Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES

Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES
For exclusive content as well as to support the channel, join my
Support page - ko-fi.com/elin...
Join the friendly Nuclear subReddit to discuss nuclear energy, ask questions and share memes - r/friendlynuclearfamily
Instagram - @elinacharatsidou
TikTok - @elinacharatsidou
In today's eye-opening video, I, as a nuclear physicist, tackle some of the biggest misconceptions and outright falsehoods about nuclear energy perpetuated by Greenpeace on their website. Join me as I debunk their misleading claims with facts, logic, and scientific evidence. This is a must-watch for anyone interested in the truth about nuclear power and its role in our quest for clean energy. Don't forget to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more credible and insightful content!
🔗 Relevant links and resources:
Nuclear Energy Agency: www.oecd-nea.org/
International Atomic Energy Agency: www.iaea.org/
World Nuclear Association: www.world-nucl...
👇 Join the conversation! Comment your thoughts on nuclear energy, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I'll be happy to address them.
Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist Debunks Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share with friends and family.
#NuclearPhysicist #GreenpeaceDebunked #NuclearEnergyFacts #CleanEnergyFuture

[@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist]

This was a very different and quite eye opening review of the Greenpeace website! It was the first time I read their blog posts and I’m quite puzzled as you’ve noticed from the video! Let me know if you’d like me to make more of these videos going into more detail on their nuclear related content 👩🏽‍🔬☢️

[@joshcee3362]

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.

[@jimcabezola3051]

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.

[@spvillano]

@@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.

[@mightym]

Hi please make a video about the cost of nuclear energy, i.e. current realised costs and time to build a reactor per 1GW, the hostorical negative learning curves experienced, and why you think it will become economical in the future.

[@Lucien86]

If you look back at the whole anti-nuclear movement over the last 40-45 years they have done more to promote burning coal and CO2 climate change than any other single group in the world. Its even possible to say that without them climate change would not be the big problem that it is today.. Over decades the switch away from nuclear and towards coal has already killed something on the order of 10 million extra people globally. Just through air pollution... Statistically coal has a 'Chernobyl' about every three days. Thanks Greenpeace.

[@nickhancock589]

My geology professor in college was previously part of a large government study (in a leadership role) aimed at deciding the best methods of packaging, transporting, and storage of nuclear waste for the long term. He was also a member of the Sierra Club. He was contacted by the club's magazine and asked if he would be amenable to an interview about this. He agreed, with his usual conditions, specifically he retained the right to squash the interview and forbid them from ever mentioning that he had been interviewed and they would be required to turn all instances of any notes, recordings, and records. The reasons for this policy will become obvious in a moment. When he sat down with the reporter he was ready to discuss the current state of disposal technology, its successes, and pitfalls. The first question of the interview: "Don't you agree that it's stupid that we have nuclear waste to dispose of?" The Dr. stopped the interview and clarified that he was there not to discuss the merits of nuclear power, but to tell what he knew about how to deal with the waste that already existed, and told the reporter to start again. The next question was: "Don't you agree that it's stupid that we have nuclear waste to dispose of?" My professor immediately ended the interview, invoked all the clauses on the agreement the magazine signed to turn over all the notes and recordings, and never mention their contact with him again. This was decades ago, and the lack of any sort of balanced discussion of the realities of the issue still isn't on the table for these people. The technology has advanced, the ideology has not.

[@laughingalex7563]

@@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.

[@laughingalex7563]

@@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.

[@AdamSmith-kq6ys]

@@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)

[@nt78stonewobble]

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.

[@ChrisEly]

@@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.

[@alphanaut14]

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, parted ways with their organization over how they treated nuclear power. Along with James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Hypothesis, they believe clean nuclear energy MUST be part of the path to a cleaner, more environmentally friendly future. According to Lovelock, Nuclear is supported by people who believe in scientific environmentalism, but opposed by people who believe in religious environmentalism.

[@travissmith2848]

Interesting.

[@linmal2242]

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

[@Jernaumg]

I came to post exactly this. Thanks :).

[@Gunnl]

... 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

[@danielch6662]

​@@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?

[@Eleanor_Ch]

The fact that Germany is closing nuclear power plant and building coal ones, sums this hysteria quite well.

[@schadowsshade7870]

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

[@kennichdendenn]

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.

[@Eleanor_Ch]

@@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?

[@kennichdendenn]

​​​@@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.

[@kennichdendenn]

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".

[@dROUDebateMeCowards]

Greenpeace is not aiming to inform. They’re aiming to persuade. Bold assertions are more persuasive than measured discussions.

[@patrickbuick5459]

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

[@Alfred-Neuman]

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

[@The_Divergent]

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?

[@infernalstan886]

I personally find bold assertions far less persuasive than measured discussions

[@thehighwayman78]

It depends on the recepient...

[@petros5155]

I know a nuclear physicst and I'm honestly so mad over incredible amount of misinformation going around nuclear technology, thank you for clearing everything up and educating people

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

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

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

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

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@Utoobe Izkaka so what is your education in?

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@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.

[@Themrine2013]

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

[@ConradSpoke]

Here's a word you might like: conflate. When Greenpeace calls a nuclear plant a "nuke," this conflates nuclear power with nuclear weapons. Also: sleazy. Greenpeace is sleazy.

[@linmal2242]

You got it!

[@mikitz]

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

[@robertkelly469]

@RogerWilco99 True.

[@matsv201]

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

[@steverichmond7142]

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

[@mivact]

I'm in NZ. I was working on an old house that had an old sticker on the window "New Zealand. Nuclear Weapons Free Zone." Now the phrase used is "Nuclear Free Zone." Somewhere over time the "Weapons" wording was quietly dropped.

[@linmal2242]

Just part of the activism !

[@ChrisEly]

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

[@Babalas]

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."

[@reinbeers5322]

@@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.

[@madcow3417]

Elina, you are way more patient than me. I doubt I'd get past their use of the word 'nukes' before I just declared the whole website full of shit and threw my computer against a wall.

[@019nawakinaryapalupi9]

I feel your emotion 🤣

[@spvillano]

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

[@019nawakinaryapalupi9]

@@spvillano more specifically, a Fire wall

[@spvillano]

@@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.

[@Tybold63]

haha yeah had similar thinkings 😁

[@moritakaishida7963]

Really hope this channel grows as fast as possible, you're doing amazing work

[@MMuraseofSandvich]

A lot of the anti-nuke stuff stems from David Brower, one of the leaders of the Sierra Club. Back when Diablo Valley's nuclear plant was in the proposal stage, most of the board members were far more concerned that the facility would be an _eyesore_ rather than a threat. Brower was the only one who was making wild claims about nuclear power. He was briefly removed for this (and probably for being confrontational), and he formed Friends of the Earth where among other things he reached out to mothers in the nearby community, whom he successfully convinced that nuclear power plants would somehow poison them with radiation. Since his return to the Sierra Club, the anti-nuclear stance has been a fixture in the US environmentalist community. This is not a new thing, by the way-- Back when John Muir founded the Sierra Club, a lot of the top members were firm believers in pseudoscience, such as eugenics. The Sierra Club even has a disclaimer on their website saying, "There is no evidence that Muir believed this stuff, we are inclusive, blah blah blah." The Sierra Club will never say they were wrong about nuclear power, and neither will Greenpeace. It's just too good of a fundraising tool, like abortion for Republicans. What also really didn't help was the fact that the release of the movie _Radio Bikini_ and the Three Mile Island accident happened within months of each other. Ever since then, Hollywood filmmakers would try to devise ways of making a nuclear power plant blow up with a big mushroom cloud, even though we have a lot of evidence that this can never happen unless the plant is stupid enough to be using weapons-grade material.

[@tronche2cake]

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

[@dft1]

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.

[@bigchungus6827]

@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?

[@tronche2cake]

@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.

[@defectiveindustries]

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

[@lesmaybury793]

I gave up with Green Piece decades ago after seeing how they miss represent the truth to promote their chosen agenda. Elina has hit the nail firmly on the head with her analysis of how GP cleverly mislead and misdirect through their dialog. Never believe any of their propaganda. It makes one wonder what their real agenda is.

[@airman122469]

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

[@forfun6273]

Communism.

[@Alex_Fahey]

​@@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.

[@odach2034]

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.

[@demoulius1529]

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...

[@rhydlew]

Greenpeace supporters who respect truth and rationality should have no issue with this video

[@aluminumfalcon552]

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

[@cassandra8984]

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

[@IIBloodXLustII]

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

[@josh1234567892]

@@cassandra8984 Found the Greenpeace supporter lol

[@peterfireflylund]

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.

[@samjohnson5044]

More than a discussion about Greenpeace versus nuclear energy, this video is an amazing exercise in critical reading. It should be required in any English literature class, because the skills Eluna is using to analyze the Greenpeace website are applicable to any written article in academia, newspapers, or reports. Extremely well done.

[@Siegfried5846]

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

[@KlaudiusL]

Greenpeace has lost credibility in recent years. It's not what it used to be. I'm not surprised.

[@peterfireflylund]

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.

[@BabyMakR]

Recent years? Try the last 20 years.

[@peterfireflylund]

@@BabyMakR 50+.

[@huveja9799]

"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.

[@joachimkylhammar5084]

so in sweden we kicked the environmental party out of the goverment and have just restarted one of the decommissioned nuclear power plants and plan to build 25 new small ones

[@peterfireflylund]

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

[@pretzelbomb6105]

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

[@peterfireflylund]

@@pretzelbomb6105 treason is not opinion.

[@AxelNorenburger]

Greenpeace should be the biggest advocate for low enrichment, safe reactors.

[@paulanderson7796]

I completely agree but they seem to have lost the plot. Same for CND.

[@freshz3502]

I was recently called by representative from Greenpeace asking for money, and I told him I won't give Greenpeace any money as long as they are against nuclear energy. We were debating our positions on this, during which I told him solar, and wind CAN NOT support the human race and that if nuclear energy is not used, then we will just use coal. (You can see this happening in Germany.) He then said that he prefers coal power plants over nuclear plants. After he said that, he completely lost me since I know coal energy kills more people, per kWh produced, than any other source of energy. Nuclear on the other hand is the safest, even when compared to solar and wind. I think most people believe this stat is the opposite way around due to the fact that nuclear disasters are rare, and therefore draw far more attention, over the common deaths caused by coal. I also believe this is due to the fact that a single event affects larger groups of people and are more easily sensationalised, whereas deaths that can be attributed to coal are more difficult for the common person to link to coal power plants. And in the case of deaths caused by solar and wind power at least, they are most commonly among workers in their industries, and usually a single death to a single incident.

[@thomasdaily4363]

"Renewable energy. Yeah. Much better for the environment. Let's talk about the carbon footprint for making solar panels, the equipment for a hydroelectric dam, or just ONE wind turbine. Oh, but they don't want to talk about that.

[@dodiewallace41]

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.

[@camarofan2008]

Beat me to it.

[@nathanj202]

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.

[@dodiewallace41]

@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

[@mtpaley1]

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

[@matthewtalbot6505]

It’s absolutely ridiculous these peoples stance on the most energy-dense form of power generation we can currently build. You’ll need acres and acres of wind farms and solar fields to match the output of an average 4 reactor facility. And they of course don’t mention that ~94% of that nuclear fuel waste is actually fissile uranium that could be recycled into new fuel rods. And then there’s the actual waste portion that also contains useful isotopes for medical and industrial purposes.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

ELINA: _"It...sounds almost as if they have something to gain out of this sentence."_ Color me SHOCKED...🙄

[@matthew1995king]

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

[@gabithefurry]

The amount of nonsense on this Greenpeace article shows how they didn't even care to talk to nuclear physicists and plant engineers before writing it. Thanks for the video Elina, it is enlightening!

[@DarkZodiacZZ]

If I were a betting man I'd feel confident on the odds that Greenpeace would vigorously protest fusion powerplants when we get those going.

[@laughingalex7563]

They already oppose fusion actually.

[@aleks5405]

@Utoobe Izkaka They don't want people to have access to cheap energy. They live by the malthusian argument that raising people from poverty is going to cause issues for the planet. This is argued despite the fact that the rise of middle class decreases population growth and make population more concerned about the environment without exception.

[@smolkafilip]

@Utoobe Izkaka Thanks for showing everyone that anti-nuclear sentiments are motivated by communist ideology and class hatred and not science.

[@airman122469]

@Utoobe Izkaka They want people to be poor. And for there to be fewer people.

[@aleks5405]

@Utoobe Izkaka First of all, nuclear energy technology in terms of tangible commercial development is heading towards de-centralized direction (small modular reactors) so that alone kills your first argument, not to mention other Nostradamus-like problems it has. Secondly, the so called "greens" tend to use Malthusian argument hence I brought it up. It's correct that it has been flawed argument ever since the green movement begun in 1930s Germany. Thirdly, your claim about middle class being illusion is ridiculous. Simply, the very fact that no country with strong middle class culture has ever fallen into communism should be enough of a data point to prove it. Not to mention that it is essentially defined class by the leftist ideology. Their whole shtick about bourgeoise is a convenient way for them to de-classify people into "evil right wing variant" of the working class.

[@maotseovich1347]

They miss the fact that nuclear weapons are the _only_ reason that NATO is not currently involved in total war against Russia. I'm not sure how they think total war would be good for the environment.

[@Groaznic]

In short, it's called "loaded language" to call nuclear energy "nukes".

[@carloc352]

I’m really surprised by what Greenpeace writes. Thank you for the analysis. I’m wondering whether the people behind have hidden interests and what industries they actually support. Simulations from several years ago showed that the most effective solution consists in a mix of different energy sources.

[@d3ly51d]

My bet is big oil.

[@linmal2242]

@@d3ly51d More likely, big wind !

[@mikitz]

Or, maybe they're just a religious cult, selling pardons, starting from 25$ a month. The devil, of course, being nuclear anything.

[@GiovanniPerini]

Anti-nuclear movements were financed by big oil companies from the very beginning. This should be no surprise: nuclear is still the only energy source that can really impact fossil fuel demand. Wind and solar still needs at least natural gas as a backup to work (energy storage is growing very fast, but it's still in its infancy and we need decades to install a decent amount of this tecnologies).

[@ChrisEly]

Greenpeace literally invested in and sold methane gas burning electricity plants for a time.

[@seenbelow]

Their reasoning is the equivalent of "water causes drowning accidents therefore water bad"

[@FG-Supercharged]

Greenpeace? Is that the group that use fossil fueled cars, trains, airplanes and boats to get around the planet? Or the other one that use pushbikes, billycarts, footpower, gliders and swimming?

[@BabyMakR]

And funded by fossil fuel companies.

[@frankt2658]

Yeah, shredding fish (hydropower) and killing birds (windpower) are definitely way more environmentally friendly than using nuclear power, wich is (more or less) carbon-neutral and, if done right, without danger for the environment and public. We can blame them (nuclear power producers) for choosing the uranium types of plants because the wasteproducts can easily be turned into nuclear weapons. Thorium reactors produce non weaponizable wasteproducts that have, as far as I know, a way shorter halflive, as the now regular fission reactors wasteproducts. If the final storage of nuclear wasteproducts is done right, we can harvest the contained energy to the last millisivert. Just burrying it under ground is not the right way to do that. Constant accessability is the key to get as much out of it, as possible. A few degrees in temperature still can be an energysource. Talking about geothermal energy gain and heat exchanger/heatpumps. Just dumping things has never been an acceptable solution. If done right, nuclear power is much cleaner than hydro- and windpower. And btw. fearmongering is a common thing in politics andd activism. Spot it, don´t fall for it! Fearmongering is more common, than people believe it is. Thanks for the insight and keep it up, Elina! :)

[@MrSunrise-]

"shredding fish" reveals your ignorance of the true level of destruction caused by hydro. The most productive part of any temperate ecosystem is the river bottomlands. A hydro reservoir destroys the bottomlands. A hydro development does not have an "environmental impact" - it is an environmental disaster. The waste products of a commercial nuclear powerplant CAN NOT be turned into nuclear weapons. The long irradiation periods breed not only Pu 239, but also Pu 240. The spontaneous fission rate of Pu 240 prevents the creation of a fissionable assembly - in plain English, a bomb made from commercial powerplant waste will result in a very expensive bunny fart. (India used a Canadian designed *research* reactor to build their first bomb, not a commercial power reactor. The reactor that Iraq hoped to use to build weapons before the Israelis bombed it was a *research* reactor.)

[@frankt2658]

@@MrSunrise- To the topic of shredding fish: Either you´ve not read my comment propperly, or you´re not familiar with sarcasm. :) I just said in short, what you described. Maybe i just wasn´t sarcastic enough? To the topic of nuclear waste: Yeah, you´re actually right. I remembered that fact wrong. They chose the plutonium option, because with the same production industry you can serve both: powerplants and bomb manufacturing. One enrichment facility, two options to use the product. Serves the military more than the civil use. How surprising this is, don´t you agree? :) But thanks for correcting me on that. :)

[@indogen2198]

Let’s not forget the fact that renewable takes infinitely more space and also works like half of the time especially wind and solar

[@SunShine-xc6dh]

And burning fossil fuels feeds the building blocks of all life. But fear mongering is bad right...

[@manuelfriend4060]

Number of nuclear reactor accidents (excluding Fukushima): 2. Number of oil accidents: 267+ (I got tired of counting). I'd say that's a pretty good safety rep.

[@Piusplac]

If the car industry stopped to sell cars because of bad engineering of the 70s rather than make cars safer where would we been now... fear of nuklear is based on accidents and bombs, I always wonder how they could run an reactor safely 50-70 years ago if you see the tech changed in 2023

[@tomfeeney509]

Grew up with a ZPG sticker (Zero Population Growth) on my dunes buggy and worked with musician’s during the No Nukes Concerts, they nicknamed me the Pro Nuker of the No Nukers.Heading to London on the 21st to protest with XR. 50+ years of Lies by fossil fuel interests and Greenpeace who exploit ignorance. Love your work❤

[@linmal2242]

Don't worry, Gaia will sort out the overpopulation problem. You watch ! Will it be : Flood, drought, pestilence, war? Probably the latter!

[@stevemawer848]

If you must protest in London, can I suggest you do it in a way that doesn't alienate people, which is very counter-productive. Getting people onside is a far better way than acting like a bunch of disruptive miscreants intent on making life miserable for ordinary people.

[@guesswho6038]

@@linmal2242 Stop that gaia nonsense

[@CZpersi]

One of the main benefits of nuclear energy vis-a-vis climatic changes is the fact that nuclear stands outside the CO2 cycle. As for its environmental impacts, the worst is possibly the mining as it requires millions of tons of sulphuric acid to be pumped into the ground. If only there was a cleaner way of doing that.

[@CharlesLumia]

Very informative. I picked up Michael Shellenberger's book that addressed the issue. Nuclear is the clear path forward. It's super clean and produces a ton of power. Win win

[@jjquasar]

I think the websites creators are a bit environ-mental

[@Chris_Ford]

More people have died in car crashes than from nuclear disasters, maybe we should ban all cars. in fact that would be the best thing for the environment.

[@sergey_a]

How glad I am that Greenpeace is banned in my country)

[@luigitarabbia3697]

eco-criminal clowns at their worst! well done, Ms. Elina for your work and video, which I'l immediately like and share!!

[@chrisjackson1889]

If only the algorithm encourages more true environmentalists to watch videos like this.

[@Raven777777777777777]

@@chrisjackson1889 Some if not most would still disprove it and call it a hoax.

[@someoneelse1904]

Who’d have thought Greenpeace would be be caught lying!

[@georgec7895]

"Intellectual dishonesty" - thank you for the balance Elina. You should have 100 M followers not 47k. Keep up the good work. Balance uncovers untruths.

[@Akrub1979]

My opinion about both Greenpeace and WWF is that they are both huge money grabs.

[@neodonkey]

You nail it when you say "Which *combination* of sources" would make more sense, since its not one size fits all.

[@protoplasm75]

Probably one of the best debunking of nuclear power myths I've seen. Well done!

[@gabrielclark1425]

@Utoobe Izkaka Because fossil fuels are better? And wind and solar don't count, because it costs more energy to make the damn things than you get out of them over their entire lifespan, so they too are dependent on using fossil fuels.

[@Halo4Lyf]

@Utoobe Izkaka I kindly invite you to go lick the Elephant's Foot.

[@reinbeers5322]

I would have used words far less nice to describe them, but the point comes across. You're surprisingly generous towards them, when their sources can be narrowed down to their ass or their dreams.

[@phil20_20]

Greenpeace and Sierra Club are working for Big Oil, whether they know it or not.

[@allergy5634]

Greenpeace is the best thing to happen for the coal industry since the Industrial Revolution Change my mond

[@takistatakis8499]

πατριώτισσα, μπορείς κάποια στιγμή να πεις λίγα πράγματα για το θόριο, γιατί δεν έχει πιο ευρεία χρήση και επιλέγουμε το ουράνιο. Και τους modular reactors, για χρήση από μικρότερες χώρες?

[@richarderamirez5909]

Lies and false statements are typical of organizations that are more into raising money for their executives. There is no real benifit that comes from this organization.

[@robgregory5136]

As someone working in the power industry, the US cannot be fully powered by green energy, and if we did go with all EV vehicles certainly not.

[@ololh4xx]

the main problem with nuclear (energy) is : the possibility of nuclear accidents, no matter what caused them. Nuclear accidents are *far* more dangerous than any other human-made accident - we could easily make large swaths of earth uninhabitable, if we were to build many hundreds or thousands of reactors all over the world and quite a few of them were to go into meltdown _(again : no matter what caused them)_ *THAT* always has been, is and always will be the problem. We simply cannot afford to switch to nuclear entirely, which is what she also was hinting at, at the end of the video. We need a very elaborate mix of energy sources and we need to keep the "nuclear sites" very far from each other, in empty places ... preferrably those which cause the least amount of radiation spread, also accounting for wind-based radiation spread. And in the long term, we need additional, protectional shells around all reactors - so that meltdowns can be contained fully. Fukushima taught us this. We also need more strict, international regulations for nuclear power plants - and intensive, all-year maintenance & tests for all relevant parts of the plant.

[@mdj391]

Very good presentation! Well formulated arguments presented in a fashion that is challenging but not scornful. Please do more like this!

[@orionx79]

Thank you, i mean i already did the research myself. But i aint a scientist so no one will listen to what i say. We need more scientist in different fields presenting the information that easily be absorbed by others not willing to do the research.

[@zuke-ci4vd]

I GIVE you a thumbs up! Great video!

[@daniellebcooper7160]

Thank you Elina, for taking the time to go through and explain this topic for us Laymans. Hello from Australia.

[@jschreiber6461]

They are dramatising risks that are rare but with very high impact on a large population with potentially long term adverse impact. What they do not talk about is how rare it is, or how each incident makes us better. Aviation is littered with high profile incidents, but we still fly. Airlines are great at managing perception but Nuclear power has not managed PR so well, allowing the likes of green peace to mislead. They do not compare risks as a like for like. Part of the issue is that a nuclear disaster in a foreign country impacts all its neighbours, while with aviation you can avoid a bad airline or country with a poor safety record. The biggest risk of course, is that human error is ever present, whether by poor design (Fukushima location), or operation (Chernobyl, 3-mile, Silkwood) and cannot be removed. A fully automated unmanned plant with an AI ensuring fail safe design & location might be the future, but not today.

[@mute1085]

Non-"disaster" operation of a coal plant impacts all its neighbours as well. A typical coal plant kills more people every week than the whole Fukushima incident did. And even those that don't die, experience significant long-term adverse impact from air pollution. And that's even before we get into the whole climate change thing, which affects everyone on the planet for centuries to come.

[@ChrisEly]

Artificial General Intelligence does not exist. I don't believe it would be wise to even create one, ever. Fusion is likely to be ready first anyway though. You have already bought into the lies in your own post. Nuclear accidents don't actually harm large areas or a large number of people, and they certainly don't harm neighboring countries. This is known for certain now. We already had the worst nuclear energy accident in history, and despite the fantastical claims, plants and animals, yes even humans, still live there without much trouble. There certainly were not millions of deaths or unusable land for centuries! Russia even invaded Chernobyl in 2022, for some reason, they expended troops and other resources to hold that "unusable" land. Japan and Ukraine, and even Pennsylvania didn't affect neighboring countries or even neighboring states in any appreciable way.

[@thehighwayman78]

I would argue that if Greenpeace says the era of nuclear power is over, that statement more correctly shows the era of Greenpeace is over.

[@oliob]

The fact that if you would want to insure alle the risks of a nuclear power plant, it would cost 30 billion € a year, shows it is not worth it. This number was calculated by one of the biggest insurace conpanies out there...

[@PneumaChronos]

In the words of miniminuteman (I think he was the one to originally say this, idk.) "It is easier to base the facts around your opinion than it is to base your opinion around the facts."* *quote might be slightly off from original.

[@Franklin_Payne]

9:30 Such statements always made me funny as I had relatives, who resettled their home in Chernobyl zone back at 90s. I used to visit them multiple times when I was a kid, and I can say that by executing some simple security measures you can live there as good as any other rural places.

[@susieferenzi3805]

Thank you for presenting the information in an intelligent way for all of us who AREN'T Homer Simpson (or Yourself) and Nuclear engineers or physicists. It's simple, but not so simple that it's debasing. I might not agree with all your comments, but I agree with 90% of it, which in the big picture is a pretty good and solid return. Thank you, and keep up the great work.

[@bodan1196]

It is an assumption that renewable energy is not dangerous. It is too new to know.

[@shawnleigh7325]

The pumped hydro scheme in Australia was to cost $2bn so far cost is $20bn, 4 years over due with no time line to finish. Makes nuclear power cheap I think.

[@larrylandwehr7694]

Who controls the most uranium? Who refines the uranium? Who transports the uranium? Supply lines are always risky.

[@CandleWisp]

Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia, Russia, Niger, Namibia. And many others. The top 20 are a variety of countries from both sides of world powers. No risk there and uranium being energy dense can last for years. Pivoting suppliers is relatively low risk. Supply is risky, but that goes for everything.

[@johndunlop823]

I'm remembering an interview with one of the founding members of Greenpeace by Phillip Adams on the ABC. He said he parted company with Greenpeace when they wanted to ban chlorine. As he said, it's on the periodic table. you can't ban it.

[@EdmansTube2008]

These statistics about "lifetime emissions per energy unit" are incredibly unreliable. You will find SO MANY different values the longer you look, depending on so many things... What scale of operation did they compare? From what time of construction? (some dams for hydro are pushing 100 years now and used incredible ammounts of concrete, which naturally makes a big dent in emissions. Also, most dams also are reservoirs for drinking water or for agriculture. On the other hand, some dams block shipping ways, so you need expensive water lock systems to get ships up and down the river. Or where are these wind turbines they use in the statistics? On the cost? On hills? On a flat field? How tall are they? Where are these PV panels? Egypt? Norway?) Which steps of the whole process did they include for which energy source? As far as I know you need gigantic mining operations to get all the uranium ore and the refinement also is very energy hungry (all the chemicals needed, the centrifuges and all the other equipment). I didn't check on these statistics for a while, but last time I did, nulcear was definetly not among the lowest options. Also, isn't it still a huge problem for nuclear to quickly adjust for demand changes? Wasn't the rate at which you can change the output like 5% per hour or something?

[@shandrakor4686]

Yeah Greenpeace has gone downhill since they started, I used to think as a kid they were great and I assumed they were happy with nuclear as it at less was better than fossil fuel burners, not these days. A combo of nuclear ( for base load and inertia) and renewable were what some founding members of Greenpeace wanted but ended up getting pushed out due to politics.

[@TotoGuy-Original]

i love how the subtitles said "cream pieces" instead of greenpeace's

[@GusCraft460]

Radiation is like fire or electricity. If you respect the danger it poses then it’s possible to use it safely.

[@eldrago19]

"[Greenpeace] made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil." - Patrick Moore, former Director of Greenpeace International

[@OrdinaryEXP]

I am a simple man. I see _appeal to emotion_ in a writing supposed to raise people's science awareness, I become skeptical about the writer's arguments and intentions.

[@justmy5cents]

I greatly enjoyed watching this. We definitely need more edjucated discussions.

[@TopperPenquin]

Oh yeah, all their bridges built today fell down yet their 2,000 year old Aqueduct still stands. 🤔

[@Cam-gz6wx]

I do think that Greenpeace's website is one sided but here is my concern about nuclear. In my country our current government does not maintain the power grid correctly and it is slowly falling apart due to laziness. greed and corruption. As far as I understand cutting corners can be detrimental with nuclear. When a nuclear power station is built the owners may follow all the safety rules and accordingly it may be very safe. However, ownership changes hands and you cannot guarantee that future owners will abide by the same safety procedures and they may get greedy, lazy and cut corners. We have already had mining disasters in our country due to this very thing and they have caused vast damage to towns and people. It is not nuclear I don't trust it is people I don't trust.

[@THCMusicBlog]

subscribed! great video. very difficult to find professionals, especially in academia, who have the courage to speak out against the far Left's "scientific" misinformation.

[@cocobunitacobuni8738]

Fun fact, James Lovelock (the scientist who conceptualised the Gaia Hypothesis) supported nuclear energy. And btw, there are children in this world with unlimited potential (to become anything and make a real difference in this world) who need financial support. I refuse to donate to animal/environmental charities.

[@Rickie26k]

I still see a lot of the Chernobyl-inspired arguments of "annihilating continents"; which is a possibility to an extent. However this applies first and foremost to existing power plants. And there's a reason for that. One of the reasons that enabled Chernobyl, and overall the most damning problem with reactor designs so far. Water as part of the core process instead of just being a seperate energy carrier for turbine drive. The big problem with water which can render a reactor critically malfunctioning is quite simple; steam can turn any water system into a pressure cooker. There are already designs on paper, since at least over 20 years back that foregoes using water as part of the reactivity equation. So why haven't these been built? The market and lack of political will. Firstly, most energy production companies are not willing to take investment risks on new technology. Secondly, in order to overcome that part, political will can mobilize taxpayer money to dampen the investment costs. Plus certification for anything nuclear these days has immense review processes. Additional resources to speed this up could help greatly. As an addition to this, when any technology has been around for a while, all involved production costs fall as efficiency improves for parts, whether it be structural modules, electronics, software or fuel rods. Unless we want to make very big changes to our energy management and lives, we need nuclear; because fossil fuels for energy has got to go. There is one track option which isn't 50 years away, like fusion, and that would be energy storage. But we're still waiting for a new battery type. And thank you for your work on the tube, Elina.

[@WetDoggo]

The best storage solution would be to drill a large hole below ground water level and at least 400m further. Line the walls to stop water from entering/exiting. Then you can lower the radioactive waste into that hole. It's more efficient to only store the fuel there, taking precautions to keep it below critical mass and using neutron absorbers. This can be done on site for most power stations and should be kept in mind for planning new ones. The low level waste can be stored without special protection, but still with a bit of shielding.

[@pineappleguy178]

Waste isn't even radioactive

[@WetDoggo]

@@pineappleguy178 it is, but it's mostly radioactive particles that cling to or are embedded into the surfaces of contaminated tools and utensils. Also precautionarily disposed utensils like gloves and ppe, which in fact might not be contained in the very most cases. But I'm talking about the fuel pellets, containment rods, and all the Stoff that came into direct contact. Throw the pellets into the hole and store the directly contaminated stuff on the surface. The directly contaminated stuff isn't a nuclear security threat, it's just a few times above background, a few dozen meters away you can't even detect it anymore. Fun fact: In chernobyl you can actually detect a higher background even miles away from the reactor... Why? Because there's radioactive dust all around, not because the reactor is super duper radioactive. So in short, dont let the reactor leak and there's nothing to worry about (if you're also disposing pellets on site in these holes.

[@verdisquo97_arts]

@@WetDoggo im pretty sure that it cant possibly be dangerously radioactive for 100s of thousands of years? even cherenobyl is way WAY less radioactive 30 yrs after the release of Kr and Xe and the other ones, plus, considering that most released gasses and such like Kr have very short half-lives, most of the hazardous materials fissioned in a reactor is from reactions with hydrozene, water, boron, ect which break apart their constituent nuclei by a bombardment of neutrons, most subatomic particles, by internal dose is the only signifigant side effects to a potential exposure, and those can be stopped with materials the thickness of a credit card. However, neutrons are the kicker, they have a half-life of 15 minutes if not absorbed by another nucleus of an atom, and they can break DNA strands on the subatomic level. but from a safe distance, such as in a hole, the amount of nuclear fissions taking place are minute compared to those released by criticallity, specifically delayed criticality. i apologize for the paragraph, im not a scholar, nor do i have the education to back up my claims, however i am a hobbyist with a love for all types of engineering, and most of my knowledge is second-hand from a channel called t-folse-nuclear

[@Sketchy_Andy]

Wind and solar should be illegal, and the money made by the green subsidy vultures should be clawed back and given to the people.

[@warlord1981nl]

People keep mistaking Greenpeace for an enviromental group which it isn't. It is an anti-capitalist group... That wants you to give them money...

[@Kidozy]

I remember some one saying that 1 nuclear plant is = ~15 coal or fossil fuel plants for the same space foot print

[@orange6079]

When I was younger,if I saw a green peace member peddling their wares I would park up go for a wander,get approached by them……I would point out green peace was a profit making corporation,we would debate about it for a while,then when the time was right,I would ask them where their base was at.They all seem to be in very high cost lease areas.

[@SomeGuysg]

I am with IllinoisEnergyProf. The CLEANEST energy is nuclear. With next 3rd gen micro modular nuclear reactors , it can be cheaper to build and run with scalability. The GREATEST MYTH for nuclear energy was the 3 mile island nuclear accident. It was not as big of a deal. little to no contaminated gas or radioactive material was released into the atmosphere. There was not health threat at all but because of MSM hysteria, reactors were forced to closed. And this accident cause leftoids to push for no more nuclear power plants to be build, and push the fear of nuclear power plants as nuclear bomb waiting to explode.

[@dggeers]

The world's worst industrial accident: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Not nuclear...

[@Trbrigade]

Of course, taking care of the environment is important, but the so-called "green movement", which was born in the 70s, has completely degenerated, and has become a tool for the struggle of some corporations against others. All their actions are held for money and are sponsored by large companies or political groups. They all need to be dispersed and a new green movement built. More honest and not corrupt.

[@asalways1504]

What grinds my gears the most is that politicians who like to claim they trust in science always seem to take environmental advice from these bozos.

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

[@custos3249]

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."

[@pigpuke]

How dare you!

[@linmal2242]

Spot on !

[@ThePaulv12]

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.

[@Chrupignat]

Over a decade ago when I was a poor student I was asked by one of their activists if I would agree to "donate" to Greenpeace. She decided to advertise the organization by talking about how they want to stop nuclear plants from being built and I asked which type of nuclear plants. She didn't know and I gave her my very limited understanding of different types and that not all of them are as hazardous as Chernobyl plant. The basic gist of it is that they don't even know what they are talking about and if they know then they are complete cynics lying through their teeth.

[@cocobunitacobuni8738]

typical

[@hackking911]

They're not critical. They're fanatics.

[@taskfailedsuccessfully4791]

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.

[@taskfailedsuccessfully4791]

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

[@macosx10.7lion4]

Greenpeace should be named Greenpiss.

[@dragonturtle2703]

Activists have learned in the last few decades what corps and politicians have long before then: that solving problems puts you out of a job, but creating problems, making them worse, or convincing people things are problems that weren’t before make you more business as long as you aren’t blamed.

[@Siegfried5846]

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

[@PjRjHj]

100% true

[@danamccarthy5514]

20+ years ago I was a research assistant on a project for Department of Energy researching turning nuclear and other toxic wastes into glass so that it could not dissolve into ground water even in the event of a breach of waste storage sites. We had a decent success with this and that was decades ago.

[@pretzelbomb6105]

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

[@danamccarthy5514]

@@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.

[@rianmacdonald9454]

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

[@danamccarthy5514]

@@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.

[@danamccarthy5514]

@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.

[@thomasdaily4363]

They use the word "nukes" because it's scary. It helps them to skew people's perception by making them think of nuclear weapons instead of nuclear power.

[@cassandra8984]

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.

[@tonyhull9427]

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

[@kaymish6178]

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

[@user-lp3cf5yn5b]

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.

[@fredsasse9973]

Kind of like the term "assault weapon".

[@jackstecker5796]

I'm old enough to remember when one of the founding members of Greenpeace published an op-ed, advocating nuclear power as the best way forward, and was excommunicated. Full disclosure, I was a commercial nuclear industry security officer, in charge of the badguy team. My job was to find ways to break them in training exercises. It's actually harder than you think, trying to intentionally cause a meltdown. There are so many redundancies, and widely separated. And that's assuming you actually breach the perimeter. It was kind of frustrating, actually, as the training got better and other things were improved, our win rate as badguys dropped precipitously.

[@satanhell_lord]

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

[@jackstecker5796]

@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.

[@OneBiasedOpinion]

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.

[@jackstecker5796]

@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 😑

[@kimvibk9242]

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.

[@Kenj1090]

I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I'm an armed guard at a Nuke plant and let me tell ya, I catch more dose sitting in the sun than when I'm patrolling around the spent fuel pool.

[@liesdamnlies3372]

Just never go for the forbidden swim. :p

[@sebastianjovancic9814]

@@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.

[@liesdamnlies3372]

@@sebastianjovancic9814 Fine, forbidden deep dive. Sheesh.

[@sebastianjovancic9814]

@@liesdamnlies3372 😅

[@jackstecker5796]

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.

[@inesis]

Angry environmental zealots incoming in 3...2...1...

[@vesawuoristo4162]

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

[@inesis]

​@@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

[@TheLifeOfKane]

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.

[@romanstangl8655]

@@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.

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@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.

[@scillyautomatic]

Green Peace is not 100% honest?? I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!

[@shawnmiller4781]

Excuse me sir your winnings

[@scillyautomatic]

@@shawnmiller4781 😲😂 Thx!

[@EinFelsbrocken]

"...maybe not that shocked."

[@SavageDarknessGames]

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

[@richarderamirez5909]

Over the years I have watched Greenpeace's activities I have come to see them as a radical movement. As such I did not expect to find a truly balanced and honest commentary on any of the information they put out. As you learned their information is quite tilted and subtly dishonest. Thank you for the work you do and for putting out this honest information we lay people can learn from!

[@Siegfried5846]

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

[@Bobuliss]

I work at a nuclear power plant in the US. It's astonishing how little people understand about this issue. Thanks for making this video. What's really funny is that most environmentalists are actually in support of expanding nuclear power, so greenpeace is out of step with their own people.

[@leosmith6507]

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

[@Bobuliss]

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

[@zaconeil3709]

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.

[@artyom2801]

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).

[@Siegfried5846]

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

[@arthemis1039]

You should look into Greenpeace financial resources, and see that they have always been financed by the fossil fuel lobbies, same with Sierra Club. Since the start, those lobbies have been interested in preventing nuclear energy, as it is the only real alternative to fossil fuels for baseload power.

[@linmal2242]

Good point, if true!

[@dwwolf4636]

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

[@heronimousbrapson863]

I've suspected this for some time now.

[@huveja9799]

"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.

[@peterlydiard3277]

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

[@Niitroxyde]

Ecologists denying nuclear energy is the one thing I'll never understand. If they were coherent, nuclear energy would basically be their messiah.

[@havwulfkikboot]

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

[@carlosbelo9304]

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

[@TiberianFiend]

Professional activists have to be active against something.

[@IlIlIlIlIlIlIIlIlIlIlIlIlIIIII]

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

[@hotdog9262]

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

[@kazekami7313]

In primary school, we called greenpeace the heavy weed smokers...I guess we weren't that far from the truth.

[@mattgent1]

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

[@magicpyroninja]

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

[@sid2112]

Imagine how it was for me, the pothead libertarian.

[@dieSpinnt]

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**

[@thegreathadoken6808]

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

[@JSDudeca]

I support the green movement but with their anti-nuclear stance I will never vote green again in Canada.

[@maritaschweizer1117]

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

[@dinamosflams]

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

[@ryanoberfield756]

I broke faith with the greens for the same reason

[@daniellarson3068]

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.

[@smorrow]

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

[@HappyBear376]

I've worked in coal plant, gas plants, solar and nuclear (I'm only a rope access supervisor) but I felt safest in the nuclear stations.

[@michaeljost8399]

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

[@alphadeltaroflcopter]

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

[@michaeljost8399]

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

[@michaeljost8399]

@@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"

[@Nemoticon]

@@michaeljost8399 Naive and ignorant.