuclear plants also has the base material for building nuclear weapons.

3)Not clean. Almost all the nuclear waste is radioactive for 250.000 years.

[batukhan]

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR FACTS!? It's astounding, the kind of ignorance you hippies demonstrate.

It would be 5x more expensive for Estonia (where i come from) to invest in wind turbines, than in nuclear plants. I'm not saying wind power is bad, but it's just not worth it. Besides, nuclear power is safe and clean, tried and tested.

[GreenpeaceNederland]

Because most of the investments in nuclear energy come from your (and my) governement, that is your tax payment, you can check almost all the costs publicly. Only the startup costs of windturbines are more or less expensive. After that a minor amount will sufice for more than 100 years. And the most beautiful of all: YOU can control your energy production, because it can be decentralized...think about that for a while.

[sourcerror]

You can control! Lol! What if the wind doesn't blow? Sorry folks, turn off your computer !?

[milofonbil]

Just a couple questions for you Batukhan:

1) For how many dollars per kWh can you build a 1 GWe nuclear plant in Estonia? How many dollars per kWh to build a 2 MWe wind turbine?

2) How much are your total operating costs for the nuclear power plant, including fuel? How much are the total operating costs for the wind turbines?

Wind turbines are much safer (I've never heard of cancer from a broken wind turbine), cleaner (I have yet to see waste from a wind turbine), and tested - they work.

[NorskeDivision]

Many people have died in the construction of nuclear power plants. Over fifty in Germany.

Wind power is an expensive part of the solution, but isn't dependable for much over 20% of grid capacity. Texas has a mere 3% of capacity from Wind and already has major grid instability.

Operating costs for nuclear are negligible compared to any other base load power source, outside of Hydro (which has no place in Estonia).

[NorskeDivision]

Well said. It's simply disgusting that people in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands posting here still fail to understand that they are no longer the emperors of Europe. They have no place dictating to Estonia what your energy policy should be. Estonia is a proud independent country with an intelligent populace. The days of the "great powers" treating smaller nations like slaves are at an end, it's just too bad that some people have failed to realize this.

[jh5kl]

@batukhan in opposite to "ignorance" calling "safe and clean" something you cannot go near and cannot be exposed to, is veeeeery clever. about wind power... well renewable is not wind, you have alot to choose from. since you are so certain about wind vs nuclear bills in Estonia and you are so certain it does not compensate.

[hotFusionReaction]

Indeed

[powerhawk56]

here here

[andresfusion]

Great video, you should posted as a response to all those bogus greenpeace videos.