i like how people with no idea claim they no what is right. Wind power is bad for the grid, its power is limited to about 10% of the countries power. They cost loads, and push the price way up. Also what happens if the wind dies down. Or its cloudy (for PV). The only way its being built now, is because of the government funding it. With out these funds they loose money. Nuclear is potentially dangerous, but it is so much more efficient than renewables, if its managed correctly.
offshore wind farms do jack all - relative to the demand for energy the inconsistency of them is ridiculous and its useless. most other renewables are also unreliable: tidal and wave require so much more research and development. hydroelectric power or nuclear are the only REAL solutions. solar is currently to expensive, hopefully advancements will be made soon. wind is not a short term solution, its a joke. we can adapt to global warming. global cooling will screw us over.
"2 million cubic meters of nuclear waste" this is very misleading, the spent fuel from all of the UK's power plants if operated until their expected closing would be less than 40,000 cubic meters total.
Hmm Since country which are located near equator use very little energy for heat due to hot weather throughtout the years, does that it country like singapore very clean?
the us should do this quick spending so much money on war and greed and start making renewable power, we brag that we are rich so lets do something who agress?
Renewable energy is the way of the future, and has huge business potential. We are creating leaders in the field of green energy every day. If you have the spirit and mindset to get out in the world and educate people about renewable energy, you have unlimited potential in this field.
Unlike water, the supply of wind is limitless. This is already an assurance that it will never run out of supply. So, wind power is dependable in a long term basis. With this reason alone, some countries have decided to use wind energy as their stable substitute for generators or energy source. Since, it was already proven that wind turbines are effective source of electricity, many became aware of it and started to set up their own wind turbines at home.
So would the no reactors being built in the western world except for the one in Finland not include the two CANDU reactors being built in Ontario, Canada or the one being built in Flamanville, France.
I also like how the statement is qualified to be the western world only, so that rules out the ones in Argentinia, Bulgaria, China, India, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea or Taiwan.
The way forward is not wind, tide or for that matter the sun. Why?. All of them have problems. Wind turbines fuck up birds and look ugly. Tide mucks up shoreline environments. Sun and wind are inconsistence and that makes planning a pain. The way forward is hot rock and thermal exchange units. Both are reliable and provide consistent and predictable power output. So why are we not using them? Simple they are ethnology’s that are in the hands of the oil guys.
@tina6581 this is because geothermal plant can only be build in area close to the underground magma. On the other hand, newer wind turbine kill lesser bird and look nicer(vertical axis windmill) if I not wrong tidal turbine does not muck up shoreline environment since most of them are build close to the land furthernore, it not weather dependence since we have a change of tide everyday. As for sun and wind, the excess energy can be store using rechargable battery.
A great example of nucular power is France where 75% of its electricity comes from nuclear power. Because of this, France “is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity” and has one of the lowest prices of electricity in all of Europe. In addition, nuclear power’s “safety record is also exemplary. If we turn out like this, our electricity prices will fall, heating prices, car recharge prices ect. this benifit us greatly. The reason why we dont build them now is because of videos like this.
Also, the Wind Power will also only play a tiny role in england... Right now, they only cover 5% of the countryside. I hate the way this video disapproves nucular. Hopefully in 50 years time, we will go nucular because then it will play a huge role in Brittan.
Well, if you look at it a certain way wind power is bad. Wind moves the propellers right? right. well when things interacts with each other in such a way energy is exchanged, look at the fundamental laws of physics. Essentially kinetic energy is being transferred from the wind to move the propellers and is robbing it of its heat and movement disrupting the environment, possibly weather patterns, etc. when there are enough of these, like these wind turbine farms for example.
Let's just address one of many gross factual errors:
=already we are stuck with more than 2 million cubic metres of nuclear waste=
At the time this video was posted the UK total inventory was actually less than 0.3Mn cubic metres, inc 0.2Mn cubic metres of LLW which is mostly stuff that's not even radioactive but merely common trash from establishments with nuclear materials on site. Only 0.0017Mn cubic metres was HLW.
The UK radioactive waste inventory is published on the NDA website.
You are into energy ! I have an energy invention that is not fully exploited.
Please look and read at my site. good luck. It is about > Torque with liquid, wave pool on top of upside down triangle/pyramid crank & or with wind of a sail.
Thank you, good luck, > it is something that needs serious exploiting.
We should focus our effort on phasing out coal mining and burning. Nuclear can help in this by providing a mature base-load technology. 3rd and 4th gen reactors are clean and safe - even running off current waste stockpiles
If we demonise nuclear, we risk condemning ourselves to continued fossil fuel use while we wait for other clean technologies to mature
The claim that we can get all of our energy from Renewables is an absolute fantasy. The Royal Academy of Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have both found that energy plans without Nuclear are infeasible.
Many of Environmentalists from all around the world are waking up on the Nuclear Issue. George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, James Lovelock, Stephen Tindale, and Chris Goodall have all come around on the issue, and many more around the world. Are they all misguided?
@RightRocks Did you watch the film? When did they claim we would get all our energy from renewarbles? Do you mean electricity? (they didn't claim that either, but its closer!)
@nd017 I did watch the film, but your right, they dont claim that we can get all our energy (or electricity) through renewables.
What I found hugely shocking was that GP are advocating continued fossil fuel use over NP. I assume they are suggesting the use of gas over Coal for the CHP systems, but this according to the IPCC and others, would result in only marginal emissions savings. I would take NP (largely carbon free) over what essentially amounts to business as usual emissions, any day.
@RightRocks I suppose they are trying to weigh up the effect of a warming planet verses a radioactive one. I can see some sense in what you are saying, but it seems a poor choice to have to make - our warming our planet a bit more in the short term or having radioactive pollutants around in the very long term... A very tricky choice.
No amount of Nuclear waste could match the radioactivity of the natural world (which is decaying faster than we could ever increase it).
I used to worry about the Nuclear waste very much, but then I learned that what we now called 'Waste' will actually be used as fuel for the next generation of reactors. Read about 'Fast' Reactors and Accelerator Driven systems. Rather than being a burden on our descendants, future generations may actually depend on it as their energy source.
@RightRocks Apart from the sun, which is very far away, what natural radioactivity is there at dangerous levels of waste from NP? I say this as someone who lives in a granite house!
These reactors wont actually make the material less radioactive, will they? The next generation and the next thousand odd generations after that will still be picking up the tab. Not sold yet - convince me.
@RightRocks I suppose my main problem is that nuclear waste planning extends now to 100 years, while the waste remains hazardous for (worst case scenario) 1,000,000 years. A bit of a discrepancy.
Spent fuel from a modern reactor will have a radiotoxicity similar to uranium ore after around 1000 years. If what are called 'actinides' (elements heavier than uranium) are extracted from the spent fuel and used separately (maybe in a fast reactor as I mentioned earlier), this time scale drops to around 200 or 300 years. Theres no reason why we couldn't safely store such waste underground for either of those timescales
@RightRocks If that where true (need to look it up somewhere reliable) I can imagine safe deposition for 200-300 years - 1000 is really pushing it. 1000 years ago here was the dark ages with almost no texts surviving, and 1000 before that Rome had been driven back from these shores by Iron Age Celts. A quick look on Wikipedia suggests cancer risks from uranium ore. I do understand that the water is muddied by the outrageous risks taken in the early days of NP and NW.
@nd017 I understand what you are saying on the Nuclear Waste thing, and its a very valid and important point. If we don't bury it underground, there is a risk. However, even if society collapsed tomorrow, I'm not sure what our descendants could do with spent, maliciously or accidentally that would cause widespread harm. Its naturally well contained, largely insoluble, and extremely heavy.
@RightRocks 200 -300 years after 300 AD (when Rome prospered in Britain) there where viking and Saxon pirates raiding a country without central government. 200 - 300 years after the English Civil War where mining of coal was almost exclusively on the surface came the industrial revaluation and deep shaft mining. I still think the 200-300 year gap is just bout tenable, but it is not guaranteed safe - the future is unknown (though probably safer than the real and known pollution from coal etc.)
@nd017 Equivalent doses for spent fuel are compared to Uranium ore for a good reason. If they can be stored for the time it takes to decay to the ore level, then they will contribute no greater risk than if they had never been dug up in the first place.
Keep up the sceptical inquiry. Read everything you can find on the issue, for and against.
@RightRocks There is an interesting article at environmentalresearchweb . org suggesting that the energy in to energy out ratio is currently quite poor for nuclear when compared to renewables (even solar) and only stands to get worse in the long term - not ruling it out for now, but saying it is quite a poor choice and definitely not a long term one...
@nd017 There's an excellent article on Nuclear waste in the latest issue of Nature. Search their website for 'France digs deep for nuclear waste'. It wont let me post a link for some reason.
Also, I'm trying to add you as a friend, as you seem like a genuinely open minded and intelligent person. I can't seem to figure out where the button is though to send a request.
@RightRocks I will try to find that Nature article - I just read George Monbiot's guardian piece - interesting, and has shifted me further into the the uncertainty zone! A number of important points where raised in the comments section, including the intertwining of NP and weapons, as well as the difficulty of firing up and down NP plants quickly and economically, and the possibility it might stifle the use of many smaller scale generators which could be both safer and more stable...
@nd017 Google 'France digs deep for Nuclear waste nature'
Yeah, read all of Monbiots stuff on Nuclear Power, check his blog. I haven't found a commentator more unbiased by ideology and clear minded than him, he was a large part of my 'conversion' on Nuclear power.
He has also debunked many wild claims about 'localised generation' on his blog and in his book 'Heat' which I'd massively recommend.
@nd017 In the early days, NPPs were designed and built for producing plutonium, and the electricity was just a nice by product. They were kept on a short cycle so that the plutonium was as pure as possible. Today, reactors are run on long, far more economical cycles, meaning the plutonium is not 'weapons grade'.
Its unclear if you could make a bomb out of that stuff, but I don't think a government would bother when they could make much better stuff without a commercial plant.
@RightRocks The Nature article was interesting. It does appear to be a fairly safe way to store the waste - the article also made it fairly clear how dangerous some of the stuff was. I am still a little concerned about it - BP claimed the gulf of Mexico oil rig had seven different safety features that should have prevented a blow out, but it still did - things like this will always be a gamble.
@nd017 I agree with you, it is a gamble, and easily the strongest case against nuclear power. I'm not sure which country you are from, but here in UK, its not going to make a huge difference to the waste problem if we build more NPP or not. We have loads of waste here built up over the last 50 years, and making a repository a bit bigger to encompass this new waste will have a marginal effect on the cost.
AL GORE is a RAPIST-he raped a massage therapist in NY; AL GORE views himself as ROMAN Cesar Tiberius-whom decried in 14 BC"The whole world shall pay ME taxes or be killed!" AL GORE-wants to carbon CAP & TAX the whole world so he can steal $Billions. AL GORE has three $8 Million house like King Tiberius whom had a palace in ROME,palace in Constantinople,& palace in Antioch. ALL HAIL EMPEROR AL GORE-KING of RAPE! WHY did Tipper Leave you? Tell you Reps your AGAINST paying $Billions to RAPIST!
Both Labour and the conservatives are for Nuclear power planning to build new and expand existing power plants in the uk with two planned in somerset. Take a look at this short film from green peace.... Then Remember only the Lib Dem's are going to stop building, shut them down and use renewable power.
The UK as a percentage of global CO2 production, are a drop in the ocean compared to the US and China. The problem with green energy is it is expensive We will be broke as a nation if we attempt to follow everything in this video. I don't disagree with the concept but unfortunately it is aimed at the wrong audience. The super economic energy user's must pioneer these concepts. They can afford it and will make the difference as to it working. Many of these concepts are flawed and have problems.
It's all well and good saying nuclear energy is bad but without a real alternative it has to be seen as an option. Windfarms are not a real solution as they require backup powerplants run on fossil fuels when there is no wind, they also cannot run in very high winds. More research needs to go into using wave energy as it is a new technology. As fossil fuels are running out nuclear is going to become more and more important in providing energy.
I can't believe such a large organisation as this can be so blatantly dishonest about the energy generation capacity of renewable sources. These environmentalist groups opposing nuclear power just for the sake of it are doing their best to keep us burning coal and gas instead, it just amazes me that so many intelligent people can be so short sighted.
Ok, so let me see if I can work out what you've done there. Hmm, yes, you've put two unrelated things together and, by cunningly addin an equals sign, made them appear to be directly linked to each other.
That's just genius, Glen Beck (not to mention Sean Hannity) would be proud.
Can I have a go? Let's see, ok here goes:
US Republican party = bunch of comlete tossers = dim facist fuckwits.
Totally agree with talkingbookworms comments...The people had a voice up till the late 1970s when the Union movement lost the plot and went to far with strike action, allowing Margerat Thatcher to come to power. This new era was built on the US model of house prices and market forces, giving people a false sense of personal power. This divide and conquer approach is still evident today...Unity of the masses has been replaced with Must Haves and Celebrity...We must realize people have power..
There IS a cleaner, more sensible and cheaper solution at hand, so close and blatantly obvious, as this video demonstrates. Yet the UK goes down the most expensive, most stupid and backward thinking path of nuclear power which couldnt be more in-efficient and wasteful.
Those in power making these decisions should be imprisoned for such mal-decision and short-sightedness and not rewarded by the profits they get from the shares they own in the nuclear industry !
Er, the point is that nuclear has had over £70 billion invested in it over the past 30 years, and renewable energy around £1 billion. We've wasted billions of pounds already on nuclear energy, largely for political purposes (to keep a seat on the UN Security council) - had we spent a similar amount on renewables (including wind, wave and solar) we'd have taken a significant step on the road to being self-sufficient by now, and started to wean ourselves off climate wrecking fossil fuels.
I downloaded an extended version of this video, with some great examples of what our European neighbours are doing with CHP multi-fuel plants + renewables. If the figures for energy efficiency are to be believed, and surely they are, then clearly the UK should be going down the same -proven- decentralised CHP pathway. A small power plant in every town, capable of using many sources of fuel, topped up with solar and wind where applicable + offshore tidal, wave and wind. That`s the way forward.
Do you have a single peace of evidence to back up the claim that 'If we had spent a similar amount on renewables, we would be well on our way to self-sufficiency'
Germany has spent 60Bn Euros over the last decade on Feed-in-Tariffs for Solar, yet still produces around 1% of its electricity from this source. Denmark Has aggressively pursued Wind power since the 1970's, yet it gets 24% of its electricity.
@GreenpeaceUK Hmmm how reliable is renewable energy though? we'd need to use a lot of renewable energy sources to buffer any power shortages (for example the sun does not always shine). When they say renewable energy produces double that of nuclear, is this using average power or peak power produced. Generally its difficult to get peak energy from renewable energy sources. IMO i think diversity is key.
Governments need to invest money into putting up hydro energy generation centers in places with long shore lines (UK, Spain, Portugal, Sweden etc)
In countries where there is a lot of sun and wind - put solar panels and wind farms. Put solar panels on buildings. Properly insulate old building to conserve energy. Force stricter emissions and energy usage standards. It can be done - except the Gov'ts can't be bothered to do it
Governments can't be bothered because there aren't votes in it, it would result in large costs in the short-term (which would lose votes), and would reduce their tax revenues in the long-term
I currently live in the Canton of Basel, in Switzerland, where 98% of electricity comes from hydro. Another 1.4% comes from solar, with just 0.4% coming from an unknown source. Hence this comment is 99.6% green. That`s amazing methinks. The UK still is the Dirty Old Man of Europe. And you don`t have real democracy there neither, with which to speak out against the wrong decisions being made. The only say you have is who is going to dictate to you, the need for nuclear and more runways.
That's very good in Swizerland when you have hundreds of mountains and a very tiny population and look after everyones stolen Billions, more should be done here i agree and have done for 30 years.
Lol, what has money got to do with it? You point out that mountains and a small population are the main reasons why (parts of) Switzerland can be green, in terms of energy. That's true. However, the money comment sounds like you have issues? Is this the time and place to raise them?
there is so much that can be done to generate "greener" electricity - solar, wind farms, tidal power - there is huge potential potential in "green" technologies
I said "the Canton of Basel", not Switzerland as a whole. Switzerland has 5 nuclear power plants, so of course they will add a big slice of the energy pie. But in the Canton of Basel, the figures I gave are not far off (I was a tad wrong). But Basel aims for 100% renewables in the near future.
Then I apologise. However as you likely operate with a national grid it is impossible to tell where your electricity comes from, it is simply pumped in from all the sources which likely includes imports of French nuclear energy.
Yes, I think between 4-10% of Basel's energy comes from France, and is stated as unknown origin, which does probably mean nuclear. I have nothing against nuclear power per se. I just think other avenue should be tried first, simply because of the cost and timescale involved managing the waste products from nuclear.
I hope your country has the time to do so. In the UK we are already going to have power shortages within the decade because the government has dithered about with limited green energy sources while nuclear plants have been left under a pile of environmentalist planning objections. Even with a new generation of reactors being approved and short-listed we are still going to have power shortages for a generation!
@DarthTanner Somehow not so terrified by the odd power shortage as another Chernobyl... In 2006 there where still 359 farms in Wales where you couldn't eat the sheep because of Chernobyl...
Chernobyl was a essentially a plutonium factory with no safety equipment, ran in a despotic regime. Comparing it to a modern day commercial reactor is like comparing the Hindenburg to a 747. The worst we could expect with a NP in the west today, is another Three Mile Island incident - from which there were no fatalities. Even a TMI type incident is enormously unlikely with more modern plant design.
@RightRocks The irony is I suppose that the area around Chernobyl is now a wildlife haven - no amount of radiation can counter the destruction of having 21st century humans present... The counter to your argument is that there is waste from NP which does remain toxic for over a million years - no civilization can dare to dream it will remain stable that long. Look at Europe and WW1. Using the seven generations principle it is too likely to risk. 747s have crashed and killed everyone.
WTF is it with you people with this BS about the stone age! WTF do you think COAL is? (or uranium for that matter). There are ways of getting more than we will ever need from renewable sources!
we could cut 1/3rd of ALL USE just by having energy efficient products & good insulation etc! A bit like Americans & their gas guzzlers when you can do it just as well with a smaller engine (in fact better)! Or more to the point... you could do it with an electric engine running on renewable energy!
The ONLY REASON nuclear power is being talked up again is because all the old cold-war nuclear weapons are coming to the end of their shelf life & the only way to dispose of them is to build new ones & for that you need a nuclear industry! Its all about weapons and it always WAS!
The electricity costs well in excess of renewables! & should they ever use those weapons it would be a total crime against humanity!
Nukes will send us back to the stone age quicker than anything!
One problem I have with "renewables" is that the wind/solar/tide/waves are doing work and moving energy around the planet. Has anyone thought of what stealing all that energy is going to do? That wind is doing something and now that something won't be done. Same thing with tide and waves. Maybe moving that water around is really important to the ocean and climate stability. Look at the damage dams have cost. Entire ecosystems destroyed creating gigantic lakes where plants & animals used to live.
Not to mention the sediment that the river used to leave on the banks when it flooded every year and gave us good soil. Now all that sediment is behind the dam and the water now REMOVES sediment from the river banks and erodes. Not to mention that none of this is possible without fossil fuels. Try to mine metal ore without diesel fuel, plastics are made from oil, the devices are shipped with FF cement is made from FF burning devices and it's heavy, more FF to move and mix it. We need liquid fuel
christo.. you can make plastics from any complex oil.. try HEMP for starters! Ford was going to make his first model T with plastics made from hemp & it was going to run on bio-deisel from hemp too!
The effect of the wind won't be troubled by a few windmills.. honest! Worry about sky-scrapers if you must worry about that.. lol
Yes tidal needs to be planned well not just some monstrous barrage.. lagoons are better!
There are less polluting, more sustainable alternatives.. & there always were!
christo... so what about taking all that energy that was stored underground as solids (coal) and putting it in the atmosphere in the form of gasses, soot & heat? Don't you think that's MORE dangerous than using the energy like wind & wave that is already there? Nothing is created or destroyed... it just 'changes' form... but to take carbon that has been 'sequestered' by nature & to 'reverse' THAT is really playing with unknowns.
What if there were so many windmills in Canada that there was a sizable reduction in the amount of arctic air that comes down into the US? That would warm our local climate considerably. It might turn out to be total BS, but I would like to hear a climate specialist say that windmills could not change local climates. Just think, it's the winds over the north atlantic gulf stream that keep europe warm. What if there were a reduction in that wind? What would happen to the UK?
Really the dumb crap some people come up with astounds me sometimes! Digging up all those tar sands in Canada will do a million times more damage to any arctic air, that a million wind turbines covering the lanscape could ever ever ever do!!
Really dude you've gotta come up with something that's at least slightly plausible... climate change denier grasping at straws comes to mind!
Yes... you're talking total BS! And ANY real climate scientist would tell you so.
You are singing to the choir here! I believe we are very near or past peak production of traditional oil and am 100% against the tar sands. The EROEI is so low and the environmental cost so high, they are not worth it. IAE, wind is not nearly as "friendly" as you think. Wind kills wildlife, causes human health problems, it's ugly, annoying and intermittent.
I am asking "what would millions of windmills do to the climate?" That's all. For all I know, climate is driven in the stratosphere.
I am not a climate skeptic, that is because I am not a scientist and I don't know. Nobody predicted the human health problems of windmills, the strobing and noise. Maybe it's not such a great idea to build millions of these things and see what happens. Maybe we should do proper studies of other consequences. The intermittent nature of wind is a problem for power generation. Search for windmill problems and you will se what I mean. I like desert grown algae and solar (heat) electric.
also with 'renewable' energy its not just about one thing or another. Its about having a MIX of renewables.
The wind blows when there are cyclonic weather patterns and its less likely to do so with a big anti-cyclones. But of course the SUN shines when we get anti-cyclones so thats a good time to have your solar panels. Just those two renewables would cover most of the year!
With 6 billion people making a LITTLE power it soon adds up!
Saving it is also important! Insulation & efficient products!
Many of the problems you state about windmills (strobing & noise) can be dealt with by better engineering & putting the big ones in remote areas. Also have you seen designs for VORT (vertically oriented) windmills? Excellent innovation & scaleable so they can fit on rooftops without looking like anything much more than another chimneypot. Highly efficient too!
/watch?v=WZ5kX5Yw4eY
/watch?v=Vyvf7iyi-wM
Solar water heaters & ground heat could be exploited MUCH more too!
actually the climate 'driven' by several factors... oceanic currents, the jet stream (in the stratosphere) forests even play a part in transferring water from one side of S.America to the other etc etc... lots and lots of factors, which is why climate science is so very difficult to be 100% accurate about. However trends can be spotted and the models improve every year.
One thing I can assure you 1000% that windmills will NOT have a detrimental effect on climate because they 'trap' the energy.
I know about the jetstream and the gulf stream (ocean), my question isn't about "trapping energy", so much as interfering with energy transfers via the wind and the effect on LOCAL climates. For example, it is wind (blowing over the gulfstream) that warms northern europe. Scientists are very worried about that right now because of the fresh water in the sink zone (which drives the pump) that has been generated by melting ice. The wind transfers that heat to europe, what if that wind wasn't there
obviously, we won't build a million wind mills over night so hopefully we will catch the problems before it's large scale. None of this produces liquid fuels which is another problem. PV is a waste, but solar thermal electric is good. Passive solar building combined with solar assited heat and water (with some goethermal to boot) might all combine to save a lot of energy. But Wind mills should be studied further before large scale output. Nuclear breeder reactors could help a great deal.
Nukes are a (highly toxic) DEAD end! We haven't disposed of the toxic waste from the 50's & 60's yet! And you want to start up FAST BREEDERS!? That's the sort of madness that prevented 'renewables' advancing before! Nukes prevent the money being spent on clean safe renewable alternatives!
Look up Tesla electric car on YT! Why do you need liquid fuel when you can have rechargeable batteries? Battery technology has advanced amazingly in the past 10 years! As has 'nano-SOLAR'! Look that up too ;-)
These batteries are not environmentally friendly are very inefficient. Even the best battery technology isn't going to give a very good range. Then there is the problem of charging them. They are totally useless in cities (which is where they do the most good) because most city dwellers don't have a garage or driveway and park too far from their house. What about planes? A replacement liquid fuel is needed and I think desert or ocean grown algae is the answer. Electric trains and busses are good
Lithium batteries are very prone to failure from overcharging and they fail spectacularly. They can catch fire quite easily (worst) and can be ruined (best) if over-chaged, so if the OC protection circuit fails... They are expensive but relatively easy to recycle. How much energy goes into making them? Algae is a fuel SOURCE, batteries are NOT.
Trolleys subways and trains need regenerative braking and better aerodynamics. The subway cars have a large flat rectangular front, terribly inefficient.
Centralized heating systems might be explored in densely populated areas in the north. It's more efficient to pipe steam or hot water into the building from underground pipes. People should also switch to instant hot water when their water heater fails (when appropriate, which is most households). Passive solar alone can reduce energy needs by 40% or more in new buildings. Old building can have their insulation and windows changed. Save our precious oil for chemistry and Pharmaceuticals.
On top of all the things you suggest here regarding insulation, CHP, solar etc. We should use the Fossil Fuel we're using NOW to set up a totally renewable, non-polluting (no nukes) civilisation for future generations! We're going to use it anyway; so it would make sense to use it to guarantee our grandchildrens' futures rather than destroy any future they may have.
BTW... Hemp oil can be used to produce the chemicals & pharmas we currently get from crude oil... But Sustainably!
hemp oil is better than corn oil and other veg oils but isn't sustainable. Algae is sustainable. ALL CROPS degrade the soil and on a large scale displace forests and farmland. ANYTHING made from FF can be made from Algae, but not if use sugar to grow it. Algae will create a carbon circle. Using oil to build infrastructure is what will happen anyway, we should do it while oil is still cheap. Nukes are the safest energy source we have. Every year more people die from FF than all of nuke history.
I wasn't suggesting hemp as a bio-fuel altho Henry Ford DID!! But that aside Hemp is perfect for pharma & chemical uses (can even make plastics) & its also excellent because it grows on rough land in climates where you can get two crops a year... with a multitude of uses for every part of the plant from the fibres for cloth & paper (better than wood) etc... to the oils.
Great way to sequester CO2 too!
It has more protein than Soya & is highest in omega oils in useable forms. All round eco-plant!
Okay so batteries can fail. Thats an engineering issue. Petrol ('gas' to you) can explode! Its highly explosive in fact! Yet we have millions of cars driving around! Lets not say the 'dangers' of batteries can't be overcome. They CAN!
If the energy that goes into making them is 'renewable energy' then no problem there! If they were 100% recyclabe (like almost ALL products COULD be) then the 'waste' problem wouldn't exist!
If R&D money was spent on battery technology it would advance faster!
Generally, gas is not explosive in the tank. Gasoline is only explosive under pressure. You can drop a match in a bucket of gasoline and most of the time it won't light. The slightest spark can ignite NG and these batteries are simply not energy dense enough to be useful and are prone to failure and expensive. The electric car is not ready, and it won't be for decades. Waste Bio-mass, algae and other veg oils will be the best solution in the near future. Use electric where it makes sense.
I agree that algae & other bio-solutions may exist but these should be used in COMBINATION with other renewables which are available NOW.
Electric cars make perfect sense in California or Souther Europe or anywhere sunny, just as wind can be sited where its predominently windy. In the UK we have one of the largest tidal reaches on the planet & we could use tidal lagoons a LOT more etc..
Renewables are about having a MIX of sources. i.e. NOT putting your eggs in one basket!
most renewable energy sources create electricity which doesn't lend itself well to transportation with the exceptions of trains and trolleys. Displacing coal fired electric plants is great, I'm all for renewable electric, but high energy liquid fuels are needed. The electric car isn't ready for prime time and forcing it on the public won't work. A switch to 100 mpg diesel would be a step in the right direction.
well there's a huge argument for having a high quality electric rail system for most cities & do away with personal transport altogether bar cabs. Cars are necessary where you can't do that like rural areas. The electric car is ready for sunny climates. One sporty model sold in California with a photo-voltaic system for your home, guarantees you'll produce more electricity that it uses if used daily to its full range (200 miles). I say if it CAN be done do it & use other 'renewables' elsewhere!
Our treatment of spent nuclear fuel is unwise at best. It should be stored in a usable form, not encased in concrete. "Depleted" uranium is far from depleted and could be used again. The French are storing their spent fuel so they can recycle and reuse it at a later date. Breeder reactors can create new fuel for the next round. Nuclear has been unable to compete with FF financially and that is why interest has been lost, but FF prices will eventually be more expensive than nuclear then we use BR
The French are storing their spent fuel in the HOPES that it can be recycled later! There's still no safe method of storage OR 'recycling'.
Depleted uranium is being spread all over the planet in weapons rounds! This is highly irresponsible & its really stupid!
FAST breeders produce more waste than they use! That is why they're called FAST breeders! In a very short time we'd be up to our necks in radio-active waste!
Fast breeder technology is great, I wish they would use it. The energy density of nuclear is incredible and is most likely the energy of the future, though probably fusion not fission. DU is not good for weapons btw, except armor piercing which is deplorable. That seems to be what you are saying. The DU could be put to much better use. It's far from depleted. Check out Energy Matter Conversion Corporation. There is a good google video by Robert Bussard from them (emc2:) Nukes are a long term sol
well I seriously disagree with you! The dangers of proliferation; from terrorism, accidents, leaks & potential serious damage to the very structure of life (DNA), far outweigh any perceived gains of 'energy'. It costs a bloody fortune. It prevents the money from being spent on the clean alternatives & it's only back on the agenda because the cold-war nuclear weapons are coming to the end of their 'shelf-life' & so to replace them requires a nuclear industry! Its ALWAYS been about weapons!
If you want to worry about windmills effects on the flow of the air; start by worrying about skyscrapers, & every single building human beings ever put up! There's already millions of them!!
For goodness sakes friend please just think! We need people to accept that SOMETHING has to be done NOW!
Large scale renewables are just part of the equasion! Its about a MIX of renewable sources!
I tried to find this out on the Greenpeace website with no luck... Is there a transcript of this video anywhere online? I'd like to use it as a reference in an essay I'm writing. Could you message me with some details about it, i.e. when it was made, who published it, who the copyright belongs to etc. so I can cite from it? (I need this fairly fast, the essay is due in next week :s)
As of mid-2007 Southampton has four CHP networks: 1. City Centre Geothermal (producing 48GWh heating/cooling and 22GWh electricity) 2. A Combined Heat and Power engine at City Centre hospital 3. Holyrood Community Heating Scheme (heating 300 flats) 4. Uni of Southampton CHP (producing 1.5mw heat and 1.5mw electricity)
and two large schemes being developed: 1. Millbrook District Energy Scheme 4000 homes heated 2. Woolston Riverside Scheme heating for 15 hectare site.
My local council wants to build a 50,000 ton a year rubbish incinerator in the middle of town & they're telling us it's "CHP"!
What's more, incineration counts towards 'recycling figures' if the waste heat is used! So they're going to give cheap energy to Tescos! I couldn't believe it when I heard that one! That's my council's idea of 'recycling' & CHP all in one! Its enought to make one sick! Especially when the dioxins start filling the air from all that plastic being 'recycled'!
What is needed EVERYWHERE is a MIX of solar, wind, wave & tidal power! It ain't about ONE renewable option its about ALL of them!
Windmills can be put out at sea where huge arrays or rigs are possible combined with wave & even tidal power! If we can build oil rigs we can build massive wind/wave rigs too!
Coal CO2 damages more & nukes will leave a toxic wasteland & WEAPONS grade plutonium!!
"What is needed EVERYWHERE is a MIX of solar, wind, wave & tidal power!"
Solar? there is only few hours of sunlight in winter days where i live. Wind? not much wind at moment when power is really needed. Wave? in winter time? woah.
So we should build seas full of windmills? thats great.
Spoken like a Norweigan! Got a vested interest Mokoma?
What Greenpeace lies? I'm not greenpeace? I just help them when I can!
Ever heard of chernobyl?? I think that qualifies as a toxic wasteland!
How about the twice daily TIDE?
A solar water heater on every roof would negate the need for ANY new power stations! Add a PV & wind turbine (all connected to the LOCAL grid of course) & most homes could be almost 100% energy self-sufficient. Efficiency, low energy products, Insulation etc etc wake up!
we've already filled the North Sea with oil rigs so why not have HUGE VORT wind turbines mounted onto rig like platforms? They could even be wave & tidal power at the same time as the 'feet' of oil rigs lend themselves well to being wave power generators too & the central area could make a 'lagoon' for tidal! But if they're sited where there's strong currents, then underwater turbines could be extremely productive as some areas have very strong currents 24/7!
The thing is though, we all know that renewables are the future - they're clean, free, safe energy. The question we should be asking though is - can we achieve our emissions reductions targets (2020, 2030, 2050) in time by using solely renewable energy? In this clip they say the time & money spent on building new reactors would be better spent on developing renewable energy sources. KEYWORD - 'developing'. You still have to build them afterward - and that's going to take even more time.
Your comment referred to an animated section of this film, my friend - which used the image of 3 wind turbines to symbolically (not accurately) depict replacing a nuclear power plant with a combination of wind, wave and tidal energy. This was actually stated verbally, and also flashed up on the screen.
Ergo, your comment was either a jest, or you are particularly thick. Personally I was rooting for the former, but judging from your follow up question I guess not...
But if you watch from 1:43 they certainly use more than just 3 Big Bens and more than 3 bags of money to emphasis their point when attacking nuclear power. You see what I'm saying?
What a pathetic 'reason' to attack the video! Its like you were simply watching to pick holes in their graphics.. but without bothering to even listen to what they were ACTUALLY saying!! How about "that's enough to fill 500 Big Bens"?? maybe that's why they used more than 3!
Crikey some people! What IS your problem with new ideas?
In Australia you could basically power the entire country from solar, but hey the wind blows too... etc etc etc etc!
'How about "that's enough to fill 500 Big Bens"?? maybe that's why they used more than 3!' - So why not say it would take dozens of wind turbines to replace a nuclear reactor and then draw the number of wind turbines accordingly?
Also, were YOU listening to what they were ACTUALLY saying?? Take a listen at 3:37. How about "replace with LARGE scale renewables"?? maybe that's why they SHOULD'VE used more than just 3 turbines.
Good grief hrthrhs if that's the best argument you can come up with?? In my opinion it just shows how desperate you climate change detractors/deniers are getting!
So bloody what how many pictures they used!? Is THAT supposed to be an argument???
oh no... they should have used more pictures to explain coz some damn fools just don't/can't/won't get it!
How about... there were 3 windmills to 'depict' 3 major off-shore arrays?? Maybe thats it?!
Last comment I'm going to make so don't reply. One thing you can't deny is this film is bias. Every point it makes about renewables is positive and every point made about nuclear is negative. As I've previously stated if these people were really out to find the better alternative they'd discuss the positives and negatives of both renewable and nuclear power. Have a nice life.
sorry dude the 'positives of nuclear power' is an oxymoron!
The power is nearly double the price of any other electricity and that's without adding the COST of disposing of their 'waste'.
What other industry (I know of only one) expects the taxpayer to pay the cost of disposing of its waste products!? If THAT cost was added into the cost of the electricity nobody would buy nuke electric power as it would make it cost about 4 times ANY other electricity! Your argument is pathetic at best!
Yes, I am aware that they used 3 wind turbines to not accurately depict replacing a nuclear reactor. So why then at 1:43 (when they were attacking nuclear) did they use more than just 3 Big Bens and 3 money bags? Because they are being bias - my friend. At 3:38 they should've filled the entire screen up with wind turbines just as they filled the entire screen up with Big Bens and money bags.
Your entire argument on this has been about the graphics in a video... not the ISSUES!
Its people like you that distract others from the REAL issues... just like nuclear power is a ditraction from the REAL issues (and the REAL solutions!)
The first solution will not be given it has to be developed by individuals to show we won't be a slave to power. Pushing for local windturbines or sunpanels is not useless.
There is alot people living in earth Planet at the moment, there is going to be increased every year, so? what chance do you have needing more food? with more crazy people around? and how can you control all that people?
Nukes,nukes,nukes,nukes. We don't need any solar,windmills,new age contraption for electricity. If were going to waste energy on anything it should be on nukes. Plenty of uranium and water on this planet for billions of years. Fear is for pussies. The energy is as clean as pure water.
"Fear is for pussies" - maybe, but blind optimism in the face of real dangers is for pricks - and investment bankers. Fortunately we've just blown so much dosh bailing out the banking system there ain't going to be much appetite for the astonishingly high clean-up costs (£75 billion and rising in the UK when I last looked) and other risks associated with nuclear. And when we could produce the same amount of power for a fraction of the cost using industrial CHP, why would we want to bother?
The fact is if every home had a solar water heater on the roof they'd save nearly 30% on heating water for space heating & washing & a solar PV system plugged into the grid could supply up to 100% & all new build homes should have ground heat built in. There's wind turbines & there's off-shore wind/wave which could be combined units, tidal lagoons for coastal areas & CHP.
Just INSULATING & switching off can save 30% of present use!! ALL the new nukes could only produce 10%!
the whole Europe subsydies the renewables with bilions eruos and it still doesnt support it with a noticable amount of energy, compare that to nuclear power
Nuclear power is not even deliverable fast enough to help with climate change!
There need to be reductions in CO2 emissions within 10 years (preferably now) & nukes take longer to build than 10 years.
The reason they want nukes is because they keep people reliant on the 'grid'.
If people produce their own power for free then its not taxable & it doesn't help the corporates keep hold of their monopoly on energy! Even locally produced power is cheaper because there's less transport 'loss'.
i like how people with no idea claim they no what is right. Wind power is bad for the grid, its power is limited to about 10% of the countries power. They cost loads, and push the price way up. Also what happens if the wind dies down. Or its cloudy (for PV). The only way its being built now, is because of the government funding it. With out these funds they loose money. Nuclear is potentially dangerous, but it is so much more efficient than renewables, if its managed correctly.
bmcrf250 1 month ago
offshore wind farms do jack all - relative to the demand for energy the inconsistency of them is ridiculous and its useless. most other renewables are also unreliable: tidal and wave require so much more research and development. hydroelectric power or nuclear are the only REAL solutions. solar is currently to expensive, hopefully advancements will be made soon. wind is not a short term solution, its a joke. we can adapt to global warming. global cooling will screw us over.
brownbrigade1 1 month ago
@brownbrigade1 nub
matteyo93 1 month ago
"2 million cubic meters of nuclear waste" this is very misleading, the spent fuel from all of the UK's power plants if operated until their expected closing would be less than 40,000 cubic meters total.
bigpchamber 2 months ago
"unless we act now.....we face an uncertain future" Wow - if we act now, does that mean we will face a certain future?
bigpchamber 2 months ago
240p we meet again
vampforever1009 3 months ago
Hmm Since country which are located near equator use very little energy for heat due to hot weather throughtout the years, does that it country like singapore very clean?
piggy933 7 months ago
i love renewable energy, but "greenpeace" sounds so wet!
sasop117 8 months ago
the us should do this quick spending so much money on war and greed and start making renewable power, we brag that we are rich so lets do something who agress?
DaisyEnid7 8 months ago
Renewable energy is the way of the future, and has huge business potential. We are creating leaders in the field of green energy every day. If you have the spirit and mindset to get out in the world and educate people about renewable energy, you have unlimited potential in this field.
Find me @fundgreenpower on twitter
havenjm 9 months ago
see new invention
lamtengchoy 9 months ago
see new invention
lamtengchoy 9 months ago
NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT to be morbid nor cruel with this comment... But ASK JAPAN if Nuclear is a "GOOD WAY" TO GO TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY...
communistjesus 10 months ago
Nukiller power is finished - Japan went that route and now they are paying the price
ChuffChuffWoo 10 months ago
Unlike water, the supply of wind is limitless. This is already an assurance that it will never run out of supply. So, wind power is dependable in a long term basis. With this reason alone, some countries have decided to use wind energy as their stable substitute for generators or energy source. Since, it was already proven that wind turbines are effective source of electricity, many became aware of it and started to set up their own wind turbines at home.
windturbinesinc 11 months ago
So would the no reactors being built in the western world except for the one in Finland not include the two CANDU reactors being built in Ontario, Canada or the one being built in Flamanville, France.
I also like how the statement is qualified to be the western world only, so that rules out the ones in Argentinia, Bulgaria, China, India, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea or Taiwan.
rufust1975 11 months ago
The way forward is not wind, tide or for that matter the sun. Why?. All of them have problems. Wind turbines fuck up birds and look ugly. Tide mucks up shoreline environments. Sun and wind are inconsistence and that makes planning a pain. The way forward is hot rock and thermal exchange units. Both are reliable and provide consistent and predictable power output. So why are we not using them? Simple they are ethnology’s that are in the hands of the oil guys.
tina6581 1 year ago
@tina6581 this is because geothermal plant can only be build in area close to the underground magma. On the other hand, newer wind turbine kill lesser bird and look nicer(vertical axis windmill) if I not wrong tidal turbine does not muck up shoreline environment since most of them are build close to the land furthernore, it not weather dependence since we have a change of tide everyday. As for sun and wind, the excess energy can be store using rechargable battery.
piggy933 7 months ago
A great example of nucular power is France where 75% of its electricity comes from nuclear power. Because of this, France “is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity” and has one of the lowest prices of electricity in all of Europe. In addition, nuclear power’s “safety record is also exemplary. If we turn out like this, our electricity prices will fall, heating prices, car recharge prices ect. this benifit us greatly. The reason why we dont build them now is because of videos like this.
loren443 1 year ago
Also, the Wind Power will also only play a tiny role in england... Right now, they only cover 5% of the countryside. I hate the way this video disapproves nucular. Hopefully in 50 years time, we will go nucular because then it will play a huge role in Brittan.
loren443 1 year ago
Well, if you look at it a certain way wind power is bad. Wind moves the propellers right? right. well when things interacts with each other in such a way energy is exchanged, look at the fundamental laws of physics. Essentially kinetic energy is being transferred from the wind to move the propellers and is robbing it of its heat and movement disrupting the environment, possibly weather patterns, etc. when there are enough of these, like these wind turbine farms for example.
loren443 1 year ago
Let's just address one of many gross factual errors:
=already we are stuck with more than 2 million cubic metres of nuclear waste=
At the time this video was posted the UK total inventory was actually less than 0.3Mn cubic metres, inc 0.2Mn cubic metres of LLW which is mostly stuff that's not even radioactive but merely common trash from establishments with nuclear materials on site. Only 0.0017Mn cubic metres was HLW.
The UK radioactive waste inventory is published on the NDA website.
XPLAlN 1 year ago
over 300,000 birds are killed a year due to wind turbines in the US which is messing up migration patterns and the eco system. NUCLEAR IS THE ANSWER
1sackofshit1 1 year ago
Check out what Patrick Moore has to say on nuclear power. He quit Greenpeace. What is his reason?
Berlinergruenen 1 year ago
You are into energy ! I have an energy invention that is not fully exploited.
Please look and read at my site. good luck. It is about > Torque with liquid, wave pool on top of upside down triangle/pyramid crank & or with wind of a sail.
Thank you, good luck, > it is something that needs serious exploiting.
truthiseverall 1 year ago
love this video!
FreshPotatoMafia 1 year ago
We should focus our effort on phasing out coal mining and burning. Nuclear can help in this by providing a mature base-load technology. 3rd and 4th gen reactors are clean and safe - even running off current waste stockpiles
If we demonise nuclear, we risk condemning ourselves to continued fossil fuel use while we wait for other clean technologies to mature
neilrickards 1 year ago
Comment removed
RightRocks 1 year ago
The claim that we can get all of our energy from Renewables is an absolute fantasy. The Royal Academy of Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have both found that energy plans without Nuclear are infeasible.
Many of Environmentalists from all around the world are waking up on the Nuclear Issue. George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, James Lovelock, Stephen Tindale, and Chris Goodall have all come around on the issue, and many more around the world. Are they all misguided?
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks Did you watch the film? When did they claim we would get all our energy from renewarbles? Do you mean electricity? (they didn't claim that either, but its closer!)
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017 I did watch the film, but your right, they dont claim that we can get all our energy (or electricity) through renewables.
What I found hugely shocking was that GP are advocating continued fossil fuel use over NP. I assume they are suggesting the use of gas over Coal for the CHP systems, but this according to the IPCC and others, would result in only marginal emissions savings. I would take NP (largely carbon free) over what essentially amounts to business as usual emissions, any day.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks I suppose they are trying to weigh up the effect of a warming planet verses a radioactive one. I can see some sense in what you are saying, but it seems a poor choice to have to make - our warming our planet a bit more in the short term or having radioactive pollutants around in the very long term... A very tricky choice.
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017
No amount of Nuclear waste could match the radioactivity of the natural world (which is decaying faster than we could ever increase it).
I used to worry about the Nuclear waste very much, but then I learned that what we now called 'Waste' will actually be used as fuel for the next generation of reactors. Read about 'Fast' Reactors and Accelerator Driven systems. Rather than being a burden on our descendants, future generations may actually depend on it as their energy source.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks Apart from the sun, which is very far away, what natural radioactivity is there at dangerous levels of waste from NP? I say this as someone who lives in a granite house!
These reactors wont actually make the material less radioactive, will they? The next generation and the next thousand odd generations after that will still be picking up the tab. Not sold yet - convince me.
nd017 1 year ago
@RightRocks I suppose my main problem is that nuclear waste planning extends now to 100 years, while the waste remains hazardous for (worst case scenario) 1,000,000 years. A bit of a discrepancy.
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017
Spent fuel from a modern reactor will have a radiotoxicity similar to uranium ore after around 1000 years. If what are called 'actinides' (elements heavier than uranium) are extracted from the spent fuel and used separately (maybe in a fast reactor as I mentioned earlier), this time scale drops to around 200 or 300 years. Theres no reason why we couldn't safely store such waste underground for either of those timescales
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks If that where true (need to look it up somewhere reliable) I can imagine safe deposition for 200-300 years - 1000 is really pushing it. 1000 years ago here was the dark ages with almost no texts surviving, and 1000 before that Rome had been driven back from these shores by Iron Age Celts. A quick look on Wikipedia suggests cancer risks from uranium ore. I do understand that the water is muddied by the outrageous risks taken in the early days of NP and NW.
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017 I understand what you are saying on the Nuclear Waste thing, and its a very valid and important point. If we don't bury it underground, there is a risk. However, even if society collapsed tomorrow, I'm not sure what our descendants could do with spent, maliciously or accidentally that would cause widespread harm. Its naturally well contained, largely insoluble, and extremely heavy.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks 200 -300 years after 300 AD (when Rome prospered in Britain) there where viking and Saxon pirates raiding a country without central government. 200 - 300 years after the English Civil War where mining of coal was almost exclusively on the surface came the industrial revaluation and deep shaft mining. I still think the 200-300 year gap is just bout tenable, but it is not guaranteed safe - the future is unknown (though probably safer than the real and known pollution from coal etc.)
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017 Equivalent doses for spent fuel are compared to Uranium ore for a good reason. If they can be stored for the time it takes to decay to the ore level, then they will contribute no greater risk than if they had never been dug up in the first place.
Keep up the sceptical inquiry. Read everything you can find on the issue, for and against.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks Very good point - should have thought of that!
nd017 1 year ago
@RightRocks There is an interesting article at environmentalresearchweb . org suggesting that the energy in to energy out ratio is currently quite poor for nuclear when compared to renewables (even solar) and only stands to get worse in the long term - not ruling it out for now, but saying it is quite a poor choice and definitely not a long term one...
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017 There's an excellent article on Nuclear waste in the latest issue of Nature. Search their website for 'France digs deep for nuclear waste'. It wont let me post a link for some reason.
Also, I'm trying to add you as a friend, as you seem like a genuinely open minded and intelligent person. I can't seem to figure out where the button is though to send a request.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks I will try to find that Nature article - I just read George Monbiot's guardian piece - interesting, and has shifted me further into the the uncertainty zone! A number of important points where raised in the comments section, including the intertwining of NP and weapons, as well as the difficulty of firing up and down NP plants quickly and economically, and the possibility it might stifle the use of many smaller scale generators which could be both safer and more stable...
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017 Google 'France digs deep for Nuclear waste nature'
Yeah, read all of Monbiots stuff on Nuclear Power, check his blog. I haven't found a commentator more unbiased by ideology and clear minded than him, he was a large part of my 'conversion' on Nuclear power.
He has also debunked many wild claims about 'localised generation' on his blog and in his book 'Heat' which I'd massively recommend.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@nd017 In the early days, NPPs were designed and built for producing plutonium, and the electricity was just a nice by product. They were kept on a short cycle so that the plutonium was as pure as possible. Today, reactors are run on long, far more economical cycles, meaning the plutonium is not 'weapons grade'.
Its unclear if you could make a bomb out of that stuff, but I don't think a government would bother when they could make much better stuff without a commercial plant.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks The Nature article was interesting. It does appear to be a fairly safe way to store the waste - the article also made it fairly clear how dangerous some of the stuff was. I am still a little concerned about it - BP claimed the gulf of Mexico oil rig had seven different safety features that should have prevented a blow out, but it still did - things like this will always be a gamble.
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017 I agree with you, it is a gamble, and easily the strongest case against nuclear power. I'm not sure which country you are from, but here in UK, its not going to make a huge difference to the waste problem if we build more NPP or not. We have loads of waste here built up over the last 50 years, and making a repository a bit bigger to encompass this new waste will have a marginal effect on the cost.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@exposetruthwolf You are welcome make your point - but not in an abusive manner, otherwise your post will be deleted, as in this instance.
GreenpeaceUK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AL GORE is a RAPIST-he raped a massage therapist in NY; AL GORE views himself as ROMAN Cesar Tiberius-whom decried in 14 BC"The whole world shall pay ME taxes or be killed!" AL GORE-wants to carbon CAP & TAX the whole world so he can steal $Billions. AL GORE has three $8 Million house like King Tiberius whom had a palace in ROME,palace in Constantinople,& palace in Antioch. ALL HAIL EMPEROR AL GORE-KING of RAPE! WHY did Tipper Leave you? Tell you Reps your AGAINST paying $Billions to RAPIST!
exposetruthwolf 1 year ago
Whale oil! That the solution!
frbe0101 1 year ago
Fusion is our only salvation
Charcoal is the only solution for the short term (~20 years)
The rest is ..... BS!!!!!
VederchiHarry 1 year ago
Both Labour and the conservatives are for Nuclear power planning to build new and expand existing power plants in the uk with two planned in somerset. Take a look at this short film from green peace.... Then Remember only the Lib Dem's are going to stop building, shut them down and use renewable power.
sjlenthall 1 year ago
i dont know the exact figures, but
the choice can be sumarised:-
HALVE the population
or keep treading water using Nuclear power.
if we're not ramping up nuclear, every second child will die in resource wars.
stupid parents..
walter0bz 1 year ago
Only answer is POPULATION REDUCTION.
Humane, altruistic method is One Child Policy. restrictive breeding license will also be suggested.
Anyone who doesn't say this first is pissing in the wind...
walter0bz 1 year ago
Are you an only or eldest child?
Vedaann45 1 year ago
[Citation Needed]
DrFunnelCakes 2 years ago
Greenpeace should work on harnessing the power of rainbows.
hawkermustang 2 years ago 3
The UK as a percentage of global CO2 production, are a drop in the ocean compared to the US and China. The problem with green energy is it is expensive We will be broke as a nation if we attempt to follow everything in this video. I don't disagree with the concept but unfortunately it is aimed at the wrong audience. The super economic energy user's must pioneer these concepts. They can afford it and will make the difference as to it working. Many of these concepts are flawed and have problems.
Marty1fatbstard 2 years ago
UK defers its C02 consumption by moving its manufacturing to asia..
walter0bz 1 year ago
This is propaganda.
ItoldyouIwasill 2 years ago
fuck you.
DraeneiGirlsHotMuch 1 year ago
It's all well and good saying nuclear energy is bad but without a real alternative it has to be seen as an option. Windfarms are not a real solution as they require backup powerplants run on fossil fuels when there is no wind, they also cannot run in very high winds. More research needs to go into using wave energy as it is a new technology. As fossil fuels are running out nuclear is going to become more and more important in providing energy.
Lets just hope nuclear fusion becomes possible.
DeeJayBeeKay 2 years ago
If the UK goes forth with the nuclear power solution, we will only be cutting down on our emissions 4% by 2024!
Doesn't that say something, come on guys, we can make a difference.
Vlodrak 2 years ago 6
I can't believe such a large organisation as this can be so blatantly dishonest about the energy generation capacity of renewable sources. These environmentalist groups opposing nuclear power just for the sake of it are doing their best to keep us burning coal and gas instead, it just amazes me that so many intelligent people can be so short sighted.
DarthTanner 2 years ago 2
The green movement = the socialist movement!!
hawkermustang 2 years ago
Ok, so let me see if I can work out what you've done there. Hmm, yes, you've put two unrelated things together and, by cunningly addin an equals sign, made them appear to be directly linked to each other.
That's just genius, Glen Beck (not to mention Sean Hannity) would be proud.
Can I have a go? Let's see, ok here goes:
US Republican party = bunch of comlete tossers = dim facist fuckwits.
See what I did there - extended the metaphore!
Boy that felt good, and pretty accurate, too...
slowdazzles 2 years ago
hahahahaha - f*cking quality !
todioliver 2 years ago
Totally agree with talkingbookworms comments...The people had a voice up till the late 1970s when the Union movement lost the plot and went to far with strike action, allowing Margerat Thatcher to come to power. This new era was built on the US model of house prices and market forces, giving people a false sense of personal power. This divide and conquer approach is still evident today...Unity of the masses has been replaced with Must Haves and Celebrity...We must realize people have power..
ludwigvonsteampole1 2 years ago
There IS a cleaner, more sensible and cheaper solution at hand, so close and blatantly obvious, as this video demonstrates. Yet the UK goes down the most expensive, most stupid and backward thinking path of nuclear power which couldnt be more in-efficient and wasteful.
Those in power making these decisions should be imprisoned for such mal-decision and short-sightedness and not rewarded by the profits they get from the shares they own in the nuclear industry !
metanoid 2 years ago
That was very interesting. However what is the cost of Windafarms and CHPs compared to fossil solutions?
rentoz 2 years ago
"nuclear is only a slice of our over all electricity"
What are GreenPeace on renewables are an even smaller "slice". So what is their point.
imconfusednow 2 years ago 2
Er, the point is that nuclear has had over £70 billion invested in it over the past 30 years, and renewable energy around £1 billion. We've wasted billions of pounds already on nuclear energy, largely for political purposes (to keep a seat on the UN Security council) - had we spent a similar amount on renewables (including wind, wave and solar) we'd have taken a significant step on the road to being self-sufficient by now, and started to wean ourselves off climate wrecking fossil fuels.
GreenpeaceUK 2 years ago 7
I downloaded an extended version of this video, with some great examples of what our European neighbours are doing with CHP multi-fuel plants + renewables. If the figures for energy efficiency are to be believed, and surely they are, then clearly the UK should be going down the same -proven- decentralised CHP pathway. A small power plant in every town, capable of using many sources of fuel, topped up with solar and wind where applicable + offshore tidal, wave and wind. That`s the way forward.
talkingbookworm 2 years ago 5
@GreenpeaceUK
Do you have a single peace of evidence to back up the claim that 'If we had spent a similar amount on renewables, we would be well on our way to self-sufficiency'
Germany has spent 60Bn Euros over the last decade on Feed-in-Tariffs for Solar, yet still produces around 1% of its electricity from this source. Denmark Has aggressively pursued Wind power since the 1970's, yet it gets 24% of its electricity.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@GreenpeaceUK And what's the big deal with $70 billion?
Your talking about $70 billion cost for waste storage. So what? You know that the electricity generated is worth so much more.
Nuclear needs more investment to make that slice more like 50%. It's the second safest and second most environmentally solution in the world.
MarsMoonEuropa 8 months ago
@GreenpeaceUK Hmmm how reliable is renewable energy though? we'd need to use a lot of renewable energy sources to buffer any power shortages (for example the sun does not always shine). When they say renewable energy produces double that of nuclear, is this using average power or peak power produced. Generally its difficult to get peak energy from renewable energy sources. IMO i think diversity is key.
MotherOfAllBombs1 7 months ago
There so much about this How in the world do we under stand it when Are Leaders dont?
USA
cntrybillsfan 2 years ago
Greenpeace is just as bloody biased as the government!
thebloatedtoad 2 years ago
Thats very true every one is biased towards their own views Or their own agenda.
Thanks for a sensible comment shame no one else has noticed.
EDS01475634763 2 years ago
Governments need to invest money into putting up hydro energy generation centers in places with long shore lines (UK, Spain, Portugal, Sweden etc)
In countries where there is a lot of sun and wind - put solar panels and wind farms. Put solar panels on buildings. Properly insulate old building to conserve energy. Force stricter emissions and energy usage standards. It can be done - except the Gov'ts can't be bothered to do it
alexkvaskov 3 years ago
Governments can't be bothered because there aren't votes in it, it would result in large costs in the short-term (which would lose votes), and would reduce their tax revenues in the long-term
yohaneuano4 2 years ago
sadly yes
alexkvaskov 2 years ago
I currently live in the Canton of Basel, in Switzerland, where 98% of electricity comes from hydro. Another 1.4% comes from solar, with just 0.4% coming from an unknown source. Hence this comment is 99.6% green. That`s amazing methinks. The UK still is the Dirty Old Man of Europe. And you don`t have real democracy there neither, with which to speak out against the wrong decisions being made. The only say you have is who is going to dictate to you, the need for nuclear and more runways.
talkingbookworm 2 years ago 2
Wow, 98% from hydro. That's amazing, and shows yet again that it IS possible to base (and then rely) on renewable sources.
Let's hope the Dirty Old Man that is the UK dies soon and rises from the ashes to become again the inventive, innovative pioneer it once was!
metanoid 2 years ago
That's very good in Swizerland when you have hundreds of mountains and a very tiny population and look after everyones stolen Billions, more should be done here i agree and have done for 30 years.
lancashirepolice 2 years ago
Lol, what has money got to do with it? You point out that mountains and a small population are the main reasons why (parts of) Switzerland can be green, in terms of energy. That's true. However, the money comment sounds like you have issues? Is this the time and place to raise them?
talkingbookworm 2 years ago
that's brilliant my friend :)
there is so much that can be done to generate "greener" electricity - solar, wind farms, tidal power - there is huge potential potential in "green" technologies
alexkvaskov 2 years ago
40% of Switzerland electricity comes from nuclear plants you idiot.
DarthTanner 2 years ago 2
I said "the Canton of Basel", not Switzerland as a whole. Switzerland has 5 nuclear power plants, so of course they will add a big slice of the energy pie. But in the Canton of Basel, the figures I gave are not far off (I was a tad wrong). But Basel aims for 100% renewables in the near future.
talkingbookworm 2 years ago
Then I apologise. However as you likely operate with a national grid it is impossible to tell where your electricity comes from, it is simply pumped in from all the sources which likely includes imports of French nuclear energy.
DarthTanner 2 years ago
Yes, I think between 4-10% of Basel's energy comes from France, and is stated as unknown origin, which does probably mean nuclear. I have nothing against nuclear power per se. I just think other avenue should be tried first, simply because of the cost and timescale involved managing the waste products from nuclear.
talkingbookworm 2 years ago
I hope your country has the time to do so. In the UK we are already going to have power shortages within the decade because the government has dithered about with limited green energy sources while nuclear plants have been left under a pile of environmentalist planning objections. Even with a new generation of reactors being approved and short-listed we are still going to have power shortages for a generation!
DarthTanner 2 years ago
@DarthTanner Somehow not so terrified by the odd power shortage as another Chernobyl... In 2006 there where still 359 farms in Wales where you couldn't eat the sheep because of Chernobyl...
nd017 1 year ago
@nd017
Chernobyl was a essentially a plutonium factory with no safety equipment, ran in a despotic regime. Comparing it to a modern day commercial reactor is like comparing the Hindenburg to a 747. The worst we could expect with a NP in the west today, is another Three Mile Island incident - from which there were no fatalities. Even a TMI type incident is enormously unlikely with more modern plant design.
RightRocks 1 year ago
@RightRocks The irony is I suppose that the area around Chernobyl is now a wildlife haven - no amount of radiation can counter the destruction of having 21st century humans present... The counter to your argument is that there is waste from NP which does remain toxic for over a million years - no civilization can dare to dream it will remain stable that long. Look at Europe and WW1. Using the seven generations principle it is too likely to risk. 747s have crashed and killed everyone.
nd017 1 year ago
WTF is it with you people with this BS about the stone age! WTF do you think COAL is? (or uranium for that matter). There are ways of getting more than we will ever need from renewable sources!
we could cut 1/3rd of ALL USE just by having energy efficient products & good insulation etc! A bit like Americans & their gas guzzlers when you can do it just as well with a smaller engine (in fact better)! Or more to the point... you could do it with an electric engine running on renewable energy!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
The ONLY REASON nuclear power is being talked up again is because all the old cold-war nuclear weapons are coming to the end of their shelf life & the only way to dispose of them is to build new ones & for that you need a nuclear industry! Its all about weapons and it always WAS!
The electricity costs well in excess of renewables! & should they ever use those weapons it would be a total crime against humanity!
Nukes will send us back to the stone age quicker than anything!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Very good video, thumbs up. :)
EvilSylv 3 years ago
One problem I have with "renewables" is that the wind/solar/tide/waves are doing work and moving energy around the planet. Has anyone thought of what stealing all that energy is going to do? That wind is doing something and now that something won't be done. Same thing with tide and waves. Maybe moving that water around is really important to the ocean and climate stability. Look at the damage dams have cost. Entire ecosystems destroyed creating gigantic lakes where plants & animals used to live.
christo930 3 years ago
Not to mention the sediment that the river used to leave on the banks when it flooded every year and gave us good soil. Now all that sediment is behind the dam and the water now REMOVES sediment from the river banks and erodes. Not to mention that none of this is possible without fossil fuels. Try to mine metal ore without diesel fuel, plastics are made from oil, the devices are shipped with FF cement is made from FF burning devices and it's heavy, more FF to move and mix it. We need liquid fuel
christo930 3 years ago
christo.. you can make plastics from any complex oil.. try HEMP for starters! Ford was going to make his first model T with plastics made from hemp & it was going to run on bio-deisel from hemp too!
The effect of the wind won't be troubled by a few windmills.. honest! Worry about sky-scrapers if you must worry about that.. lol
Yes tidal needs to be planned well not just some monstrous barrage.. lagoons are better!
There are less polluting, more sustainable alternatives.. & there always were!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
christo... so what about taking all that energy that was stored underground as solids (coal) and putting it in the atmosphere in the form of gasses, soot & heat? Don't you think that's MORE dangerous than using the energy like wind & wave that is already there? Nothing is created or destroyed... it just 'changes' form... but to take carbon that has been 'sequestered' by nature & to 'reverse' THAT is really playing with unknowns.
ejbh3160 3 years ago
What if there were so many windmills in Canada that there was a sizable reduction in the amount of arctic air that comes down into the US? That would warm our local climate considerably. It might turn out to be total BS, but I would like to hear a climate specialist say that windmills could not change local climates. Just think, it's the winds over the north atlantic gulf stream that keep europe warm. What if there were a reduction in that wind? What would happen to the UK?
christo930 3 years ago
christo930... Don't be daft!!
Really the dumb crap some people come up with astounds me sometimes! Digging up all those tar sands in Canada will do a million times more damage to any arctic air, that a million wind turbines covering the lanscape could ever ever ever do!!
Really dude you've gotta come up with something that's at least slightly plausible... climate change denier grasping at straws comes to mind!
Yes... you're talking total BS! And ANY real climate scientist would tell you so.
ejbh3160 3 years ago
You are singing to the choir here! I believe we are very near or past peak production of traditional oil and am 100% against the tar sands. The EROEI is so low and the environmental cost so high, they are not worth it. IAE, wind is not nearly as "friendly" as you think. Wind kills wildlife, causes human health problems, it's ugly, annoying and intermittent.
I am asking "what would millions of windmills do to the climate?" That's all. For all I know, climate is driven in the stratosphere.
christo930 3 years ago
I am not a climate skeptic, that is because I am not a scientist and I don't know. Nobody predicted the human health problems of windmills, the strobing and noise. Maybe it's not such a great idea to build millions of these things and see what happens. Maybe we should do proper studies of other consequences. The intermittent nature of wind is a problem for power generation. Search for windmill problems and you will se what I mean. I like desert grown algae and solar (heat) electric.
christo930 3 years ago
also with 'renewable' energy its not just about one thing or another. Its about having a MIX of renewables.
The wind blows when there are cyclonic weather patterns and its less likely to do so with a big anti-cyclones. But of course the SUN shines when we get anti-cyclones so thats a good time to have your solar panels. Just those two renewables would cover most of the year!
With 6 billion people making a LITTLE power it soon adds up!
Saving it is also important! Insulation & efficient products!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Many of the problems you state about windmills (strobing & noise) can be dealt with by better engineering & putting the big ones in remote areas. Also have you seen designs for VORT (vertically oriented) windmills? Excellent innovation & scaleable so they can fit on rooftops without looking like anything much more than another chimneypot. Highly efficient too!
/watch?v=WZ5kX5Yw4eY
/watch?v=Vyvf7iyi-wM
Solar water heaters & ground heat could be exploited MUCH more too!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
actually the climate 'driven' by several factors... oceanic currents, the jet stream (in the stratosphere) forests even play a part in transferring water from one side of S.America to the other etc etc... lots and lots of factors, which is why climate science is so very difficult to be 100% accurate about. However trends can be spotted and the models improve every year.
One thing I can assure you 1000% that windmills will NOT have a detrimental effect on climate because they 'trap' the energy.
ejbh3160 3 years ago
I know about the jetstream and the gulf stream (ocean), my question isn't about "trapping energy", so much as interfering with energy transfers via the wind and the effect on LOCAL climates. For example, it is wind (blowing over the gulfstream) that warms northern europe. Scientists are very worried about that right now because of the fresh water in the sink zone (which drives the pump) that has been generated by melting ice. The wind transfers that heat to europe, what if that wind wasn't there
christo930 3 years ago
obviously, we won't build a million wind mills over night so hopefully we will catch the problems before it's large scale. None of this produces liquid fuels which is another problem. PV is a waste, but solar thermal electric is good. Passive solar building combined with solar assited heat and water (with some goethermal to boot) might all combine to save a lot of energy. But Wind mills should be studied further before large scale output. Nuclear breeder reactors could help a great deal.
christo930 3 years ago
Nukes are a (highly toxic) DEAD end! We haven't disposed of the toxic waste from the 50's & 60's yet! And you want to start up FAST BREEDERS!? That's the sort of madness that prevented 'renewables' advancing before! Nukes prevent the money being spent on clean safe renewable alternatives!
Look up Tesla electric car on YT! Why do you need liquid fuel when you can have rechargeable batteries? Battery technology has advanced amazingly in the past 10 years! As has 'nano-SOLAR'! Look that up too ;-)
ejbh3160 3 years ago
These batteries are not environmentally friendly are very inefficient. Even the best battery technology isn't going to give a very good range. Then there is the problem of charging them. They are totally useless in cities (which is where they do the most good) because most city dwellers don't have a garage or driveway and park too far from their house. What about planes? A replacement liquid fuel is needed and I think desert or ocean grown algae is the answer. Electric trains and busses are good
christo930 3 years ago
Lithium batteries are very prone to failure from overcharging and they fail spectacularly. They can catch fire quite easily (worst) and can be ruined (best) if over-chaged, so if the OC protection circuit fails... They are expensive but relatively easy to recycle. How much energy goes into making them? Algae is a fuel SOURCE, batteries are NOT.
Trolleys subways and trains need regenerative braking and better aerodynamics. The subway cars have a large flat rectangular front, terribly inefficient.
christo930 3 years ago
Centralized heating systems might be explored in densely populated areas in the north. It's more efficient to pipe steam or hot water into the building from underground pipes. People should also switch to instant hot water when their water heater fails (when appropriate, which is most households). Passive solar alone can reduce energy needs by 40% or more in new buildings. Old building can have their insulation and windows changed. Save our precious oil for chemistry and Pharmaceuticals.
christo930 3 years ago
On top of all the things you suggest here regarding insulation, CHP, solar etc. We should use the Fossil Fuel we're using NOW to set up a totally renewable, non-polluting (no nukes) civilisation for future generations! We're going to use it anyway; so it would make sense to use it to guarantee our grandchildrens' futures rather than destroy any future they may have.
BTW... Hemp oil can be used to produce the chemicals & pharmas we currently get from crude oil... But Sustainably!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
hemp oil is better than corn oil and other veg oils but isn't sustainable. Algae is sustainable. ALL CROPS degrade the soil and on a large scale displace forests and farmland. ANYTHING made from FF can be made from Algae, but not if use sugar to grow it. Algae will create a carbon circle. Using oil to build infrastructure is what will happen anyway, we should do it while oil is still cheap. Nukes are the safest energy source we have. Every year more people die from FF than all of nuke history.
christo930 3 years ago
I wasn't suggesting hemp as a bio-fuel altho Henry Ford DID!! But that aside Hemp is perfect for pharma & chemical uses (can even make plastics) & its also excellent because it grows on rough land in climates where you can get two crops a year... with a multitude of uses for every part of the plant from the fibres for cloth & paper (better than wood) etc... to the oils.
Great way to sequester CO2 too!
It has more protein than Soya & is highest in omega oils in useable forms. All round eco-plant!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Okay so batteries can fail. Thats an engineering issue. Petrol ('gas' to you) can explode! Its highly explosive in fact! Yet we have millions of cars driving around! Lets not say the 'dangers' of batteries can't be overcome. They CAN!
If the energy that goes into making them is 'renewable energy' then no problem there! If they were 100% recyclabe (like almost ALL products COULD be) then the 'waste' problem wouldn't exist!
If R&D money was spent on battery technology it would advance faster!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Generally, gas is not explosive in the tank. Gasoline is only explosive under pressure. You can drop a match in a bucket of gasoline and most of the time it won't light. The slightest spark can ignite NG and these batteries are simply not energy dense enough to be useful and are prone to failure and expensive. The electric car is not ready, and it won't be for decades. Waste Bio-mass, algae and other veg oils will be the best solution in the near future. Use electric where it makes sense.
christo930 3 years ago
I agree that algae & other bio-solutions may exist but these should be used in COMBINATION with other renewables which are available NOW.
Electric cars make perfect sense in California or Souther Europe or anywhere sunny, just as wind can be sited where its predominently windy. In the UK we have one of the largest tidal reaches on the planet & we could use tidal lagoons a LOT more etc..
Renewables are about having a MIX of sources. i.e. NOT putting your eggs in one basket!
Use them ALL I say!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
most renewable energy sources create electricity which doesn't lend itself well to transportation with the exceptions of trains and trolleys. Displacing coal fired electric plants is great, I'm all for renewable electric, but high energy liquid fuels are needed. The electric car isn't ready for prime time and forcing it on the public won't work. A switch to 100 mpg diesel would be a step in the right direction.
christo930 3 years ago
well there's a huge argument for having a high quality electric rail system for most cities & do away with personal transport altogether bar cabs. Cars are necessary where you can't do that like rural areas. The electric car is ready for sunny climates. One sporty model sold in California with a photo-voltaic system for your home, guarantees you'll produce more electricity that it uses if used daily to its full range (200 miles). I say if it CAN be done do it & use other 'renewables' elsewhere!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Our treatment of spent nuclear fuel is unwise at best. It should be stored in a usable form, not encased in concrete. "Depleted" uranium is far from depleted and could be used again. The French are storing their spent fuel so they can recycle and reuse it at a later date. Breeder reactors can create new fuel for the next round. Nuclear has been unable to compete with FF financially and that is why interest has been lost, but FF prices will eventually be more expensive than nuclear then we use BR
christo930 3 years ago
The French are storing their spent fuel in the HOPES that it can be recycled later! There's still no safe method of storage OR 'recycling'.
Depleted uranium is being spread all over the planet in weapons rounds! This is highly irresponsible & its really stupid!
FAST breeders produce more waste than they use! That is why they're called FAST breeders! In a very short time we'd be up to our necks in radio-active waste!
Nukes are NOT the answer! Never were!
They're a DANGEROUS distraction!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Fast breeder technology is great, I wish they would use it. The energy density of nuclear is incredible and is most likely the energy of the future, though probably fusion not fission. DU is not good for weapons btw, except armor piercing which is deplorable. That seems to be what you are saying. The DU could be put to much better use. It's far from depleted. Check out Energy Matter Conversion Corporation. There is a good google video by Robert Bussard from them (emc2:) Nukes are a long term sol
christo930 3 years ago
well I seriously disagree with you! The dangers of proliferation; from terrorism, accidents, leaks & potential serious damage to the very structure of life (DNA), far outweigh any perceived gains of 'energy'. It costs a bloody fortune. It prevents the money from being spent on the clean alternatives & it's only back on the agenda because the cold-war nuclear weapons are coming to the end of their 'shelf-life' & so to replace them requires a nuclear industry! Its ALWAYS been about weapons!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
I understood the first time!!
If you want to worry about windmills effects on the flow of the air; start by worrying about skyscrapers, & every single building human beings ever put up! There's already millions of them!!
For goodness sakes friend please just think! We need people to accept that SOMETHING has to be done NOW!
Large scale renewables are just part of the equasion! Its about a MIX of renewable sources!
Every home should have micro-power too!
Energy efficient products! Insulation! ETC
ejbh3160 3 years ago
CO2 is not a cause for global warming,
not that it's good, it makes our water poisoned, air unfit to breath but the earth goes through periodical circles and it's getnig warmer.
Even Pluto is geting warmer, so does the other planets too.
borcer 3 years ago
CO2 doesn't poison the water or make the air unfit to breath. You do realize that you produce CO2 simply by breathing? ;)
SilkSwe 3 years ago
I tried to find this out on the Greenpeace website with no luck... Is there a transcript of this video anywhere online? I'd like to use it as a reference in an essay I'm writing. Could you message me with some details about it, i.e. when it was made, who published it, who the copyright belongs to etc. so I can cite from it? (I need this fairly fast, the essay is due in next week :s)
ApacheLQ 3 years ago
somesay that the southampton geothermal chp has been shutdown for years...
bagheraa 3 years ago
As of mid-2007 Southampton has four CHP networks: 1. City Centre Geothermal (producing 48GWh heating/cooling and 22GWh electricity) 2. A Combined Heat and Power engine at City Centre hospital 3. Holyrood Community Heating Scheme (heating 300 flats) 4. Uni of Southampton CHP (producing 1.5mw heat and 1.5mw electricity)
and two large schemes being developed: 1. Millbrook District Energy Scheme 4000 homes heated 2. Woolston Riverside Scheme heating for 15 hectare site.
GreenpeaceUK 3 years ago
(producing 48GWh heating/cooling and 22GWh electricity)
You need to add per year (Gwh/year) otherwise it doesnt make sense ;)
bagheraa 3 years ago
Good point - thanks!
GreenpeaceUK 3 years ago
My local council wants to build a 50,000 ton a year rubbish incinerator in the middle of town & they're telling us it's "CHP"!
What's more, incineration counts towards 'recycling figures' if the waste heat is used! So they're going to give cheap energy to Tescos! I couldn't believe it when I heard that one! That's my council's idea of 'recycling' & CHP all in one! Its enought to make one sick! Especially when the dioxins start filling the air from all that plastic being 'recycled'!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Wind power is a pipe dream. Good that my country has started to look place for sixth nuclear power plant. Huge amount of clean energy!
Windmills destroy wild habitat. Odd that oraganisation what uses word "green" in it's name wants to destroy planet.
How much money GP gets from oil and coal companies?
MokomaSusi 3 years ago
All Volcanos.. 15 Million tons of CO2 PA
Mankind....... 26 BILLION tons of CO2 PA
Did you even watch it?
What is needed EVERYWHERE is a MIX of solar, wind, wave & tidal power! It ain't about ONE renewable option its about ALL of them!
Windmills can be put out at sea where huge arrays or rigs are possible combined with wave & even tidal power! If we can build oil rigs we can build massive wind/wave rigs too!
Coal CO2 damages more & nukes will leave a toxic wasteland & WEAPONS grade plutonium!!
ejbh3160 3 years ago 2
"Did you even watch it?"
Yes, typical greenpeace lies.
"What is needed EVERYWHERE is a MIX of solar, wind, wave & tidal power!"
Solar? there is only few hours of sunlight in winter days where i live. Wind? not much wind at moment when power is really needed. Wave? in winter time? woah.
So we should build seas full of windmills? thats great.
"nukes will leave a toxic wasteland"
Where? typical fear mongering again.
MokomaSusi 3 years ago
Spoken like a Norweigan! Got a vested interest Mokoma?
What Greenpeace lies? I'm not greenpeace? I just help them when I can!
Ever heard of chernobyl?? I think that qualifies as a toxic wasteland!
How about the twice daily TIDE?
A solar water heater on every roof would negate the need for ANY new power stations! Add a PV & wind turbine (all connected to the LOCAL grid of course) & most homes could be almost 100% energy self-sufficient. Efficiency, low energy products, Insulation etc etc wake up!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
we've already filled the North Sea with oil rigs so why not have HUGE VORT wind turbines mounted onto rig like platforms? They could even be wave & tidal power at the same time as the 'feet' of oil rigs lend themselves well to being wave power generators too & the central area could make a 'lagoon' for tidal! But if they're sited where there's strong currents, then underwater turbines could be extremely productive as some areas have very strong currents 24/7!
The only limits are our imagination!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
The thing is though, we all know that renewables are the future - they're clean, free, safe energy. The question we should be asking though is - can we achieve our emissions reductions targets (2020, 2030, 2050) in time by using solely renewable energy? In this clip they say the time & money spent on building new reactors would be better spent on developing renewable energy sources. KEYWORD - 'developing'. You still have to build them afterward - and that's going to take even more time.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
lol - at 3:37 - that's fucking hilarious! They think you can replace an entire nuclear power plant with just 3 wind turbines. God they're stupid.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
ho hum - you are joking of course? Let's hope so, otherwise you must be a distressingly stupid sob.
motherlodeuk 3 years ago 2
How was my comment stupid?
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Your comment referred to an animated section of this film, my friend - which used the image of 3 wind turbines to symbolically (not accurately) depict replacing a nuclear power plant with a combination of wind, wave and tidal energy. This was actually stated verbally, and also flashed up on the screen.
Ergo, your comment was either a jest, or you are particularly thick. Personally I was rooting for the former, but judging from your follow up question I guess not...
motherlodeuk 3 years ago 3
But if you watch from 1:43 they certainly use more than just 3 Big Bens and more than 3 bags of money to emphasis their point when attacking nuclear power. You see what I'm saying?
hrthrhs 3 years ago
hrthrhs.. ummm NO actually I don't!
What a pathetic 'reason' to attack the video! Its like you were simply watching to pick holes in their graphics.. but without bothering to even listen to what they were ACTUALLY saying!! How about "that's enough to fill 500 Big Bens"?? maybe that's why they used more than 3!
Crikey some people! What IS your problem with new ideas?
In Australia you could basically power the entire country from solar, but hey the wind blows too... etc etc etc etc!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
'How about "that's enough to fill 500 Big Bens"?? maybe that's why they used more than 3!' - So why not say it would take dozens of wind turbines to replace a nuclear reactor and then draw the number of wind turbines accordingly?
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Also, were YOU listening to what they were ACTUALLY saying?? Take a listen at 3:37. How about "replace with LARGE scale renewables"?? maybe that's why they SHOULD'VE used more than just 3 turbines.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
Good grief hrthrhs if that's the best argument you can come up with?? In my opinion it just shows how desperate you climate change detractors/deniers are getting!
So bloody what how many pictures they used!? Is THAT supposed to be an argument???
oh no... they should have used more pictures to explain coz some damn fools just don't/can't/won't get it!
How about... there were 3 windmills to 'depict' 3 major off-shore arrays?? Maybe thats it?!
Didn't think of that did you?
Didn't think... did you?
ejbh3160 3 years ago
5:45 - 6:02
why don't YOU listen!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
Last comment I'm going to make so don't reply. One thing you can't deny is this film is bias. Every point it makes about renewables is positive and every point made about nuclear is negative. As I've previously stated if these people were really out to find the better alternative they'd discuss the positives and negatives of both renewable and nuclear power. Have a nice life.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
sorry dude the 'positives of nuclear power' is an oxymoron!
The power is nearly double the price of any other electricity and that's without adding the COST of disposing of their 'waste'.
What other industry (I know of only one) expects the taxpayer to pay the cost of disposing of its waste products!? If THAT cost was added into the cost of the electricity nobody would buy nuke electric power as it would make it cost about 4 times ANY other electricity! Your argument is pathetic at best!
ejbh3160 3 years ago 2
Yes, I am aware that they used 3 wind turbines to not accurately depict replacing a nuclear reactor. So why then at 1:43 (when they were attacking nuclear) did they use more than just 3 Big Bens and 3 money bags? Because they are being bias - my friend. At 3:38 they should've filled the entire screen up with wind turbines just as they filled the entire screen up with Big Bens and money bags.
hrthrhs 3 years ago
hrthrhs.. pathetic! Really pathetic!
Your entire argument on this has been about the graphics in a video... not the ISSUES!
Its people like you that distract others from the REAL issues... just like nuclear power is a ditraction from the REAL issues (and the REAL solutions!)
ejbh3160 3 years ago
in what way wasn't it?
ejbh3160 3 years ago
The first solution will not be given it has to be developed by individuals to show we won't be a slave to power. Pushing for local windturbines or sunpanels is not useless.
ZqweBSname 3 years ago 4
There is alot people living in earth Planet at the moment, there is going to be increased every year, so? what chance do you have needing more food? with more crazy people around? and how can you control all that people?
YouCantStopMeAgain 3 years ago
Nukes,nukes,nukes,nukes. We don't need any solar,windmills,new age contraption for electricity. If were going to waste energy on anything it should be on nukes. Plenty of uranium and water on this planet for billions of years. Fear is for pussies. The energy is as clean as pure water.
STOPGLOBALSTUPIDITY 3 years ago
"Fear is for pussies" - maybe, but blind optimism in the face of real dangers is for pricks - and investment bankers. Fortunately we've just blown so much dosh bailing out the banking system there ain't going to be much appetite for the astonishingly high clean-up costs (£75 billion and rising in the UK when I last looked) and other risks associated with nuclear. And when we could produce the same amount of power for a fraction of the cost using industrial CHP, why would we want to bother?
motherlodeuk 3 years ago
All Volcanos... 15 Million tons of CO2 PA
Mankind........ 26 BILLION tons of CO2 PA
(most of that from dirty coal power stations)
Time to stop burning COAL.. especially that dirty cheap stuff from... now where does that come from papcio?!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
belive me this film is so full of bullshit its even hard to find a point to start with...
papcio 3 years ago
Because you can't!
The fact is if every home had a solar water heater on the roof they'd save nearly 30% on heating water for space heating & washing & a solar PV system plugged into the grid could supply up to 100% & all new build homes should have ground heat built in. There's wind turbines & there's off-shore wind/wave which could be combined units, tidal lagoons for coastal areas & CHP.
Just INSULATING & switching off can save 30% of present use!! ALL the new nukes could only produce 10%!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
the whole Europe subsydies the renewables with bilions eruos and it still doesnt support it with a noticable amount of energy, compare that to nuclear power
papcio 3 years ago
Did you even WATCH the video?
Just do the Math!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
yes i watched it i really love to watch greenpeaces vids and laugh
papcio 3 years ago
Nuclear power is not even deliverable fast enough to help with climate change!
There need to be reductions in CO2 emissions within 10 years (preferably now) & nukes take longer to build than 10 years.
The reason they want nukes is because they keep people reliant on the 'grid'.
If people produce their own power for free then its not taxable & it doesn't help the corporates keep hold of their monopoly on energy! Even locally produced power is cheaper because there's less transport 'loss'.
ejbh3160 3 years ago