I think if we want to expand nuclear power's footprint, this would be a great idea. We need to break down the disinformation and misinformation in reasonable ways in order to change the public view.

Stick it to those liars and propagandists! Greenpeace, like most modern environmental movements, are less interested in the environment and more interested in both hurting people and accruing power. You will never see one of these orgs lobby to increase personal or individual freedoms, even when allowing these freedoms results in a net drop in carbon or energy use.

Tne anti-fossil fuel people are just as guilty of hiding parts of the truth as Greenpeace. Even with disasters like Chernobyl and Fukishima, if you count the number of people who didn't freeze to death as a result of the power generated by these reactors, humanity still comes out ahead. They, like the rest of them, are fear-mongering to promote an agenda that has nothing at all to do with the well-being of people.

I wouldn’t want to dirty my hands with Greenpeace. I enjoy a lot of their environmental advocacy, but even 50 or so years old, I ignored all the anti-nuclear-power stuff. In the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, the air in the USA smelled of petrol and diesel fumes. So many rivers and streams were choked with solid and liquid waste. Most species of cetacean were highly endangered and whaling was legal (!?!). I liked Greenpeace for the anti-nuclear-weapon stance, but it only seemed aimed at the US. I’m not aware if they exported this view to non-Western countries, though. In these times of climate change and reduction of carbon emissions, it seems out of touch to be anti-nuclear-power at this time. It’s said that millions of people die of air pollution from burning fossil fuels. I doubt that many people died from nuclear power plants. Until this climate issue is rectified in the next couple of centuries or so, it’s important to use nuclear fusion and fission to reduce anthropocentric climate change. At least…use these technologies as backup power for wind farms and night time power for solar arrays.

@@joshcee3362 I'm infamous for expounding on the benefits and environmental friendliness of true clean coal. The coal burners love it initially, until they learn to their horror that I'm talking about using coal as a municipal water supply filter. Fort Dix uses one such filtration plant. Burning it? Just nope, save perhaps when making a bit of coke, the rest of it is better used as a filter.

You can literally calculate how many more people are going to die due to air pollutions. They killed people with that decision. They should be sued

Well, in Germany we have the goal of 100% renewables and a few problems that i.e. the US does not have all of. 1. We do not actually have that much Uranium. And the one we do have is comparatively very expensive to get to. Meaning, we need to rely on other countries to import. We also imported lots of gas from Russia. That got us into problems... 2. We do however have lots of coal and the possibility for generating renewables. 3. The cooling water can become a problem long-term. France, our direct neighbor, is experiencing a huge drought over the last years, and parts of germany in the west are also already affected. A few years back, the river Rhine, our biggest, had so little water they needed to stop shipping. France is investing into new nuclear plants while many ask how they want to cool them - and what that does to the rivers, because by now they actually significantly raise the temperatures of said rivers downstream (with the water that doesnt evaporate, that is). The exact figure is open to debate, but even the lower estimates, about 5-10% of total water usage are big enough to be worrying.

@@kennichdendenn Thank you for the information. With all that why not keep the existing reactors running, while building up renewable instead of building new coal? Is the price of uranium greater than the damage that coal will cause?

​​​@@Eleanor_Ch that however is something I cannot answer. They even built a brand new one that was never taken online... Btw: the coal plants are actually releasing more radiation into the environment than the nuklear plants ever did. Public backlash will have played a role, even before Fokushima happened - and afterwards, the fate was sealed. A point that I did not mention - in Ukraine, fights around an active nuklear power plant also threatened the safety of said plant. That is something I personally think is a consideration against nuklear power - not even that it is hard to control, but the existence of bad actors that could actively undermine this delicate process.

And another argument - huge, centralized power plants (of whatever type) are relatively easy to take out or cut off. Ukraine learned that the hard way then Russia bombed their grid - luckily they were back up pretty fast - but that was and is not a given. The more decentralized a grid is, the harder it is to take significant portions offline. To phrase it differently: Short of detonating enough nukes to permanently cloud the sky, its pretty hard to take rooftop solar power offline over any significant area - and even that doesnt stop the wind from blowing or the water from flowing. A reasonable long-term strategy probably involves a sizable portion of renewables. With an emphasis on "Long Term".

You got it!

Sleazy and highly malicious. This wasn't misinformation, it's fully intentional disinformation.

@RogerWilco99 True.

The most sleazy part is that they claim that they are funded by people. They are not. They are funded by some large business that is hidden between secrecy of a swizz bank

Nuclear power industry grew out of the nuclear weapons industry. I worked in both and it's not a good look.

The french are also the French. I doubt they'd give a shit if anyone got angry at them anyway, that's just how it be lol

@@utoobeizkaka2737 I sincerely hope you are a bot. Real life humans would understand your argument to be drivel. If humans are "dangerous" for millions of years to come do we get rid of them? How about the sun? It gives lethal doses of radiation to people it won't go away for billions of years. As a matter of fact the sun will consume the earth and people will make war. Do you live in a fantasy or are you just a conman?

The media has a strong role. What do you think it happens when people's nuclear information sources are streaming services films? Productions like Chernobyl and Dark bias people

why is france importing so much energy during sommer times from germany then?

@@progamler1 we don't? Like yes we imported a bit during nuclear power plant maintenance, but overall we are still largely exporting electricity...

typical

They're not critical. They're fanatics.

Orgs like Greenpeace and PETA aren't conserned with the problems that they were made to 'solve', in case of Greenpeace, my father is a civil engineer and works on building dams, and some people that live or have a problem with the fact that a dam is going to be on a location are a big problem (I do know I did compare two VERY different things, but...). For example, two colegues that knew my dad were supposed to inspect a dam in South America, some time after their arrival, they ate on a restaurant nearby the dam on were many workers and crew ate lunch and dinner. They died a couple of days later of mercury poisoning in their beef. Later it was discovered that the restaurant owner poisoned the food because he had a grudge with some of the company that was building the dam the two were confused with some of the co.'s personel and thus they died because of a grudge with people they didn't even know.

And no, I won't answer alot because it's 00:30 here and I'm very tired.

Greenpeace should be named Greenpiss.

I am an environmental zealot but also understand that nuclear energy is necessary to stop using fossil fuels , at least in the short term.

​@@vesawuoristo4162 Here's my upvote. I should have specified "german" in my comment since they're the only environmentalists who prefer using old coal plants than building new NPP's

Why can't we all just listen to Green Peace and continue outsourcing all of our Rare Earth Mineral mining to the ethnic slave labor in China. Why cant we understand that ANY amount of pollution and carbon sink destruction is worth decreasing fossil fuel sales in qestern countries.

@@vesawuoristo4162 I'm pro nuclear power, but its not a solution. As an example, in Austria (per year) we produce about 70TWh electricity (about 2/3 environmental friendly, mostly hydropower), we burn about 90TWh and 100+TWh oil products. There is no chance to substitute those about 200TWh fossil fuels by nuclear energy (to produce 200TWh electricity with nuclear power you need about 15 Temelin like plants (about 30 1GW nuclear reactors))! If you use instead of reactors like in Temelin the ones uses in US/UK nuclear submarines (which are very safe, do not need refuel twice a year and likely could be produced much faster, in years not decades), then multiply the number by 10 (-> 300 100MW reactors for Austria alone). So nuclear isn't a solution, neither short nor long term (unfortunately wind and solar power isn't too, because 1GW reactor produces more and more reliably an energy equivalent of about 300 wind turbines, and neither wind nor solar power can be built in necessary amounts). The replacement of fossil fuel is at a scale humanity likely might fail or need to take dramatic sacrifices (e.g. reduction of mobility), I refer to the climate change as a planet killer event similar to the asteroid that doomed the dinosaurs.

@@romanstangl8655 Since about half of fossil fuel burn goes right up the smokestack: it may not be as insurmountable as you think. If you get a heat pump with a COP of 3 or more: it becomes more efficient to burn fuel at a central power plant ~50% efficiency, transmit it on the grid, then operate the heatpump -- than to have a 95% efficient boiler. Motor vehicles have even worse efficiency (on the order of 30%). Electric cars can be around 90% efficient. But since that is less than an order of magnitude: rolling out mass transit and densifying cities will probably yield better results.

The use of the word "Nukes" on the Web page is one of its most egregious elements. It makes any good logic impossible and makes it impossible for the reader to distinguish between very different issues.

The nuclear energy industry should rename itself to “fissile energy”.

So true. As soon as someone mentions the N word everyone around them faints with fear.

Yep. I've had to explain to several people that nuke plants if there ever was an accident don't explode mushroom cloud explosion, it's usually more steam cloud explosion. A nasty steam cloud, but it won't vaporize you. I live about ten miles from one. Maybe actually closer than that because I can walk up a hill by my house and see the cooling tower across the river.

Kind of like the term "assault weapon".

Yes, aim for the emotions, they over-ride rational thought and logic every time.

To be fair, most people are a bit stupid and doesn't seems to care much about the truth... Not to mention they all want a safer environment, better and free healthcare services, a better justice system, but they also get furious if their taxes is raising by 1% lol

Yeah Our countries suffer from them too When they boycott Russia oil to Indonesia I was like What??? It's environment organization or political organization??? Did they think it's their money?

I personally find bold assertions far less persuasive than measured discussions

It depends on the recepient...

Sorry for you, but that's what I want to hear! If your job is incredibly hard, that's good news for us all!

@Satan Hell_Lord Well, being a good badguy made me a better goodguy. I think there were like 2 years where the majority of the "kills" were adversaries playing good-guys, vs. adversaries playing bad guys.

I’m so grateful for people like you and the other Breakers/white hats who help our security constantly improve across the board. Most people don’t realize how important your job is to them.

@OneBiasedOpinion It burns you out. I came back from an 8 week deployment one time and had 32 hours to spend some quality time with my girl, strip, clean, and repack my gear before I headed out again. It's definitely a single man's game. I was engaged in, shall we say, indoor sports with my girl, on a Wednesday afternoon. Phone rings, "Pack your gear, we're going to Wisconsin." When? "Flight leaves Friday, 0600." Oh, joy 😑

I think you are referring to Patrick Moore. I can recommend his book 'Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom' - that also gives you an idea why he parted ways with Greenpeace.

I have an ecology degree, and it’s because the university staff in those sciences demonize it. They straight up told us that solar and wind have comparable outputs, and ecology degrees attract 2 types of people: non confrontational rednecks and hyper opinionated hippies. Ecology is half science and half politics, and unfortunately on that issue the political side is what’s taught

How can they be coherent if they are ignorant? :)

Professional activists have to be active against something.

The radical leftist environmental movement has been infiltrated by Russian propagandists. The Guardian among others have written about it.

Ecologists/liberals know very little of the world and how things work. its just movements and random idealistic thoughts based on trends

Well there's a reason why politicians are considered units of lying.

Well, they tend to be the ones willing to break shit, which gets expensive, and since we live steeped in capitalism.... All the while, scientists are faaaaaaaar more likely to bend over or even embolden abusive institutions. They just want to collect data and crunch numbers. Asking scientists to be a bit more functional adds complexity, and since this is a STEM context involving engineering, complexity is bad because reasons. As a result, scientists grant themselves license to sit on their asses. To be clear, not a defense of greenpeace. Scientists just need to grow some balls and be more willing to say "fuck decorum."

How dare you!

Spot on !

No they don't. They only take advice from other self interested members of their own party while concocting a narrative of jobs then sell the lies to the electorate. These people are very often in politics to further their own interests, not do the best for the people that elect them. The simple fact is, if there were money in nuclear power for these politicians they'd be all for it. In fact there is a certain perfection in what I say, and that is if the free market can make money out of something cheaply and efficiently then it will succeed. Politicians however, alter the free market for self interest then use environmental groups to further their agenda. Tech that might succeed doesn't and tech that should fail succeeds. This is political perversion of the free market. Before I go, I live in a forest. There is logging and local grass roots anti logging activists with a few dope smoking green fascists. The main guy is an older scientist however and is research driven. So, one mill was taking some logs illegally thereby allowing them to undercut the other mills in the area doing the right thing. This was discovered and documented by the anti logging activist leader. One by one the other mills closed because they couldn't compete. The illegal logging ops were tabled to several state governmentsand eventually one launched an investigation and found the activists were correct, then stepped in and ceased all logging operations. The dodgy logging company immediately blamed 'environmentalists' for their illegal behavior. 10 years later 'effing greenies' is still going on by locals. The illegal ops were allowed to occur because the previous state government turned a blind eye to it. They were voted out of office due to corruption in part, and this all came out. Political self interest.

So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?

100% true

but (coment ment as humour) isn';t green peace a terrorist organisation

@jacobrogers9397 Well, fusion is nowhere near being a viable energy source.

As an environmentalist, I'm in full support of expanding nuclear power as a way to quickly have an impact on reducing carbon emissions. Renewable sources will have their day, but it isn't yet.

It's funny that the only way they'd be informed about Nuclear disasters is if thet actually went to university and had to write a cited Essay about the whys, hows and the sheer stupidity in it. After I read about Fukushima, I was so dumbfounded and angry that words could not describe the feeling. There was some thought put into the design, such as placing foundations at sea level so they could attach it to bedrock given the area's seismic activity, but then it devolves into stupidity: Back up diesel generators at the basement; Simulations of a similar magnitude tsunami being disregarded as unlikely; Ignoring IAEA recommendations because the IAEA is an advisory body and unfortunately, regulations are done at a national scale rather than international; Fucking makeshift way to introduce coolant through a fire extinguishing reserve (at least from what I remember). Thing is, there's legitimately good criticism to be made about Nuclear, particularly with it's goddamn legislation... I know we are in the topic of energy but I need to vent this... TPNW 2017 is the most vaguely worded and exploitative legislation I've laid my eyes on. If you aren't part of it, you can literally litter other countries with Nuclear fallout scott free and because of the vagueness and scope of it, it is a shitty legislation in the context of rehabilitating an environment. It hurts my eyes reading it due to how bad it is. But no, instead green peace prod at a strawman of general nuclear applications, because the former would require an understanding about weighing the pros and cons of nuclear power beyond the obvious 2 environmental ramifications (whilst pretending rare earth metals grow on trees). From what I remember, Greta Thunberg isn't necessarily a fan of nuclear either, but she is not a contrarian and has at the very least principles and ground to stand on which is a better environmental outcome. Then we look at Bernie Sanders who for still lives in the 60s regarding Nuclear and then pretends like the Power supply gap he left didn't just worsen the entire ordeal (Vermont).

So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?

You're surely a blast at parties...

"Wait, it's all nuclear energy?" "Always was"

hmmm yes nuclear energy cant be in a clean world but the sun which is nuclear energy is the path to a clean world thanks greenpeace for ruining my brain

​@@Bellezzasolo _I am become death, the destroyer of worlds._ J Robert Oppenheimer. Just because it is happening on the sun right now, does not mean we want to bring it down here. What is going on in the sun is not controlled fission in nuclear power stations. It's more like thousands of hydrogen bombs going off continuously.

Think that way again when the Sun is within a 200 mile radius of your home.

@@ThomasVWorm the reason he ended it from what i can tell, the interviewer was planning to be aggressive and the nature of the question was highly emotionally driven, he stated from the story above, that he was there to discuss how they deal with nuclear waste. The interviewer was instead going to try the angle of nuclear is bad because waste is produced at all. Waste is produced but its something that CAN be dealt with, but many idiots insist it cannot. I mean greenpeace even makes efforts to block solutions and measures to deal with nuclear waste.

@@ThomasVWorm The same thing actually happened, or rather i should say a similar thing happened between an interviewer and Robert Downy Jr. . The interviewer was going to try and “discuss” instead of the movie Robert was there to discuss, instead attack Robs prior drug problems, which Robert had put behind him years before. Robert first tried to redirect the conversation multiple times before ending the interview; the interviewer had no right to just attack him on that.

@@ThomasVWorm "The reason for his policy is clear: he wants to place a message rather than discussing this topic" - do you not think a similar accusation could be leveled at the Sierra Club journalist, who's disregarded the agreement he made and instead pursued an entirely different conversation? Whenever I dig into the details on this kind of thing, I always come away with the impression that the really devoted environmentalists would really much rather humans died off ... most of the solutions offered only work if electricity becomes a luxury item or if big chunks of the population mysteriously go away (which is what luxury electricity would ensure, anyway)

Personally, I kind of lean towards the view that nuclear waste, is probably some of the few wastes, that are properly taken care of. So far we haven't been good at taking care of various chemicals and plastics and if we're gonna add massive amounts of eg. batteries, windmill wings and solar panels. What's gonna happen to them over the next decades or centuries? I did a loose calculation a while back that if we replaced current power generation with windmills, in 10.000 years, it would be around 8 billion tons of turbine blades, or around the equivalent to 250,000 world trade center towers of waste.

@@ThomasVWorm Please tell us which way of generating electricity does not have waste. Before you answer with "renewables" please remember that is a marketing term just as "natural gas" is, that doesn't actually mean anything specific or relevant to the discussion.

So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?

There are actually even reactor types you can run on nuclear waste.

So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?

We have indeet serious problems with increasing green hous gases but nuclear power helps to reduce it. Greenpeace lies make things worse.

are the "green" activists being lobbied by oil companies? why are they so up against nuclear energy?

I broke faith with the greens for the same reason

Same in the US. They have some good ideas. I even contacted them to see if there was some "wiggle room" in their views. There was none.

Well then you aren't green. Pro-nuclear is pro-human.

Interesting.

And all the waste can either be reused or stored in an underground vault in the most stable continent on the planet, (South) Australia !

I came to post exactly this. Thanks :).

... ask anyone with knowledge on the Electrical Grid... current renewable technologies and available infrastructure does not allow for a full renewable electrical grid... therefore, if you want to go green and sustainable, you need nuclear

​@@linmal2242 so good of you to offer to take the world's nuclear waste. Are you Australian? Where does Japan or Indonesua bury their radioactive waste? Throw them inside a volcano?

So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?

This right here

And power/influence.

Whenever any organization blatantly attacks any specific industry, the question should always be: who is paying them?

Yeah, not like the selfless, ascetic nuclear lobby that tries to influence public opinion and politics exclusively in a very very honest way.🙄 They don't pay scientists or even KZfaqrs at all to praise nuclear power, no! Of course, they do it only to do good for the world and not at all to earn billions.

GIVE!

Excuse me sir your winnings

@@shawnmiller4781 😲😂 Thx!

"...maybe not that shocked."

@@EinFelsbrocken “Fry, stop talking!” - “Yes, Leela!”

So you don't care if children get cancer after these death plants explode?

New reactors are coming out that barely produce any waste and don't need refueling. And last for 50 years. SMR's

@Utoobe Izkaka Look it up, instead of dismissing facts. You might learn something if you educate yourself on the topic

@Utoobe Izkaka so what is your education in?

@Utoobe Izkaka So your telling me what my education is without knowing me? Seem like a very unique Individual... Chemical engineering and applied nuclear science and radiation safety. So what did you just say ? Lol You have no idea what you are talking about or any intention of learning researching or hearing any opinions other than your own. It's like talking to a brick wall So have a good day. And i hope one day you can carry on an adult conversation.

That's because the powers that be want humans to return to the stone age

Just never go for the forbidden swim. :p

@@liesdamnlies3372 Honestly, for many spent fuel pools, if you were to swim around in it submerged by 0.5-1m (with still at least 5m or more of water below you and the spent fuel) you are probably receiving *less radiation overall than walk around in the countryside or forest* because of the absorption by the water.

@@sebastianjovancic9814 Fine, forbidden deep dive. Sheesh.

@@liesdamnlies3372 😅

LOL, When I was new to nuclear security, exploring the plant to get my bearings, I found a LHRA, 2500 mr/h area. I noped the fuck out immediately.

I came here to pose the "whose fault is that?" question, too.

Well they are right The INITIAL cost are huge, then its very low They arent paying for fue (fossil fuels)l, maintainance of alot of moving parts (wind) Or very regular cleaning to maintain efficiency (solar)

@@jaqjaq101 Whose side of the debate are you on? Those are TERRIBLE comparisons! Properly sited solar panels only require cleaning every five years or so, which costs very little. Nuclear power plants have many, MANY more moving parts than wind turbines: Pumps, valves, and steam turbines -- many of which have the added degree of difficulty of being exposed to extreme heat, water, and various levels of radiation (depending on the loop in which they function). Their maintenance is never-ending and expensive. Nuclear fuel rods are costly to manufacture and tricky to handle. Where nuclear power plants WIN is sheer economy of scale: they produce MASSIVE amounts of energy at a RELATIVELY low cost per watt-hour over the span of several decades (while spewing nothing more than water vapor into the atmosphere).

Yep. Way more expensive to build and maintain, but a large reactor facility can generate staggering amounts of power while outputting so few toxins into the air that it makes solar and wind combined totally irrelevant.

@@OneBiasedOpinion Not TOTALLY irrelevant. We need a diverse generation portfolio. Nuclear power is excellent for baseload. Solar is good for peaking in the southern tier of states, as it generates its maximum output during hot sunny days, when it's most needed. Wind is decent for baseload if you have enough sites scattered widely. It's okay for peaking but shouldn't be the sole source thereof. Natural gas and waste-to-energy plants are ideal for peaking since they have relatively fast start-up and shut-down cycles. Hydro is good for baseload but there are a limited number of appropriate sites and the best ones have already been developed. Geothermal is good for baseload but is rough on equipment and the most efficient sites for it are mainly west of I-25. Tidal power isn't quite ready for prime time. We need to employ all of the above if we're going to stay ahead of the curve.

…Whilst devouring each other for not being “pure” enough and pushing further into the fringes. Sooner both implode the better

Right on the spot. Well said.

What are their salaries?

@@alexwray617338-57k a year for GreenPeace.

cruelty against eggs protest made me rethink if im on the right planet. 😂

What a contradictory statement greenpeace supporters who respect truth and rationality 😂

​@@aluminumfalcon552 "What a contradictory statement greenpeace supporters who respect truth and rationality." Spoken like a simpleton.

@@cassandra8984 Greenpeace is an alarmist organization that makes its money from scaring people.

@@cassandra8984 Found the Greenpeace supporter lol

There aren't any. There are many former Greenpeace supporters who learned about reality and stopped being Greenpeace supports, though. I'm still ashamed that I believed them when I was 15.

Turning it into glass? Would it be stored as a solid plug or packed in grains?

@@pretzelbomb6105 Lab scale, we were getting solid plugs. Then also had to break them up and grind parts of them up into fine particles for some of the testing we put the glass through. We were proving at lab scale that is was feaible and figuring out which glass formulas were best for different types of waste by mass or by volume the most efficiently.

@@danamccarthy5514 Now that is an interesting idea. Would you know of any papers/articles written up on this - I would like to know more.

@@rianmacdonald9454 Look up Nuclear waste glass vitrification. The idea wasn't exactly new when I was working that project, it was largely to improve the efficiency of it and see if we could find better methods.

@@utoobeizkaka2737 Well a first step would be to get everyone to stop being so damn afraid of some of the newer reactor designs that could potentially even burn some portion of currently stored waste as fuel, and the leftover waste at teh end of that process would have a shorter half life. The part that people freak out about is that what would come out of that process would be easier to turn into a weapon than current waste. Realistically, dirty bombs are easy to make and a much bigger threat than more tactical weapons used by nationstates anyway.

Their model is based on hype and out cry. They don't care about truth

That's leftism, when your arguments fall flat because facts and reality clearly show the opposite - make stuff up and lie.

Or deceive !

Just propagandists! Success consist in convincing a large enough number of idiots.

"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities. My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival? In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)? It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation. Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources. "Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.

I agree but i must say, the weed isn't the problem, it's their lack of self awareness

Plenty of people smoke, weed and don't become ecoterrorists

Imagine how it was for me, the pothead libertarian.

That means you guys where dehumanizing scumbags (as your ad hominem is NO ARGUMENT) back then ... and you kept being one. That is a great achievement **facepalm**

You called them that in primary school? That must have been a hell of an environment to grow up in

And we all know how important feelings are....

@@michaeljost8399 yeah the feeling of a work place accident being imminent makes a bit of a difference, believe it or not.

@@alphadeltaroflcopter Yes maybe for you. But its irrelevant in case of discussing the whole matter itself.

@@kevinmeganck1302 AS I said: Irrelevant, because we shouldn't go nuclear after all, so what does it change if people fear it. We just get rid of it, period. No role played by "nuclear fear"

@@michaeljost8399 Naive and ignorant.

I feel your emotion 🤣

I'd be more inclined to throw their webserver against a wall.

@@spvillano more specifically, a Fire wall

@@019nawakinaryapalupi9 if the wall is made of actual fire, preferably, a few dozen gigelectron volts worth per cm plasma. ;) Higher would likely fatally irradiate me. There are limits to toughness of physique. :P Oh, if we met in person, you'd be doubled over laughing. Right alongside me. But, destruction of equipment is something I excelled at in the military.

haha yeah had similar thinkings 😁

Correct, the RBMK is at its core a late 50s/ early 60s design which was selected for ease of construction and lower cost than the VVER, which is a comparable design to the Westinghouse PWRs or Framatome N4.

@@adder3597 And for the ability to swap fuel rods while it was running. Very useful but the easy way to do that is to not have a containment vessel... so that's what they did.

It not only lacked safety measures, it included risks like having scientifically uninformed (but uniformed) high brass testing risk limits.

The RBMK was selected as it was cheap. The Chernobyl plant was built under strict time limits meaning some compromises where made by plant director Victor Brukanov. Also the RBMK had design flaws meaning it could be very touchy at low power below 300Mw, the reactor was also huge and together with the massive fuel handling machine meant building a containment building similar to western reactors would have been an enormous and very expensive task. Also known design issues where not shared with the operators. Similar accidents had been experienced at two other RBMK facilities Ignolina and Chernobyls own reactor 1 prior to the 86 accidents. Some design changes where proposed but shelved due to costs. Had Chernobyl 5 & 6 been completed they where to incorporate these. Anotoni Dyatlov was also a key factor in the accident. Most of his experience was with PWR submarine reactors. He thought it impossible for an RBMK to explode.

"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities. My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival? In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)? It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation. Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources. "Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.

Just part of the activism !

That's the same trick they have been using for decades now.

And despite the protests we're not exactly nuclear free anyway. Not sure how accurate this report was but this line always caught my eye: "The Somers Report commented that Auckland Hospital alone releases more than twice as much radiation into the environment each day as the entire US naval fleet and all of its support services in a year."

@@Babalas You might be more surprised to know that if any coal plant was subject to the same radiation emission regulations as nuclear plants are, they'd be shut down immediately.

Where were any claims 'debunked' as opposed to pointing out contradictions or incomplete arguments?

@@mightym did you watch the video ?

@@israelss sure did, did you? Give me a timestamp where she debunks an actual claim, rather than talk about how Greenpeace gave a strawman argument.

I remember in high school we had a Greenpeace guy come in. The town had uranium processing facility, so I called him on all his idiotic claims. Poor guy got schooled by a 17 year old.

@@monad_tcp the 'high cost of nuclear energy' is a claim which she didn't address.

Good point, if true!

Russia and Saudi Arabia donated heavily to the anti-fracking lobby in the EU.

I've suspected this for some time now.

"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities. My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival? In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)? It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation. Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources. "Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.

More variable renewable generation means less need for baseload generation. What will be needed is more long distance transmission, energy storage and flexible generation.

I can almost guarantee that Greenpeace would not accept such an invitation.

@@stevenwallman2346 Of course not, it would be bad for their business. They depend on people remaining ignorant. No anti-nuker could prevail in a debate with someone who knew the topic of nuclear energy.

she would be shouted down and not allowed to speak , interuptions are the norm from these people, dont let the other side speak

Greenpeace would pull a Donald Trump, fill the debate time with waterfall of garbage claims

@@pogo1140 That's amusing how you're against Greenpeace, seeing them for what they're, but using "pulling Trump" as a smear, siding with the Dems

No, they are exactly what they always were. They were very expensive for seal hunters in Greenland, for example, because of a few videos from Canada. Blood always looks very impressive on white snow.

Recent years? Try the last 20 years.

@@BabyMakR 50+.

"Activism" is an interesting word, the literal definition would be "advocate for energetic action", that is, it is a group of self-elected people, who somehow define that some situation constitutes a problem, and according to them, the best way to raise public awareness of that problem and solve it is mainly through direct action that includes high-profile media acts, such as protests and denunciations, interfering in critical activities, that according to them, contribute to causing the problem defined by them, and to carry out political lobbying in order to obtain laws that curb these activities. My question are; what is the right of those groups to speak for the whole society? who controls that the definition and scope of the problem they define is the correct one? who determines the reliability of the diagnosis they make of the problem defined by them? who is the one who determines the priority of that problem with that definition and diagnosis with respect to all the other problems that humanity/society is facing? who verifies that the activities they seek to eradicate are not more harmful than beneficial? how does society protect itself from the lobbying they do? who watches over them and determines that as a group they do not degenerate into a corporation interested in their own survival? In short, who evaluates that the existence of these groups really brings more benefits to society than harms (for example, an evaluation of how many years have been delayed, due to the actions of these groups, the investigation of the use of nuclear energy for energy production, and in the meantime what other energies are being used that may have worse cumulative effects, or for example, an assessment of how much of the increase in the implementation of nuclear energy is due to regulations that are the product of their lobby and not a real need, etc.)? It is assumed that they are "good" because they declare good intentions, and as such, they will produce benefits for society. But what are the real bases of that assumption and why would that have to be so? I do not see anywhere a serious questioning of these hypotheses, as well as an evaluation of the effect of these groups on society, and whether it is really what society needs, or it is just a form of tyranny of those who have the resources and free time necessary to carry out actions that influence society disproportionately to their representation. Another interesting aspect of these "activist" groups is that we have not yet seen a group of self-elected "activists", who seek to solve the roots of the identified problem by dedicating their time and resources for the research and development of viable solutions for those root causes, the testing of those potential solutions, and if they really work in small scale and appear to be really beneficial for society, the investigation of how to scale them, the development of a viable plan to scale them that includes the risks and costs with respect to other solutions and current activities, and then, the implementation of this scaling leading by example. The current groups prefer that others are the ones who take charge of those types of actions that are going to be the actions that are really going to solve the problem (if the problem is as they describe it, and the root causes are the ones they describe, if they mention them at all), and that by the way, those actions are very arduous (for example hours and hours of rather boring research), require a lot of preparation (for example years of university studying engineering) and a great personal sacrifice, in addition to resources. "Activism" as we know it now is almost exclusively reduced to generating entropy ("disorder") in our society. And the "action" of generating entropy is always simple, Greta Thunberg, or even a preschool, can perform it, it does not require much more than having vocal cords. But our society does not need more entropy to solve its problems, on the contrary, it needs to combat entropy through new explanations, i.e. new knowledge, and the application of those explanations in a pragmatic, scalable, effective and efficient way. And that requires much more than vocal cords, it requires an impressive amount of discipline, work (mental and physical) and human ingenuity.

Their real agenda is to make people poor. Or they’re puppets for people that desire power.

Communism.

​@@forfun6273 Exactly, they are watermelons, but most of them, at least in the USA, are too ignorant to even know that they are. The only reason their brand of green advocacy exists today is because many of their predecessors were propaganda arms of the USSR attempting to expand the small anti- nuclear weapons armament faction within the USA into a massive political block against scientific progress entirely. There's a reason many of the early members of Green Peace are against what it is today. For example, Patrick Moore a co-founder turned against them when they started applying pressure to ban chlorine worldwide. Yes, the element. I'm not joking.

They've bought into big oil fear mongering. Renewables aren't sustainable. Therefore, there will always be fossil fuels working as the backbone and being the main energy production. That is why nuclear is hated. It can replace fossil fuels spot while being hundreds of time safer and more energy efficient.

A while ago I heard that mayor donations are made by the gas and oil industries. I dident double check it to be honest. But it sounded about right...

Regular plants only take that long because of lawsuits and other obstacles placed by these maniacs.

France converted most of their grid to nuclear in 15 years. Building a nuclear power plant start to finish is much less than 20 years.

When they became addicted to the [very realistic] need for money to maintain their cause. That seems to be the Achilles heel of many idealistic advocacy groups in the long run, right or left.

I think it was during the mit 90ies.

When they were infiltrated by the fossil fuel / oil cartels?

1971.

1980s...

Eugenics isn't really a pseudoscience, since it's a real thing that can technically happen. It is, however, extremely unethical in every regard.

Nice story.Being a particle physicist I once talked with a higher up at sierra club, they simply had no clue. Also, they hate mountain bikers even though that group does tons of trail work.

@Utoobe Izkaka You do understand that there's a way to interact with this conversation that isn't spamming the same question in every comment thread, yes?

@Utoobe Izkaka I'll answer you again because you didn't seem to see my first reply: we don't need to store nuclear waste undisturbed, we just need to prevent people from directly touching or ingesting it. When stored underwater in an airtight container, the radiation becomes negligible just a few metres away from the waste.

Funny that you brought up abortion and eugenics separately. The founder of planned Parenthood was a racist and eugenicist

Honestly nuclear is the best only option

@@Themrine2013 you got that right, our population just keeps going up which means the need for more efficient sources of power are needed. and nuclear right now is the most efficient. and getting safer every day.

@Utoobe Izkaka radiation doesnt actually take that long to disapate

@@utoobeizkaka2737 We'll just build all the reactors in Southern Africa :)

@@utoobeizkaka2737 also making millions of solar pannels still releases alot of co2, making a nuclear plant would just be more efficient

Greenpeace is good in their anti nuclear weaponry, otherwise it's bad

Greenpeace and PETA suck.

Seems like going way too far to crazy extremes is human nature. I wish Homo sapiens were a bit more rational and pragmatic.

Sadly, this is true for most political advocacy groups. It’s human nature. People want simple answers and rally around organizations that provide them. Adding nuance to your position creates opportunity for disagreement within the base and fodder to your opponents.

some of those groups are so bad that sometimes I think if they are not intentionally created by oil companies to dissuade people in the fence to join the side of conservationists and create more extremists against them. gods know its wouldn't be out of character for them to do something like this, its not like its not well known that they invested in marketing campaigns with similar objectives.

Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant. Our energy goals should be security, affordability, and environmental protection without regard to being called RE or not. RE is nothing but a misleading marketing buzzword like all natural or chemical free.

Beat me to it.

I personally disagree with both statements, nuclear has a mining and concrete carbon cost like anything else. To say that a solution is imperfect and therefore is not worth implementing just leaves us with the *much* worse problem! There won’t be a perfect power source but most (especially in combination) are *way* better than fossil fuels. Renewables are also a legitimate category, their sources of energy are replaced in a short timeframe, it’s not an unscientific term. A self sufficient resource also would satisfy the 3 goals mentioned.

@Nathan J Renewable is a stupid goal. Sometimes, methods that are called RE are the best option. Often, they are not. Being called RE or not should have no weight in energy system planning and implementation. Ideology blinds people to facts, and politicians are no exception. This isn't a sporting event or popularity contest, and we should stop acting like it is. We need more involvement with engineers and energy infrastructure experts and stop depending on those who have no training or experience in any relevant field shaping policy. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Richard Feynman

So Thomas what is the carbon footprint for making panels, dams and wind turbines?

What they are did is go from a crusade into a business. Now their business relies on misinformation to keep people scared. They realized a crusade has to end when you have nothing to crusade against so they moved into the fear mongering business.

Well, the "you and us" sort of language that they use clearly implies that the one reading this is already 100% convinced and just needs some affirmation.

And historically, they've done more damage to the environment through their ecoterrorism then they've actually helped

Activists smh

in other words they behave like religious sect ...

But you unfortunately didn't throw them in jail... :(

@@peterfireflylund Throwing them in jail for their opinion sets the worst precedent you possibly could. Is proving them wrong not enough?

@@pretzelbomb6105 treason is not opinion.

Right?😅 Shut down all the nuclear power plants and the world comes to a full stop.

@@bryandraughn9830 They really need to upgrade their website and follow the developments in nuclear power. About 10 years ago, or so, there were 410 nuclear plants with licenses to operate (I refer to license because some of japans sites are shutdown but still retain their license in hopes of going back on line), today there are 435 operating plants, even with many plants shutdown. There are 59 plants globally being built, 101 planned and 345 proposed. Unclear is far from dead.

No, its dead. Only big uranium wants us to live in a nuclear wasteland

​@@LSuschena That will only hapen if wef tells them to do so.

@@LSuschena If 435 people worldwide jumped to their death, 59 are going to, 101 may jump and 345 are thinking about it, are you jumping too?

They believe they do understand the consequences - Just, their consequences. Nuclear explosions (because Nuclear Power Plants can totally do that, right? Riiight?), nuclear waste flooding the streets, babies being born with additional limbs.. etc. etc. etc. I've heard plenty of these. It's their reality, if it has basis in other people's reality however.. mhm. This winter we saw some of the Green Peace consequences -- electricity hit $1.12/kWh in parts of Europe. But, I suppose we could just turn off everything and live in the middle ages again, maybe get a wooden furnace, polluting our apartment (blocks) - killing who knows how many. Or of course we could just eat things not needing heat to prepare. And you're correct - I'm not denying the involvement of the war in these prices -- certainly not helped by Germany shutting down their nuclear plants however.

They’re idiots. Every single form of energy production is going to have inherent risk and environmental impact, including renewables. All we can do is weigh the risks and impact vs gain, to determine the best bang for the buck. Per Petawatt hour, nuclear has among the lowest death rate of any energy source out there. Wind is actually a lot deadlier. It also has one of the lowest environmental impacts, as far as mining and processing. This is supported with actual data and numbers, ie, facts. The only way we get totally away from any risks, or any environmental impacts, is to go back to the 18th century. I notice nobody proposes that…..

So the solar panels would have to last 15-30 years to get the money back. If solar panels get cheaper then I think it’s a great idea for people to be less reliant on the grid and natural gas. I think we just need to let the market take care of it. It’s natural for people to want to save money and not be reliant on the government and grid.

Yup, like those NuPower modular reactors. That's some really cool shit, being able to build a shell to place nuclear reactors into and then just prefab and install additional ones as needed without needing to build a new facility. Genius stuff.

Solar and wind are not recyclable. You were lied to. The most interesting thing and the caveat about "renewables" is that it takes dirty, nasty fossil fuels to create solar panels and wind turbines. Wind turbines are lubed with ... unrefined crude oil. The problem with that is that crude oil converts to paraffin wax when exposed to subzero temperatures, causing the turbines to destroy themselves. The blades are made of plastic and cannot be recycled so they go where all the other plastic goes ... it's buried in the desert. Solar is the worst of the two. It's parts are made from metals that cannot be recycled. Cobalt(toxic), Lithium(dug up in Africa by slaves.) Weird how the very advocates for the end of slavery totally ignore slavery happening RIGHT NOW. Why is it ignored? Because it's black on black slavery that cannot be laid at the feet of white people. How many animal species have to die because those advocating to protect them are destroying their habitat just so the advocates can feel good. All that acreage was not empty. The working panels during the day kill every flying animal that flies over them. The blades of the turbines kill 1 million birds per year. So lets get this straight. You are destroying the environment ... to protect the environment. I think that you are lying. First to yourself, and then to everyone around you.

I would add that your solar system only covers your partial daytime usage which leaves all the loads on the grid during the nighttime. That leads to the next solution is to add even more solar as to cover daytime usage and excess to store in batteries for the night. This leads to the eventual power dececit in winter and fall which requires either pulling from the grid or using a even more dirty generator to make up the difference. The solution is nuclear power.

Is this where we need to mention that Solar panels cannot be fully recycled at this time?

Same.

Sometimes I search for "Greenpeace Owned" and get a few. I think that's why I was tagged.

I know why it was recommended to me. Because i watch content i might not or do not agree with. How else should one form a balanced opinion? By the way, i disagree with greenpeace.

​@Utoobe Izkaka yes but it's still safer than what you'd think.

I am "green left" and I don't support Greenpeace over their anti-nuclear stance.

Yes.

The aesthetics of energy is very important! Bad looking plants make for dirty energy. Or, at least that's what I've been told to believe.

@@scillyautomatic it can however devaluate properties by a LOT because of "bad aesthetics", and that is enough to create enough pushback to stop any project like this.

A sea of wind turbines and solar collectors is very ugly

@@davidabulafia7145 i view them as futuristic and beautiful

@@BlackBoxEnte Beauty is in or out of the eye of the beholder!