Exposing Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES Part 2 - Nuclear Physicist Debunks

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

Green peace delivers questionable content yet another time! At this point I’m not even phased by it! I’m curious to read what you all think about it? Also let me know what you want me to debunk or expose next ☢️👩🏽‍🔬

[@loveandrespecttoyou2862]

😘😘😘

[@TheNativeTwo]

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

[@CHIEF_420]

​@@TheNativeTwo🧂

[@iche9373]

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

[@namename9998]

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"

[@attosharc]

It's great to see someone fact check Greenpeace. Thank you!

[@the_forbinproject2777]

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

[@aeryncowell3046]

They are liars and terrorists.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@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.

[@colinmacdonald5732]

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

[@sabinespeed4146]

Greenpeace: We've been agitating against Nuclear since the 70's! Also Greenpeace: WHYCOME NOT MANY REACTOR BUILT EVERY YEAR?

[@anhourofhonourforanhonesth2940]

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

[@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch]

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

[@capoman1]

The classic bully tactic. Knock you down then use your down status as an insult to make you look bad.

[@capoman1]

Reminds me of how Trump is treated. Indicted unfairly, then claim these indictments are a stain on him.

[@petneb]

You should tell that the time to build a nuclear power plant has gone up from 4 to 16 years during the last 50 years because organization like Greenpeace constantly delaying the construction

[@ccibinel]

🎯

[@conorstewart2214]

@@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.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@danilooliveira6580]

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.

[@ezlef22]

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.

[@aaronlopez492]

Elina good morning, I'm a former Cal-Osha site safety and compliance inspector. And back in the day I inspected San Onofre nuclear power station. Early on in school one of my professors said something that stuck with me "There are some people who have accepted an extreme narrative concerning nuclear power. And no matter the truth and logic of your argument. They will never accepted it." In my career I've noticed the same thing. When you explain the safety and benefits it's almost like your talking to a member of a cult 😐. The only thing you'll hear is NO,NO,NO. Keep up the good work.👍

[@fastcars1173]

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!

[@the_forbinproject2777]

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

[@PBeringer]

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.

[@the_forbinproject2777]

@@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

[@PBeringer]

@@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.

[@albatross5466]

There is a very good documentary called "Pandora's Promise". It features 5 environmentalists that were opposed to nuclear but have since changed their minds. Facts will do funny things to ones opinion.

[@IronFreee]

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

[@RedRingOfDead]

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 KZbin. If you can either confirm it's the right oke or not. Thx

[@madmax2069]

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

[@rsr789]

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

[@RedRingOfDead]

@@madmax2069 if only it was streaming here

[@EmilJacobs]

I just love this video so much

[@conorstewart2214]

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.

[@warrenwattles8397]

An interesting point I heard a while back is that when it comes to waste, nuclear is CLEANER than renewables, especially solar. Because nuclear is the only one that actively captures and contains all its waste and has active plans for disposal and processing. Solar panels, at the end of their life spans, currently go into landfills, with huge amounts of plastics, electronic components, and other harmful pollutants.

[@Knowbody42]

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.

[@ConradSpoke]

I used to admire Greenpeace, a long time ago. This type of challenge to their myths and lies is essential.

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

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

When Greenpeace asked me 25 years ago if I want to support them, I said I cannot do that because of their position on Nuclear power. They want to help the environment, but they have very limited actual knowledge and stick to ideas more by feeling than by understanding.

[@Skylancer727]

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.

[@unconventionalideas5683]

@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.

[@schakalix]

Greenpeace, an organization who has no problem with lying and spreading misinformation and who has also engaged in criminal activity in the past (see the Peru Nazca Lines incident). How they are still around is infuriating for me, they should be outlawed and their funding withdrawn.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@Kini_the_Fox]

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

[@Asghaad]

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

[@paulbradford6475]

I wonder if George Soros funds Green Peace?

[@amanawolf9166]

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

[@Guybrushgg]

Great video Elina! Please keep them coming!

[@JessWLStuart]

For Greenpeace to say nuclear reactors consume water is misleading. The water is used for cooling, and then release back to the environment. In other words, a nuclear reactor uses external water to cool, but consumes no water to do so.

[@rsr789]

Correct, it's just released as steam.

[@raymondtalbot6104]

That's why I'm here. To get a fair opinion. There are too many one-sided articles out there. Thanks Elina.

[@handsofdoubt31]

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.

[@thecrazything95]

@@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.).

[@dahemac]

I love and appreciate that you have done this important work. But it is just too painful to have to go through these lies.

[@darkydoom]

Just cancelled my monthly donations to Greenpeace. Feel better now lol

[@Nomad77ca]

When I was in collage I had to do a 6 part presentation over the semester for communication class. I did mine on nuclear energy, pros and cons. The reason I chose that topic was the school I attended was a school of natural resources, forestry, fish and wildlife, and I was studying ecosystem management. Most of my fellow students were against nuclear power mostly because of orgs like Greenpeace. My first five presentations were all about the negative effects of nuclear power, including weapons, waste and cost. This of course was all a setup for my final presentation where I listed all the positives about nuclear power when used safely and responsibly. Fully half the class came up to me afterward and said I had either changed their minds or gave them good reason to question what they had believed. The world needs more truth and less uninformed opinions.

[@albatross5466]

The high level nuclear waste for all the nuke plants in all the world in all of history would fit on a football field to a level of 3' (1 meter). That is not a lot of waste.

[@thefullmetalmaskedduo6083]

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.

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

@@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.

[@jwenting]

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.

[@conorstewart2214]

@@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.

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

@@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.

[@SuperKangree]

Great Video! i would also like to add (and sorry for my horrible english) that they never mention the other benefits of nuclear products besides energy and how for example laboratories such as the one you work in study such elements which sometimes may have medical uses in the future, those laboratories are indirectly financed by nuclear energy, a lot of them not only manufacture the products that nuclear plants use but also a lot of times make breakthrough discoveries that may and i'm sure will benefit humanity in a lot of ways that greenpeace don't even consider, the same way that in the 40s and 50s the nations started researching nuclear power to create weapons but now we use the same nuclear power to treat horrible diseases like cancer.

[@CK-xs3vq]

Your English is very good!

[@juvenalsdad4175]

I'm sure I will not be the only one to point out that the reason the nuclear industry will have trouble getting enough plants online to mitigate GHG emissions by 2050 is because Greenpeace and it's fellow travellers have been very successful in inhibiting the industry's growth since the problem of global warming was identified some decades ago. I am old enough to remember the conflation of nuclear power with nuclear weapons back in the Aldermaston march days, and admit that I was seduced into that narrative for a while. At the time, because of cold war politics, the assumption was that such movements were being pushed by the USSR, but I now think it might have been by the fossil fuel industry, who felt threatened by the idea of 'electricity too cheap to meter' promised (unrealistically, as it turned out) in the early days of nuclear power. Tin-foil hat? Maybe, but I no longer trust any of the mainstream environmental organisations.

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

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.

[@monad_tcp]

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"

[@RafaelSantos-pi8py]

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

[@stupidburp]

The connections to the fossil fuel industry have been proven.

[@thecrazything95]

​@@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.

[@albatross5466]

Solar & wind farms are also reliant upon LNG to burn while the sun isn't shining and while the wind isn't blowing.

[@madmax2069]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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.

[@davenz000]

If it's from Greenpeace, it's a lie. Remember to send them money, they love lots and lots of money.

[@TheNativeTwo]

Thank you for doing this video. More needs to be done to debunk this kind of extreme environmentalism. We need a fair and balanced perspective and plan. We all want clean air, clean rivers, and a clean earth. There can be many paths to get there and anyone who advocates for one way over all others is just pushing a political agenda. They're generating outrage and profiting off of it.

[@johnbash-on-ger]

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

[@MadBlazer89]

Well said.

[@thecrazything95]

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

[@TheNativeTwo]

@@thecrazything95 touché salesman

[@albatross5466]

There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on a nuclear plant anywhere in the world in all of history. The security at all power facilities has escalated since 9-11-2001. It would take a force of knowledgeable attackers to endanger a nuke plant.

[@RC-nq7mg]

Or russians...

[@namename9998]

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.

[@sjent]

@@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.

[@namename9998]

@@sjent True

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@yjbmwsc]

Nuclear accidents are like plane crashes, which draw a lot more media coverage than, say, car crashes, which kill way more people each year... And there are ways to recycle and reduce nuclear waste. There is a very good video by Cleo Abram on this topic...

[@rsr789]

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.

[@arneanka4633]

In Sweden, we will need anything from 80000 to 100000 new wind turbines to cover our current nuclear reactors. Not because they can't produce when it's windy but because when it's absolutely still in the whole country. Yes, we have up to 10 days like that every year. We also need a 10 km wide passage for powerlines spanning from the furthest north all the way down to the south tip. The little wind we have on those days are very local. I wonder who will build something to only be able to sell the product when the market is totally tanked.

[@ralphvelthuis2359]

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.

[@monad_tcp]

@@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.

[@sjent]

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(

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@arneanka4633]

@grahambennett8151 Solar in a country where during the winter, the sun sets long before you get home from work. Tidal where the tidal wave is measured in centimeters. Geothermal on the most stable ground in the world. Hydro where? It's all exploited to the legal extent. Biomass, not a single molecule of wood is to spare or is wasted and EU wants us to cut back on woodcutting by 30 %. You need to take your ideas and present it to the Swedish government. If you can replace 7.5 GW production capacity with those sources of power, you will be seen as a hero. But use your own money, not mine.

[@ethribin4188]

"'With the cost and efficiency of renewables' .... Which efficiency exactly?" Savage xD

[@lukerickert5203]

The core issue is most people (of all political positions) are aggressively disinterested in facts and would rather believe simple emotional stories than deal with reality which never offers easy solutions to complicated problems. BS sells better than facts.

[@rsr789]

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.

[@dudono1744]

"But nuclear waste will never go away" does the writer if this article even know why radioactive waste is an issue ? Radioactive stuff is dangerous because it desintegrates (so stops existing). Toxic molecules/atoms are dangerous because of chemical reactions. While the molecules might go away, the atoms aren't known for doing that.

[@animarain]

In addition to your excellent arguments on 37 nuclear powerplants vs an unknown number of renewable-source powerplants, how much land space will those generators take up? Let's not even touch on the logistics of finding and utilising those lands. What about the wildlife, their habitats, and ecosystems that will be endangered or utterly destroyed? That doesn't sound very green or peaceful to me, mr Greenpeace. 😒

[@isaacthedestroyerofstuped7676]

Nuclear energy is one of the easiest topics to research and get good statistics and data on (in my experience), so I am really quite saddened by the obvious lack of research in these articles. Also, the asterisk really looks like something got edited out to not disrupt the q u a l i t y of the "argument" ....or that section was just cut from another article...

[@becksvideoproductions]

There are 2 elements always ignored in the solar/wind discussion : 1) Grid reliability/delivery reliability. The grid needs to maintain a constant balance between supply and demand to keep the 50/60Hz frequencies. Solar & wind can NOT deliver this by themselves. Another energy source is needed as backup. Nuclear does not have this problem. 2) Scale of implementation. When we consider the current needs and future. How many windmills etc are required? This point is never ever discussed. Yes, you can build wind a solar fast, BUT they are not very energy dense. Example : The much critized reactor in Finland is often shown as an example of delay because it took 17 years. In Denmark, where there is a large built up of wind, the same period did not result in more capacity. In that same period, the % part of renewables in supply has not changed as the increase in demand rose as well.

[@goldenhide]

"Too little to matter." And that must be why my state's DoE published that ~54% of our state energy needs are met by our 6 nuclear energy plants. Renewables together accounted for ~10-15% the rest through fossil. In fact, I believe Illinois is the #1 state for nuclear power covering the most of the annual usage. With the current shutdown plans of coal plants, I think more reactors supplemented with renewables is the way to go. But orgs like Greenpeace and costs shy the state government from building more (Sadly our state is one of the more broke ones).

[@canonwright8397]

You should have Patrick Moore on the show. He helped found Greenpeace and can give you some interesting facts about where Greenpeace went wrong.

[@marvintpandroid2213]

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

[@canonwright8397]

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

[@WatanabeNoTsuna.]

​@@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"

[@WatanabeNoTsuna.]

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

[@topgunaudio7983]

As I understand it a nuclear plant, of 1.5 square mile footprint, to be replaced by solar and wind needs land space of 40 and 300+ square miles respectively to produce equivalent power and a replacement source or huge battery banks when not windy/ sunny for instance at night, Where is the land coming from to do this and what would the effect be?

[@julyort6762]

Point 2 is so hilarious since a Greenpeace activist tried to infiltrate in a nuclear power plant without even succeeding, they are terrorist.

[@joeb5316]

Elena, I vaguely remember back in the early 1990's that someone designed a reactor that could shut down safely even with a full loss of coolant, and that there was even a successful test. Do you know anything about that?

[@yashmishra1024]

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

[@joeb5316]

@@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.

[@tfhmobil]

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 😉

[@swokatsamsiyu3590]

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.

[@joeb5316]

@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.

[@albatross5466]

"Too little to matter"? Nuclear is the most energy dense source in the world. Solar and wind are the least.

[@krisp4889]

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

[@RobinDeCraecker]

Great video Elina keep it up! And almost 50k subs to

[@the_forbinproject2777]

Levelised costs are based on capacity , same for the cost per MWh , not delivery - they leave out the links because this would show they are not being honest

[@AquaPeet]

Great video Elina! Greenpeace is against nuclear because of course nobody wants barrels of glowing green goo dumped in rivers!! (end sarcasm)

[@tylosenpai6920]

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

[@Knowbody42]

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.

[@Knowbody42]

@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]

@grahambennett8151 Reducing the concentration through dilution *does* reduce radioactivity. If you take iodine tablets, the whole point is dilution.

[@richarderamirez5909]

Greeen peace bends facts to meet their narrative!

[@ree10340000]

I would rather have a nuclear power plant here i live. Than these weed turbines poping up everywhere destroying all the beautiful nature around me. Every hike i go, i see these horrible things. What inpact the transport, the building of these weeds have done.

[@julyort6762]

Here in Italy we have a well known physicist and scientific dissaminator in nuclear energy field called Luca Romano, i'd really interested to see a collab :)

[@chcgo2undaground]

Elina, I've looked around for how much renewable energy production is required for zero net emissions by 2050 and you know what I found, merde. There are a lot of gov't and energy alliance group presentations about how much renewables have to contribute (88%) bu how how many wind and solar farms, nothing. Not even an estimate and I can tell you that there is growing push-back in the US to building wind turbines in the rural areas that are the "best" places for them. They're noisy, they create disturbing shadows, they kill birds and more importantly, in agricultural areas they create serious obstacles to farming, as tractors and aircraft have to negotiate their way around them in working fields.

[@conorstewart2214]

Renewables are not green, yes the energy source is very sustainable, and won’t go away regardless of how much we take from it (for now) but the systems we use to harvest that energy aren’t environmentally friendly. For example wind turbines use fibreglass blades, they are not recyclable and they have a finite lifespan. Some people claim they are recyclable but that just involves grinding it down and using it as filler, you cannot go and make another fibreglass product out of it, all the fibres are broken up and the resin is cured which is an irreversible process. So whilst the blades can be ground up and used as filler that isn’t true recycling that is taking a waste product and trying to do something with it. How do you then recycle the item that has fibreglass filler in it? If it is an injection moulded item (which would be recyclable anyway in most cases) then you have maybe made it less recyclable by filling it with ground up fibreglass. Then you need to consider the amount of land needed for renewable sources, it is much less than nuclear plants, renewable sources also need wide roads to get parts in, especially wind farms, and those vehicles and construction equipment aren’t good for the environment either. Then there is the amount of copper needed to connect them all up, it will be much more than you need for a nuclear, coal or gas power plant where all the electricity is produced in one place rather than spread across a large area. Then due to the response times, renewable sources are the first to be switched off when there is too much power generation, since other plants need longer to adjust the amount of electricity they create, so a lot of the time where I am the wind turbines are switched off. On top of that renewables are intermittent so you need a much higher power generation to compensate for the unreliability or you need a large scale way to store the energy. In short renewables themselves aren’t very green, nuclear if done right is a lot more green than renewables and if we get fusion working well enough then that will be the greenest energy source we have.

[@catfishcave379]

The USA just opened their first new reactor in nearly 40 years in the state of Georgia in the southeast USA! Woohoo!!! Will you be commenting (maybe a short?) on the situation at the Zaporizhzhia reactor on the Dnipro river in Ukraine now that the dam is gone? I’ve been supporting nuclear power since the 10th grade… a very long time ago.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@clydecessna737]

This was very helpful. Please could you do a video on the fail safe systems of various plants. Thank you.

[@rainbowxgaymer4393]

Another great video as always. I was wondering about your thoughts on the last week tonight episode on nuclear waste. I feel like it gives a decent view of the average American on nuclear power in general even though it was a few years ago. I even live near the Hanford site which is probably the biggest in the country

[@tabaccocubano]

you know.. at one time... when one is less knowledgeable and more susceptible to misinformation.. i supported greenpeace and actually donated .. i wonder if these organization realize that when you are intellectually dishonest.. everything you say now comes under question, even if you are then being as honest as you can possibly be... thanks to Elina and her honesty, and other websites and books..... you come to understand the much bigger picture, which then points out the glaring dishonesty of these organizations when you read or hear what they have to say. i am always for renewables and the investment in renewables, but i have come to understand that they are NOT the panacea they are being sold as. thanks to this channel and others, ( no it does not make me a nuclear scientist).. i have alot better understanding of nuclear. again. HONESTY is key ...

[@Toby-Wan_Kenobi]

That's a nice argument Greenpeace, why don't you back it up with a source? Greenpeace: My source is that I made it the f**k up!

[@CommanderJoir]

someone at greenpeace have not seen videos of airplane crash test against massive concrete walls.

[@kaymish6178]

I heard someone call them Gaspeace not long ago. I thought it was fitting.

[@speedingoffence]

In point one, the primary reason the offset is so low is because our demand for electricity is growing insatiably. The fact that it can even keep carbon levels neutral is amazing.

[@danilooliveira6580]

the biggest problem with nuclear waste is the fear of nuclear war. we could very easily recycle and reuse all the high energy nuclear waste, drastically reducing the need to mine more uranium. but the methods are very similar to those used to create weapons grade material. so if we just trusted each other to not use nuclear for war, high level nuclear waste would basically not be a problem anymore.

[@chapter4travels]

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

[@gerrywillmott6484]

Just found your channel. I am pro nuclear and was involved in the technology in the UK for many years. I am very impressed by your balanced view and the manner in which you present your arguments in a manner that the average person should understand. The nuclear community must become more proactive in presenting the case for nuclear to both our politicians and the public. The obsessive focus on nuclear accidents skews the argument. Not enough emphasis is placed on the true safety issues arising from the major incidents and how few injuries have been caused by the nuclear industry compared with ALL the other energy sources. Well done👍

[@algorithminc.8850]

Really glad your channel was suggested. I look forward to your other videos. I seem to remember that even James Lovelock ("Gaia Hypothesis" fellow) ... that he also believes nuclear is currently the only real practical solution to energy (if properly administrated and maintained) - along with hydroelectric systems. Wind and solar "renewable" sources do quite a bit of damage to the environment (e.g. the materials required to construct) and sometimes do not yield a net positive output (e.g. wind turbines might require heaters in cold environments), but wind and solar are useful in very specific situations. So many thanks for the video. Absolutely subscribed. Cheers from sunny Florida, USA

[@conorstewart2214]

With the solar panel pictures there are similar pictures of fields full of discarded wind turbine blades since they can’t be properly recycled.

[@user-tk2jy8xr8b]

D-T fusion may produce highly radioactive waste because of the neutron activation. Neutronless reactions, however, are completely safe, but require much higher temperatures to sustain.

[@DanielvanKATWIJK]

Talking about costs LTO nuclear plants are the less expensive source of energy per MWh. This for construction and for production of energy. Only offshore wind generation comes close in terms of construction costs and production costs. Solar is close to the worst construction wise. The best wind turbines are producing around 150 MWh, 200 MWh ones are coming. A Nuclear reactor is making around 1GW per tranche actually for the latest ones. There is not enough room to put wind generated energy and solar energy to replace nuclear plants. In the mountains or on large rivers can produce hydroelectric energy. But this also has its limits.

[@mariagavriilidou7525]

I do agree strongly with you that they should provide information about both sides on their arguments for the argument to be valid. Amazing and well put video as always ❤

[@albatross5466]

We are seeing wind turbines and solar panels being decommissioned and the resultant waste being dealt with after less than 20 years.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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.

[@albatross5466]

@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]

@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.

[@albatross5466]

Recently we have heard of several attacks in areas near nuclear plants in Ukraine with no reports of any harm to the plants.

[@namename9998]

The one near NYC survived without a scratch in 2001

[@firewallpriest]

I start thinking that greenpeace are more hazardos than nuclear waste, which rises question, how we should contain them

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@AlvaroV705]

6:35 I love how litteraly hours ago the water damn in Ukraine was victim of an attack, showing how it is not much better (if at all) than the security of nuclear power plants lmao.

[@namename9998]

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."

[@legolegs87]

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?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@markushonninger7981]

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]

There are no bombs on the roof, you are spreading an internet meme. What motive whatsoever would there be for anyone place bombs on the "roof" (what roof?) even if there were and truth to your meme?

[@michaelwebber4033]

The government in my country is pushing us down the green vehicle dream and they cannot do it without nuclear energy.

[@patmacken5130]

2nd time here and not sure if I am addicted enough to subscribe but I am leaning pro-nuke. Interesting that the same people ( Greenpeace) who do everything they can to prevent nuclear also say it is to slow to build. My first visit was part 1. The perfect finale to this would be for you to go fill in what they left out on the downsides of solar and wind ( CO2 of the left of the project, cost over the lifetime of the project , speed Of bike and so on).

[@xynonners]

at this point we should just rename "nuclear power" to fission power or atom power and maybe everyone will calm down

[@chadhiggins8397]

You make excellent videos. I hope your channel grows!

[@bnease007]

Greenpeace is not “green,” and is certainly is not peaceful. Thanks again, Elina, for providing the ideal balance of knowledge, enthusiasm and energy to provide a refreshing and honest perspective of what nuclear energy is (and is not); how nuclear reactions work to create energy; and why nuclear energy is an efficient, effective and safe alternative to environmentally toxic hydrocarbon based fuels.. ⚛️

[@september1683]

In Germany we found the solution to the CO2 problem. We shut down all of our nuclear power plants. :-)(

[@simonneep8413]

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.

[@PBeringer]

1:31 ... The closed captioning displays "Greenpeace" as "queen bees". Kinda apt, the way they carry on sometimes ... 😜

[@tomhalla426]

The “cost” for wind and solar is for nameplate ratings, not actual deliveries, which are less than 30% for wind.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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.

[@renato6165]

Muchas gracias Elina ! Disfruté este video !

[@dantetre]

Problem with Greenpeace that they don't think in long-term and in sustainability...

[@richarderamirez5909]

Thank you young lady, great information!

[@rasmusjonsson1348]

Why does wind and solar power get compared to nuclear when the simple fact is that they are not comparable. Nuclear works 24/7, wind works when it blows and solar works when the sun is up. Besides nuclear power plants have heavy generators and can handle load spikes on the grid much better. Correct me if I'm wrong but the nuclear waste is dangerous in about 300 years (when the most reactive materials decay) and the "thousands of years" are when it reaches the background radiation.

[@wolpumba4099]

*Summary* *Introduction to Nuclear Energy Debate* - 0:00 Introduction to a Greenpeace post criticizing nuclear energy. - 0:07 Title of the post is "Six reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world." *Investment in Energy Sources* - 0:54 Questioning the claim that nuclear investment detracts from renewable energy funding. - 1:02 Searching for credible data on energy investments. - 1:15 Finding and examining energy investment data from a scientific article (2018-2020). - 1:43 Renewable energy investments are around $300 billion, while nuclear is below $50 billion. *Assessing the Article's Claims* - 2:01 Doubt cast on Greenpeace's information sources. - 2:32 Importance of debunking myths promoted by the nuclear industry. - 2:42 Beginning to review the six reasons provided by Greenpeace against nuclear energy. *Efficiency and Impact of Nuclear Energy* - 2:48 Greenpeace's first argument: Nuclear energy's contribution is too small to matter. - 3:07 Necessity of reducing fossil fuels to zero percent before 2050. - 3:16 Statistics from nuclear industry associations on potential greenhouse gas emission reductions. - 3:35 Challenges of increasing the number of new nuclear reactors to meet reduction goals. - 4:04 Comparison of nuclear energy growth to that of renewable energy sources. - 4:31 Questioning the lack of comparison between nuclear and renewable energy in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. *Security and Safety of Nuclear Power Plants* - 6:37 Addressing the vulnerability of nuclear plants to malevolent acts and natural disasters. - 7:01 Refuting claims about plants not being designed to withstand attacks. *Operational Challenges in Adverse Conditions* - 8:17 Discussing water consumption and cooling challenges for nuclear power plants during heat waves and climate crises. *Cost Comparison of Energy Sources* - 9:50 Comparing the costs of nuclear energy to solar and wind power. - 10:21 Observing the reported rise in costs for nuclear energy and decrease for renewables. - 11:05 Mentioning the nuclear industry's efforts to reduce costs with small modular reactors. *Considerations for the Future of Nuclear Energy* - 11:47 The future of nuclear energy and the need for further development and funding. - 12:04 Criticizing Greenpeace for not supporting nuclear energy development. *Speed of Nuclear Energy Development* - 13:03 Addressing the criticism of nuclear power's slow development. - 14:03 Discussing historical attitudes and support for nuclear energy construction. - 14:09 Average construction time for reactors since 2009 is around 10 years. *Implications of Nuclear Power Plant Construction* - 14:24 Discussion on CO2 emissions from building and decommissioning nuclear power plants. *Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Renewable Energy* - 14:44 Nuclear power stations' emissions are compatible with wind and solar, but renewables can scale faster. *Greenpeace's Perspective on Nuclear Energy* - 15:03 The urgency to reduce emissions with renewable energy. - 15:09 Critique of Greenpeace's one-sided negative portrayal of nuclear energy. - 15:21 No positive information provided in the links about nuclear energy. *The Nuclear Industry's Support for Renewable Energy* - 16:07 Nuclear physicists don't oppose renewable energy; they support the additional energy supply it provides. *Debunking Myths About Nuclear Waste* - 17:07 Challenging the claim that no government knows how to manage nuclear waste safely. - 17:23 Finland and Sweden are examples of countries managing nuclear waste. - 17:42 The longevity of nuclear waste and the industry's responsibility for its management. - 18:28 Assurance that nuclear waste repositories will be self-sustaining after a century. *France's Position on Nuclear Waste* - 18:36 France's nuclear waste management strategy is misrepresented by Greenpeace. - 19:04 France reprocesses spent nuclear fuel into mixed oxide fuel. *EU's Stance on Nuclear Energy* - 19:49 Several EU countries speak against nuclear power as a green investment. - 19:58 The EU commission's technical expert group excludes nuclear power from the green taxonomy. *Cost of Nuclear Waste Management* - 20:15 The taxpayer burden of nuclear waste management compared to other energy sources. - 20:24 Lack of discussion on waste from renewable energy sources, which is also toxic. *Renewable Energy Waste Management* - 21:05 Toxic waste from solar panels contains harmful metals. - 21:22 Life expectancy of solar panels and the issue of waste management. *The Nuclear Industry's Unfulfilled Promises* - 22:34 Criticism of the EPR reactor's delays and budget overruns. - 23:01 EPR reactor issues in multiple countries. - 23:12 Promises of new nuclear technologies remain unfulfilled. *Development of Small Modular Reactors and Nuclear Fusion* - 23:37 Small modular reactors are actively being developed. - 23:51 Nuclear fusion's potential is dismissed by Greenpeace. *Caution Against Pro-Nuclear Options* - 24:15 Suggestion to be cautious about pro-nuclear information from the nuclear sector. - 24:32 Greenpeace is accused of potentially being biased against nuclear energy. *Nuclear Energy's Role in the Future* - 24:38 Repetition of Greenpeace's stance against nuclear energy. - 24:48 Call to abandon nuclear energy and focus on renewables. *Misinformation and Selective Reporting by Greenpeace* - 25:01 Fusion reactors are dismissed with minimal discussion. - 25:27 Greenpeace's lack of interest in understanding fusion technology. *Lack of References and Accountability* - 26:02 Questioning the credibility of cost statistics without proper references. - 26:27 Absence of asterisked clarification or external references. *Closing Thoughts* - 26:34 Invitation for viewers to comment on their stance regarding Greenpeace's position on nuclear energy. *Summary of all comments* (as of 2024-01-27, with 28k views, 2.2k likes, 778 comments) - (-) Delays in nuclear power plant construction from 4 to 16 years are attributed to organizations like Greenpeace. - (-) Appreciation for fact-checking Greenpeace's claims. - (-) Greenpeace's criticism of nuclear power is ironic given their opposition to it over the years. - ( ) The documentary "Pandora's Promise" highlights environmentalists who changed their stance on nuclear power. - ( ) Former safety inspector's observation that some people are staunchly against nuclear power, regardless of presented facts. - (-) Disillusionment with Greenpeace and the importance of challenging their misinformation. - (-) Calls for Greenpeace to be outlawed due to dishonesty and past criminal activities.

[@GustavoPinho89]

Not too long ago they were protesting against the construction of Belo Monte hydroelectric powerplant here in Brazil, the 5th largest in the world. I wonder what technology will power world in the future. Will we have kale powerplants??? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@yx2803]

Kudos for such detailed take on this topuc. Please keep up the good work;)

[@Sturdy_Penguin]

Wait. So. Half of their complaints are about how slow and expensive reactors are to build and how not enough are being built to reduce fossil fuels...in an article that is trying to make the adoption of nuclear energy more slow, expensive, and held back. That's like someone complaining about widespread starvation and hunger while being against the adoption of much more productive genetically modified plants and the adoption of pesticides...oh wait. Or the prevention of building the most viable and safe clean energy plants out there; hydroelectric because it might disturb the migration or habitat of river animals...oh wait.

[@matthewwalker5430]

I am really starting to dislike the term "green". It has become part of our vocabulary but I've started to realise that it is just clever marketing, effective branding, by hardcore environmentalists. I'm all for working toward sustaining a better environment for everyone but the term "green" has effectively been applied to a very specific way of achieving that. It's short, catchy and memorable, and it now gets used ALL the time in place of more precise, better defined words like "Environment" or "Climate" (not that these are no longer used, just that "green" is used regularly as a vague term which really translates to "better", even when it is not necessarily better).

[@baarum]

Greenpeace do be like my old car, good looking from a far, but far from good looking. That was the longest list of strawman arguments I saw in a while. The only thing I agree is that sustainable fusion will not be a thing in our lifetime, but needs more research if we want to get there anytime. btw, love the dunks at 2:19 and 24:07🤣

[@PXCharon]

I know where they get their information. Straight out of their imaginations.

[@mkadi70]

I think by Greenpeace math 20% efficiency is bigger than 39% :)

[@DravenWaylonGaming-jk9ez]

What Greenpeace doesn't mention here is that for 1 house you need 20 solor panels to run that house. The lithium batteries to give power to those hames have a live capasity of 10 to 20 years. Then they have to be replaced and currently those battteries can not be recycled, and they become incredibly toxic to the environment. So currently wind and solar only gives a temporary solution to our current energy problem.

[@ChristopherLewis-q3d]

The green in me wanted Greenpeace to be right. I needed this debunking, thank you for adding balance and objectivity to the debate

[@Brendan4381]

So I've been working in Renewable Energy for about 5 years, and some of these complaints Green Peace has with Nuclear exist with Solar and Wind as well...as well as a few others that haven't been mentioned

[@Narut0Namikaze]

Very nice video! It is ridiculous to see such a political propaganda against nuclear especially when now with the turn on renewables we will need a form of energy to stabilize the grid . If we turn our backs on nuclear then that work will be done by more polluting power plants. Another thing, I believe the real investment in renewable sources is downplayed because mass adoption of renewables needs a different electrical grid as well (which is quite costly).

[@SozuliYt]

Finland have not finnished "onkalo" nuclear reactor waste space it is builded as we get waste.

[@solanumtinkr8280]

disposed of solar panels need to be stored in special 'bin' ( a prepared site) that stops any of the toxic materials from leeching into the soil (America has at least 1 such site, , at least that was what was presented in a video on the topic). This 'bin' is there to store the panels until a future generation figures out how to deal with the waste, the builder's hope was, by recycling it. It was implied in that vid that soil toxicity could be an issue otherwise...

[@DD-bv6qh]

I would very much like to see investigation into the funding of the anti-nuclear movement.

[@davedombroski6438]

Elina you went unnoticed by Chat GPT like a Neutrino, however you make learning fun. Young up coming Neutron Star.

[@erebuskraken5483]

Good job mate as always. Thanks for fact checking the 'facts'. I also like how you love your own comment 😄

[@ageens]

heh, it is already couple decades since I lost hope in Greenpeace. They do not like clear facts, but like non-transparent financing.

[@rezadaneshi]

Who’s agenda exactly benefits from rumors of debunking science? Exactly

[@johnbash-on-ger]

Fossil Fuel industry infiltrated and hijacked Greenpeace communication.

[@AceIndiana]

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

[@rezadaneshi]

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

[@johnbash-on-ger]

@@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.

[@V1arox]

Also, unrelated to my other comment, we have a Science professor that brought his diploma work where he compared Nuclear,wind water and solar energy generation, turns out nuclear impacts its surroundings the least, water turbines usually require a dam to be built which causes flooding, wind turbine changes the winds of nearby area, solar changes,water cycle in the area by absorbing large amounts of solar light, he told is solar could be used to power some houses in remote areas,not to use them in a powerplant,he did all of that when one of the girls started to make claims that nuclear power is worse that carbon since we dont know how to deal with the waste.

[@wujekcientariposta]

Regarding the powerplant in ukraine it has withstood military operations around it and even inside it, and being deprived of this so important water. It's interesting how its almost seem like it was designed to be safe even during war, and nothing short of direct effort to destroy it with special weapons for penetrating highly resistant structures like bunkers can actually damage it.

[@pandapip1]

If the word "renewables" was replaced with with "nuclear" and vice versa, the article would be pretty accurate

[@mikhailryzhov9419]

Only some part of it. Solar panels creating an existential risk during a war? Wind turbines needing a lot of water to cool? Don’t sink to their level.

[@joeb5316]

The US Energy Information Agency says that 93 reactors are providing 8% of the USA's electricity whereas all of the renewable sources combined are 12%, and are generally doing so at unvarying levels.

[@CHIEF_420]

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

[@wwoods66]

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