Greenpeace and nuclear energy

No science on nuclear waste?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• greenpeace
• nuclear
• energy
• waste
• power

[batukhan]

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

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

[lisaannstiles]

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

[00Billy]

@visini14

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

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

[visini14]

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

[bibbyandal]

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

[gamble180]

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

[00Billy]

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

[AussiePolitics]

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

[memk]

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

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

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

[EddGrimes]

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

[EugeneLancelot]

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

[captinseperoth]

why do we bury it on land, WHY"?

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

after we get there we send highly over engineered casks

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

engineered containers )

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

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

over time the waste will be adsorbed into crust!