😘😘😘

You should make a video bashing renewables, just to spite them. 🤣

​@@TheNativeTwo🧂

By the way, I am in favor of a Dr. Charatsidou having a Twitch channel.

How long would it take to reprocess all 78 million tons of solar panel waste in 2050 (according to IRENA). "A recent statement found that the Toshiba Environmental Solutions will take approximately 19 years for reprocessing all solar massive waste of Japan produced by 2020" ("An overview of solar photovoltaic panels’ end-of-life material recycling" Energy Strategy Reviews. Volume 27, January 2020, 100431. Available at ScienceDirect) "Industry leader Toshiba Environmental Solutions can currently handle 44 tons of solar-panel waste a month. It would take 19 years for the company to process even the 10,000 tons of waste expected in 2020." ("Japan tries to chip away at mountain of disused solar panels" Nikkei) Not to mention solar panels are ewaste. Even if there are safeguards to prevent toxic metals leaking from solar panels theyre probably less reliable than how nuclear waste is stored. History is filled with people being cheap and disasters happening like contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, USA. Another example is recycling being shipped to other countries where it piles up. You could wind up with situations like "“With mounting volumes of production and disposal, the world faces what one recent international forum described as a mounting “tsunami of e-waste”, putting lives and health at risk.” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. "In the same way the world has rallied to protect the seas and their ecosystems from plastic and microplastic pollution, we need to rally to protect our most valuable resource -the health of our children - from the growing threat of e-waste.” As many as 12.9 million women are working in the informal waste sector, which potentially exposes them to toxic e-waste and puts them and their unborn children at risk. Meanwhile more than 18 million children and adolescents, some as young as 5 years of age, are actively engaged in the informal industrial sector, of which waste processing is a sub-sector. Children are often engaged by parents or caregivers in e-waste recycling because their small hands are more dexterous than those of adults. Other children live, go to school and play near e-waste recycling centres where high levels of toxic chemicals, mostly lead and mercury, can damage their intellectual abilities Children exposed to e-waste are particularly vulnerable to the toxic chemicals they contain due to their smaller size, less developed organs and rapid rate of growth and development. They absorb more pollutants relative to their size and are less able to metabolize or eradicate toxic substances from their bodies." (World Health Organization) Not to mention the environmental and social impact of solar farms. You need to cut down trees to build solar farms or suburbs to have rooftop solar (and suburbs/rural areas require more energy per person because everything is more spread out so its an endless cycle of building more roofs to put panels on to create enough power). Fewer trees means more flooding because trees suck up water when it rains. Floods can destroy crops (more GHG because of food waste and no crops means people didnt make money selling crops which means more poverty and starvation from poverty and also the loss of crops) and can pollute rivers because ground pollution gets washed into rivers. And theres the issue of biodiversity. A tree here and there might not make a huge difference but large clearings? And deforestation has been linked to higher rates of malaria. And you would want a lot more than what normal use is when relying on solar. If its cloudy then more panels would be needed to make up for the loss and that means less is going towards storage unless you also double the number of panels for storage but then energy is wasted on days that arent cloudy. This winds up being expensive. Its like buying 10 gallons of milk in case one accidentally breaks while you unload groceries, another winds up being spoiled, another because you wind up throwing a party and everyone wants to drink milk. If you normally only drink 1 gallon of milk between shopping trips then you wasted $20 on the 9 other gallons along with other people could have bought that milk but either couldnt or more milk was produced to make up for people buying more than needed. The difference with solar is that people will use more energy when theres more solar panels available just like theyll eat more food when its labeled low fat or diet. People could use public transportation but automation and assembly lines made having your own car easier. And wind turbines are being planted on mountains surrounded by forests. "Wind turbines are lightning magnets-and strikes on these tall, spinning structures can cause significant damage. Blades explode; generators and control system electronics fry." "a downed tree made contact with a PG&E electrical wire, sparking the Butte Fire, which burned over 70,000 acres, destroyed 365 homes, and killed two people"

This is a definition of gaslighting technique. Antinuclears have did so in a very masterfulness to cover up their deceptions.

Greenpeace to Nuclear Energy: Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself!

🎯

@@monad_tcp it’s just like how “just stop oil” is funded in part by oil companies, it’s like the saying, “give them enough rope to hang themselves”, they are funding them so they can go out and be a public nuisance and piss people off so that people don’t listen to their message and so that “just stop oil” gives all climate activist groups a bad reputation and makes people not support them. It’s a smart strategy on the oil companies part, fund an extremist opposition group to ruin the reputation of anyone who belongs to similar groups.

The military builds them in less than two years. They don't have to listen to the nonsense coming from GreenPeace.

to be fair the ridiculous safety standards and constant ever changing safety regulation is basically the reason why its nearly impossible for nuclear accidents to happen. the lack of similar regulations is also why fossil fuels are so cheap even though they cause exponentially more environmental damage and deaths because of accidents.

If i have to cross the atlantic (analogy for climate crisis), i can choose to start swimming (analogy of building solar and wind) or choose to build a ship (analogy for building nuclear). The swimmer will head out first but will never reach the other shore, while the one with the ship needed some time to build but has a high chanche to reach his goal. Of course the best is if you can start to swim AND in the meantime build a ship (analogy for building nuclear and renewables), thats what reasoned scientists propose and thats what Greenpeace sadly ideologically is not willing to understand.

they wont listen , they have belief , thats why I left them as facts against the belief are heresy

They are liars and terrorists.

@@the_forbinproject2777 They will listen but will continue to work their many money making false narratives. It's easy when people are so ignorant about nuclear energy and radiation.

They use science, but their science has about the same quality as that used by the cosmetics industry, their not looking for the right result but looking for a particular result advocacy driven science isn't really science at all

It's not "almost talking to a cult member", you ARE talking to a cult member! They are low thinking, ignore-ant, people that only follow others. There are approximately 3 levels to a cult. The low level ones are the brainwashed low IQ non-thinkers that parrot what they are told. The mid level ones are those that somewhat have an idea about what's going on and they distribute the words and orders. The upper level ones know what is being said is nonsense propaganda and do it, usually, for some kind of clout/power and/or for monetary gain, and so on. It's targeted for reasons. Most of the "bad press" Nuclear receives is so easy to debunk yet many are just too plain lazy or dissonant to do it. If Nuclear took off in the 70's and 80's there probably would be SMR's in every locality as we speak, present power generation would have been phased out years ago. It's sad that the bureaucratic/activist nonsense have led us to our present state! Time to change the landscape!

yes I left because they became a cult , no matter what you say they have faith (!)

It's tantamount to flat earth, climate change denial, anti-vax, and the list could go on ... There is a very real psychological phenomenon causing these beliefs. Or maybe they're replacing conventional religion; it's the same sort of thinking, really, just applied to ideas that haven't been normalised in the same way as those of mainstream religions.

@@PBeringer climate change denial, outright denial or the data driven lower bound expectation one ? as for ani-vax do you coof or MMR ? ( for the record 3 jabbed and MMR'ed ) just curious

@@the_forbinproject2777 Yeah, I'm fully vaccinated, including MMR (and I've needed every travel vaccination available to me; yellow fever wasn't fun). I've had four CoVID vaccinations so far, but the last was quite a while ago. Can confirm my brain hasn't melted ... much. Hehe. Not sure what "coof" means, though. And I'd say the "information disease" sweeping the planet is an amalgam of science denial, outright denial of anything contrary to personal opinion ... with a dash of straight up personal incredulity. The science denial is an interesting one, given how fervently deniers will still adopt technology which suits their needs. Think it was Carl Sagan in "Pale Blue Dot ... " wrote, regarding the technological development of humanity, "if we gain only power and not wisdom, we will surely destroy ourselves". I genuinely feel like we are about to see that idea manifest.

Many activists are impervious to facts when they don't fit their narrative.

Do you have a place where we can find this? In curious. Maybe i can get extra people on the nuclear bandwagon. Mind you, I'm from the EU. If you can't help me that's fine to. But i rather have a source available that's ligit than some hijacked version by Greenpeace 🤢 Edit i fount @PandorasPromiseMovie here on KZfaq. If you can either confirm it's the right oke or not. Thx

​@@RedRingOfDead you can simply use a search engine to find out where it's being streamed, or where you can get access to it.

Feelings are irrelevant in regards to Factual arguments ONLY demonstrable evidence matters. Period. End of story.

@@madmax2069 if only it was streaming here

Windmills don't even break even on the amount of energy it takes to build, maintain, and dispose of them verses the amount of energy they generate over their life cycle.

When it's just standing up to factories dumping things in rivers I'm all for it. Sadly it's not that simple.

Also that waste is composed of Uranium 238 (mostly) with 1% plutonium, 1% Uranium 235 and 3% being decay products, the uranium can be reused in reactors that can use natural uranium U-238, the plutonium can also be used in reactors is well.

@@thefullmetalmaskedduo6083 The Canadian CANDU would be such a reactor. It can run on the spent fuel from PWRs via the Dupic (Direct use of spent PWR fuel in CANDU) process. And theoretically, with the proper safety measures an RBMK would be able to do it too. But unfortunately, that option went out the window when Chernobyl Unit 4 decided to go for a stroll in the countryside. Fast reactors can use the "waste" of PWRs/BWRs as well. And things get even better when that fast reactor is not merely a "waste-burner", but a breeder reactor. Then it can use the waste and plutonium, PLUS make new fuel for the PWRs/BWRs while it's running on their waste. The resultant true waste is very little, with only a couple of hundred years instead of several thousands of years decay to safe levels time. The technology is already here, look up EBR-II/ the IFR. Too bad politics and activism got in the way. We would have been a lot farther along if they'd kept their noses out of it.

worse, without the scare mongering created by greenpeace and groups like it we wouldn't have legislation that makes separating out high and low level waste to store for different periods illegal, and the actual storage requirements would be an order of magnitude smaller still.

@@thefullmetalmaskedduo6083 exactly, if the waste is still radioactive then it still has energy that can be used. I heard that most uranium ore is uranium 238 which then gets enriched before used as fuel, so you could take that “spent” fuel, remove the plutonium and other waste products and then you are pretty much left with uranium ore that you can just enrich again and reuse and every time you reuse it you lower the amount of time it would need to be stored whilst obviously using it to make electricity.

@@conorstewart2214 You don't have to. Read my reply (if you can see it). We already have reactors that can run on the waste from other reactors, long-lived actinides and all. And Plutonium isn't "waste", it's reactor fuel! That's why I say you don't have to remove it. Make the spent fuel into new fuel assemblies that will go into a CANDU/ Fast Reactor, and you're good to go. Even PWRs/BWRs can run on Mox-fuel. The technologies are already available to us, if only politics would get out of the way, and let the science guys do their thing.

That's just mud-slinging. Why not address the issues: Nuclear power plants and cruise missiles are never going to sort well in the future. Nuclear power plants can't even keep water out, never mind keep their radioactive waste in.

Their funding is the ignorant people that donate. The root cause of this is the half century of the media lying about nuclear energy.

The only reason Greenpeace is still around is because their lies make their investors happy

they fulfill the definition of terrorists to the letter ... using fear and violence to force theyr political views on civilian population...

I wonder if George Soros funds Green Peace?

To this day, I am angered about the incident with the Nazca lines. Those guys need to be labeled as terrorists.

Correct, it's just released as steam.

It's "consumed" in the sense that it's no longer in the river and no one was can use it. It competes with other needs for water, including drinking and agriculture. However, most of the "consumed" water is actually liquid water released back into the river, with only a small portion of the water actually released to the air as steam. Confusing these two is a common trick by anti-nuclear activists to make nuclear look like it consumes more water than it really does.

Nuclear power plants consume water and release it as heated, tritiated water. You can Google all that. www.google.com/search?q=Tritiated+water+nuclear+power+plants&oq=Tritiated+water+nuclear+power+plants Other forms of generation have no need to do that. I think that warmed, and tritiated, the water has arguably been consumed - especially considering the water then required to re-cool and dilute the tritiated cooling water. You, of course, know that no matter how dilute that water is, the radioactive pollutants are reconcentrated by fish and all other life?

No worries with that. They have probably been infiltrated in any case by now. Their boat was sunk and one of its crew murdered by the French Nuclear backers, apparently.

Plus they take up quite a large amount of land just to even get close to what a single nuclear power plant can produce.

The Greenies never mention that when the proclaim solar and wind are cheaper than solar. They also don't mention they use RATED output, not actual output which is 4-30X less than what they meme.

Yeah it's like a lot of political issues. Most issues aren't actually decided on what makes the most logical sense, but what makes people feel better or what triggers them more. I mean many issue that are top priority issues are pretty generic when you just think of the positive or negatives, but people have an innate reaction to these ideas because of implications, precedence, or general disgust of change. I don't think it's a controversial take to say the average person does not like change. Just look at the people who said they'd vote for Biden because he was either "the most electable" or "he'll be stable like Obama". That doesn't really solve our problems, but it doesn't really make them worse either. To some that seems to be enough. It's the unfortunate reason why things seem to get worse before they get better as things really have to s*** the bed before some does something.

Well you don't need that much: What happens when a cruise missile hits a nuclear power plant?

@@grahambennett8151 And how likely is that in most countries around the world? BTW, the meter thick wall of concrete with the containment dome is not necessarily going to buckle that easily, so there is that.

​@@unconventionalideas5683 A meter? A meter? You might as well make the dome out of butter! You've clearly never been to the Normandy beaches to see what a tiny naval shell could do to concrete 80 years ago. The Tall Boy bomb penetrate five metres of reinforced concrete way back then. We have had bunker busting GBU-28 missiles since 1991 and even before that, that would go through 5M of reinforced concrete. There is a difference between unconventional ideas and stupid ones - but that's where you're at right now. Well there are several hundred nuclear power plants, and two of the largest nuclear power countries in the world are at war - Israel too, and Iraq. and you reckon it's unlikely? Hilarious. If you are not on drugs, you probably need 'em.

If you bring up how wind turbine blades are not recyclable and how there are fields full of discarded blades they respond saying they are recyclable, but the truth is this “recycling” is just grinding up the blades and using them as filler in other products. You cannot recycle a blade and use it to make a new blade, you have broken all the fibres and the resin is already cured which is an irreversible process. So they are not recyclable in the same way that a plastic bottle or metal can is recyclable where it can be melted down and turned into a new product. “Recycling” wind turbine blades is not a sustainable form of recycling, if you recycle a blade it can never be used to make another blade or any other fibreglass product, it can only be ground up and used to fill a hole in something.

Like Superman said, 'it's still the safest way to travel' and Nuclear Energy is still the best way to produce that much power in that small of a space.

You're absolutely correct. Organisations like Greenpeace worked very hard to discredit nuclear energy. And they were in league with the fossil fuel industry. They did everything to make nuclear as expensive as possible. Greenpeace has a lot of blood on their hands. All the people that died because of air pollution etc is thanks to their meddling. If nuclear technology hadn't been hobbled to the extend it was/is, we would have been much further along in its development.

What I hate more is that they also keep pushing this stupidity of urgency. Climate change is real, but its not urgent, its important and we should organize towards that, but don't put arbitrary dates, like 2050, its totally random. And they keep pushing back this date, it was by the end of the century, now its Agenda 2030. Soon they start cutting power in the winter because of "climate lock-downs"

It has been confirmed by some time that Greenpeace and other "environmentalist" organisations receive funding linked to oil companies.

The connections to the fossil fuel industry have been proven.

​@@swokatsamsiyu3590 No, the reason it's expensive is that we had about a dozen high-profile nuclear accidents across the world, as well as the association with the production of fuel for nuclear weapons. In order to not have those accidents again, it's now pretty expensive to build reactors. This coupled with an intense desire that everything and anything has to be profitable.. well. Nuclear is not profitable. Why does it need to be profitable? Capitalism. Go fight against that, instead of whinging about climate activists. At least they are doing something, you are doing nothing. You just sit around hoping for a technology to save you from your consumption problem.

But what you've got here is not a balanced view. It's the other side of the argument. Although in this video she is actually broadly agreeing with greenpeace or finding little to disagree with. You'll need to find a "neutral" point of view if you want the facts.

@@handsofdoubt31 Yeah but the title and thumbnail is outrage bait and nobody here watched the video, they read "green peace", and they've been primed their whole life that activists are "The Bad People Rocking The Boat" (even though literally any good thing that has ever happened in terms of law and country is because of activists, often violent activism. From human rights to regulation to the workday being "only" 8h.).

Or russians...

But what would be the motive of attacking a nuclear plant. They dont go boom. If you want the area to be without power then solar is somehow going to be better? You can replace the panels faster but theyll just keep getting destroyed and at that point why not just destroy the people not the plant.

@@namename9998 Destroying solar panels is like throwing peas, you want to do real ham, you do for distribution network, like transformers and substations. They are rarely well guarded, if at all, and disabling a few of them can leave whole city without power.

@@sjent True

There have been many breaches by protesters onto the grounds of many nuclear power plants. I would call those terrorist attacks.

And of course organizations like greenpeace don't mention the countless sqaure kilometers of bird choppers you'll get with so many turbines, compared to the smsll footprint of a nuclear plant.

@@ralphvelthuis2359 bird choppers isn't the problem, the real problem is they are NOISE as hell. its a literal turbine. What part of turbine sounds tranquil and quiet and serene ? none of it, its hell noise whenever is winding.

And all those turbines will require frequent maintenance. Not to mention power loss over all those powerlines. Not to mention enormous maintenance cost that those extreme powerlines will require. Not to mention amount of battery capacity that country would need, something that pretty much a fantasy. Between amount of materials that you need to build all those power banks, land that you will need for all those power storages(that will also be prime targets for terrorists - throw a bottle of water in and look at hundreds of millions going up in smoke, billions in damages to economy, and hundreds of lives lost due to lack of power) and simply ungodly amount of money you need to build enough to last even those 10 days, this whole idea is a pure fantasy. Australia already invested billions and they have enough storage for a WHOLE 9 minutes, if all power dies. This fantasy about "Renewables" is nothing but a fevered dream of many idiots and a great way to make money for few hustlers and scammers. No country i nthe world could afford 100% operation off wind and solar. And those that are pseudo-100% on renewables are falling into very strict criteria - no large industrial base, small population(

@@sjent That's some of the many reasons I call them ruinables.

@@monad_tcp There's some evidence that wind turbines do pose a unique extinction threat to certain bird species. Not birds as a whole, but to certain species of birds. Certain species of bats too.

I laughed when she said that, could say the same about a single wind turbine or solar panel.

Well, we've gotten to the point where we are going to have to take extreme measures for the people causing this mass extinction (including humans). No one wants to hear it: but there's a chunk of humanity responsible for our current position that need to go (i.e. turned into fertilizer). This is the ultimate choice: either some go, or we all do.

I would say that your unsupported assertions might equally apply to the pro-nuclear masses. What you have there is just mud slinging. Does not convince me.

Your English is very good!

It's not environmentalism, the fossil fuels industry infiltrated and hijacked Greenpeace. Attacking both nuclear and making green energy and environmentalism look bad.

Well said.

> They're generating outrage and profiting off of it. Looks at video title. Looks at video thumbnail. No profiting of constructed outrage here!

@@thecrazything95 touché salesman

Lol, the guy in the pay of fossil fuel.... work harder when pick your heroes

@@marvintpandroid2213, I don't know what you're talking about? Do you have any information you can direct me to to prove it?

​@@marvintpandroid2213We are on the same side, but you have to know what you're talking about. Calling someone out just because their name appears next to an organization that we're fighting, without knowing what they stand for, is counter productive. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Patrick Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism". Greenpeace has criticized Moore, calling him "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry"

​@@canonwright8397He doesn't know what he's talking about. He read "founded Greanpeace" and went into attack mode without the necessary knowledge.

The newest reactor designs don't even need traditional reprocessing. Chop up the pellets, remove the metallic coating, and dump them into the reactor.

@@chapter4travels Some experimental designs, yes.

The reactors have been shut down since September last year. No danger. See IAEA update 161.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk They still have a high inventory of fissile material in the cooling ponds, which is probably the biggest concern. Also, even after shutdown, you still need power to the core to remove heat from the fission products to avoid a meltdown.

@@hewdelfewijfe Fear monger much? You obviously refuse to read the IAEA update 161.

​@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk We're talking about different things. You seem to be talking about the possibility of an unpreventable disaster because of water availability from the nearby river or something. I'm talking about the possibility of purposeful Russian sabotage.

None of that will matter if a cruise missile hits any of the new nuclear plants they are proposing. Even the pig-headed IAEA are warning about the dangers in Ukraine.

Do we any newspaper reports, articles or papers regarding that?

@@yashmishra1024 I only remember seeing it visually, either on television or a documentary, and that there was some minor outrage the the incoming Clinton administration killed the program immediately after taking office.

I believe you think about Thorium reactors ? In those systems, the reactive material is in the fluid. (Molten salt) The fluid is very hot, and you simply put a pipe on the bottom of the reactor, and cool the pipe, as then the salt is solid, making a plug inside the pipe. If power goes, then the plug melts, and all the content of the reactor dump into a container. As in the reaction also stop, there’s no risk of a radioactive failure. Those molten salt reactors are very safe, and are not pressurized, but prone to be challenged by the very corrosive environment. Any other modern reactors are very safe too. Don’t worry 😉

That reactor is actually much older. It's called EBR-II, a liquid sodium cooled fast reactor. The development already started in the 60's(!). They started working on the IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) for which EBR-II was the basis in the early 80's. It has a fully closed fuel cycle with an in-house fuel reprocessing facility. The fuel never left the plant premises. It can burn the waste from other reactors, and since it's a breeder reactor (meaning it can make more fuel than it consumes while it is running) it can also make fuel for those other reactors. And you're correct, they designed EBR-II so well that even when they tried to cause a meltdown on purpose, the reactor politely refused both times. These were full-scale tests with the reactor at full nominal power. One test was a loss-of-coolant test, the other was a loss-of-heat sink test. Beforehand, they GAGGED the control rods and safety systems, so they could not come to the rescue and save the reactor. They literally said; "The reactor will have to figure it out on its own. We will not intervene, no matter what happens." And that's exactly what EBR-II did. Both times it safely shut itself down without any damage to itself or the fuel long before approaching the danger zone. There is a video of these tests on YT, search for the official Argonne National Laboratory channel -> the Integral Fast Reactor. It's about 13-14 minutes long. The video is a real treat. It's awesome to see the reactor save itself without even blinking.

@Mit Navn I'm not worried at all. In the US, we've had over 90 reactors running nearly accident free for over half a century, not to mention plenty of nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. They're like plane crashes: quite rare but when they happen it's big news because of the scope of what had (or could have) happened.

Note that many -- but not all -- toxic molecules will also spontaneously decay in the environment. Many harmful organic molecules quickly change into other non-harmful molecules in the environment. Of course, certain harmful waste, such as heavy metal, remain forever harmful. I am a pro-nuclear activist who says that power plant nuclear waste has never hurt anyone and likely never will, and safe disposal is easy and cheap.

Yep, the Greenies never mention that they will have to be replaced 3-4 times in the lifespan of a typical NPP in their cost analysis.

"resultant waste being dealt with after less than 20 years." -- For the solar cells, citations please that this is happening for even a majority of solar cell waste.

@@hewdelfewijfe Did you mean minority? The advertised life of solar panels is 20-25 years. THAT is the advertised life. We all know how advertising works. I have a system on my house which is 7 years old and 2 panels have already failed.

@@albatross5466 oh I thought you meant "being properly recycled" when you said 'being dealt with", and I was doubtful of that. I totally believe you that many solar cells don't last 20 or 25 years. My apologies for the miscommunication.

@@hewdelfewijfe No worries. I often think I don't communicate very well. But even with this clarification I don't think there are many facilities that will recycle solar panels. But in capitalism if there is a profit to be made, someone will fill the void. I just needs to be made profitable. Be well.

Totally sarcasm, since people already solved the nuclear waste issue...according to Kyle Hill, decades ago

Greenpeace is against nuclear power because it would actually solve what they're only pretending to care about, and as such Greenpeace would have no reason to continue existing as a group.

You mean the kind of thing the nuclear industry always secretly dumped at sea - before Greenpeace exposed the practice. And who sank their only ship and murdered one of their crew?

@@grahambennett8151 I would actually say that dilution is probably one of the best ways to reduce radioactivity, and therefore, dumping nuclear waste into the sea might actually be one of the better ways to dispose of it.

@@Knowbody42 Well, you are at least addressing the issue, but I would not expect you to say anything else - and if nuclear waste were fully biodegradable and no longer radioactive, you might even have a point. The flaw in that theory, however, is that the radioactivity is not reduced as you implicitly assert, quote: "one of the best ways to *reduce* radioactivity". As I understand the science, the only way that radioactivity actually reduces is over time. The waste has half-lives that are not reduced by dumping it at sea or anywhere else. Your "dilution" in fact is only dispersal, and all marine life takes up the "hot" unique man-made particulates and reconcentrates it right up the food chain to our dinner tables. Our own bodies then mistake these man-made radionuclides for calcium, potassium and other innocuous substances and concentrate it in our tissues, iodine in the thyroid, caesium in the heart and other muscles, and of course strontium as an analogue for calcium in our bones/teeth, etc. Forgive me, but I'm not at all convinced by your suggestion.

There was a unit in ww2 that destroyed dams. "At midnight 8 April 1951, North Korean and Chinese forces released excess water from the dam's spillway which disabled five floating bridges of the United Nations Command downstream.[6] The dam was previously assessed as a problem and key facility in the area due to its hydroelectric power and ability to cause floods and droughts downstream areas. Capturing or disabling it became key.[7] On 9 April, the 7th Cavalry Regiment, already executing Operation Rugged in the area, were charged with capturing the dam but were unsuccessful after encountering stiff defense.[8][9] Between 16 and 21 April, Allies had secured the dam but were repelled by Chinese counterattack before being able to destroy the dam's floodgates. After B-29s failed to neutralize the dam, on 30 April, Skyraiders fired Tiny Tim rockets at and dropped a pair of 2,000-pound bombs on the dam, puncturing one spillway gate.[10] On 1 May, Air Group 19 assaulted the dam with eight Skyraiders that were equipped with Mk 13 torpedoes and escorted by twelve Corsairs. Seven of eight torpedoes struck the dam and six exploded. The attack alleviated the dam as a flood threat, destroying one sluice gate and damaging several others.[11] One of the participating U.S. Navy squadrons, VA-195 was renamed from Tigers to Dambusters.[7] This raid constitutes the last time globally that an aerial torpedo was used against a surface target,[12][13] and was the only time torpedoes were used in the Korean War.[14][15]" "The Peruća Dam was gravely damaged during the Croatian War of Independence, when on January 28, 1993, in the aftermath of Operation Maslenica, at 10:48 a.m., the dam was blown up in an intentional effort to destroy it by Serbian/Yugoslav army forces.[4] They mined it with 30 tons of explosive and detonated the charges with the intention of harming thousands of Croatian civilians downstream."

All sorts of bad things could happen during the war. For example, there is also an ammonia leakage in the Ukraine. 0% nuclear and yet still quite deadly substance. Humanity cannot give up on ammonia production just because there is a war somewhere. Nuclear energy is much safer than the chemistry industry, why should it be treated differently?

There is no danger to the Ukraine plant, see IAEA update 161.

Although that water reservoir also feeded the cooling water of the nuclear power plant under Russian siege. How much of an issue this is going to become stands to be seen. But, the whole power plant is stuffed with explosives anyway, so the moment the Russians are forced to retrieve, they have order to blow that damn thing up, leaving Ukraine with the second nuclear power desaster after Tchernobyl.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Except being unable to check the roof for bombs.

Note that it's not just that one channel that believes nuclear is necessary. The problem is that there is a complete disconnect between what the science consensus and public understanding. Nuclear power is the only option to replace fossil fuels. To exact quote preeminent climate scientist Dr James Hansen “But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” The IPCC reports also say that there is no solution worldwide without a lot more nuclear power.

Much lower than that. You also have to include the cost of natural gas peaker plants to supply the electricity when the sun and wind can't.

Americanos necesitan mejor "molten-salt reactors" similar a LFTR de la compañía: "Flibe" Energía

Nuclear is about 20% of US electricity: www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl=T08.01#/?f=M

You've missed out a whole load of other disasters there. Santa Susana, Kyshtym, Oak Ridge, Dounreay, Windscale and a 2009 Japanese reprocessing disaster. You are being duped. Is thee cancer epidemic in the nuclear era also a knee-jerk reaction? The Chernobyl exclusion zone will not be fit for mass human habitation for thousands of years - and people had to eat and breathe in all that highly-radioactive pollution. If I may say so, I prefer their knee-jerk reaction to your jerk reaction

The one near NYC survived without a scratch in 2001

yeah I was also very confused by that claim. did they meant doubling the number of nuclear reactors in the world ? did they mean doubling the capacity ? did they mean finishing the planned reactors ? and I mean... of course it will be a small percentage given that only something like 30% of the CO2 emissions come from energy generation, and nuclear only account for 6% of energy generation. how the fuck would you reduce it by 100% with nuclear alone ? the question itself doesn't even make sense.

Fossil Fuel industry infiltrated and hijacked Greenpeace communication.

I’m sorry could you put this in a sentence that would make a lot more sense? Cause this sure as hell don’t

@@AceIndiana Maybe the answer will do it for you. Fossil fuel and corporate greed that bought themselves a voting block. The religious right

@@AceIndiana The fossil fuel industry pays people to pretend to be environmentalists. Instructs them to attack competing technology: nuclear and make environmentalism look bad. Two birds, one stone.

If the general public was knowledgeable about nuclear energy, there would be no Green Peace meme that could ever be effective.

Sweden wasn't far behind, thankfully the people voted enough to the right before they were all shut down. Still, GP complain nuclear is slow to build, yet nothing from them about how fast it is to shut down perfectly good reactors with 10+ years left on their life, during which replacements could be built, but oh wait nuclear is bad.