EXPOSING Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES Part 2 - Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS

Aug 10, 2023

EXPOSING Greenpeace Nuclear Energy LIES Part 2 - Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS

Exposing Greenpeace Nuclear Energy Lies Part 2 - Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS

For exclusive content as well as to support the channel, join my
Support page - https://ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou

Join the friendly Nuclear subReddit to discuss nuclear energy, ask questions and share memes - r/friendlynuclearfamily

Instagram - @elinacharatsidou
TikTok - @elinacharatsidou

Welcome back to Part Two of our series! Join me, a nuclear physicist, as I continue to debunk Greenpeace’s misconceptions about nuclear energy. In this captivating episode, I provide you with solid facts and scientific evidence to counter their misleading claims. Together, we’ll uncover the truth behind nuclear power and its crucial role in our pursuit of clean energy. Don’t miss out on this eye-opening journey! Remember to LIKE, SHARE, and SUBSCRIBE for more credible content!

🔗 Relevant links and resources:
Nuclear Energy Agency: https://www.oecd-nea.org/
International Atomic Energy Agency: https://www.iaea.org/
World Nuclear Association: https://www.world-nuclear.org/

👇 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 Exposing Green Peace Nuclear Energy Lies Part 2 - Nuclear Physicist DEBUNKS. Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share with friends and family.

#NuclearPhysicist #greenpeace #nuclear #science

Content

0.18 -> so there is another post here that is quite recent I guess it's from last year

7.38 -> six reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world yeah I would not

13.26 -> assume anything else that the Greenpeace would basically say about nuclear power

18.6 -> nuclear power is often held as a Magic Bullet Solution by whom for the rabbit

23.4 -> and large-scale decarbonization of our society which we all know needs to happen if we have

29.34 -> any hope of mitigating the worst effects of the unfolding climate emergency amongst politicians

33.66 -> and Industry groups it is consistently favored over meaningful investments in renewable energy

38.52 -> systems bolstered with misleading claims of its safety efficiency sustainability and speed of

45.72 -> deployment I'm interested I read it in the other one as well how much is the investment investment

54.42 -> um per energy source USA so let me just quickly try and find something because I'm very curious

62.82 -> how they say that nuclear is taking away from the investment and the financial development of

68.7 -> the other renewable energy sources that are more reasonable based on what clean pieces this seems

75.6 -> to be an energy investment by sector from 2018 to 2020 and this is in billion of US dollars that

83.22 -> have been invested this is a scientific article so I would say quite credible maybe a little bit more

90.06 -> credible than what queen bees has to offer with no fact checking and no references for what they are

96.06 -> saying and it is clear here that one would see that the renewable energies as are in the range

103.44 -> of 300 billion dollars consistently for the years 2018 19 and 20 and nuclear is something below 50.

113.46 -> so that is like 1 6 of the amount of investment that Renewables get and therefore I'm not sure

121.5 -> where the information comes from for Greenpeace but I would really like to check their information

128.64 -> and where they're taking it from hopefully from an independent source and not something created

133.8 -> in-house let's see with the cost and efficiency of renewable energies water efficiency exactly

146.24 -> [Applause]

147.24 -> improving year on year and the effects of rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe we

152.7 -> need to take an honest look honest keyword here Greenpeace honest at some of the myths

158.34 -> being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters yeah six reasons why nuclear

162.48 -> power is not the way to a green and peaceful zero carbon Future Let's see what you think

168.78 -> nuclear energy delivers too little to matter is this really the first argument that the efficiency

177.84 -> of the nuclear power plants which is literally the biggest reason why they're being built is too

182.1 -> little to matter in order to tackle climate change we need to reduce fossil fuels in the total energy

187.38 -> mix well before 2015 to zero percent okay we both agree on that according to scenarios from the poor

196.02 -> nuclear Association and the oecd nuclear energy agency both nuclear Lobby organizations doubling

203.28 -> the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by

209.4 -> around four percent but in order to do that the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear

215.46 -> reactors to the grid every year from now uh year on year until 2015. the last decade only shows a

223.32 -> few to 10 new grid connections per year ramping up to 37 is physically impossible there's no

229.44 -> sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessel they're currently only 53 new

234.78 -> reactors under construction or planned for the upcoming one and a half decade doubling nuclear

239.88 -> capacity different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar wind

244.62 -> is therefore unrealistic and that for only four percent when we already need to reduce to 100

250.92 -> interesting though did they mention or actually they did not mention that what

257.76 -> nuclear Association says that 37 new reactors are needed to be built by 2050 and that would

263.52 -> only improve their gas emission reduction by four percent how much would the Renewables improve

271.98 -> the gas Greenhouse emission decrease and how much of those Renewables would we need to cover up the

282.42 -> same amount of power than that 37 large nuclear reactors would produce so it's a very one-sided

290.88 -> well-placed extremely biased argument and way to present an article and even shamelessly putting

300.48 -> Links of the of the websites here for people to see because if you give it a thought for more

307.62 -> than 30 seconds you would realize that yes there might be slow in reducing the gas emission and

315.24 -> the greenhouse gas emissions and we do need more of that to happen no one ever claims that nuclear

324.12 -> power is solely the solution for the future and I am pretty sure that world nuclear Association or

329.94 -> oecd to not mention in any of the articles that there is no need for Renewables or Renewables

336.42 -> are somehow worse than nuclear and that's why we should not use them and only try and build

340.74 -> 37 nuclear reactors so it's a very interesting way of separating information and taking it out

347.22 -> of context and placing it here and creating a context that not necessarily matches with what

353.7 -> it's supposed to be said in those two articles let alone as I mentioned again that they never

358.8 -> provide information about Renewables so I would like to see with the amount of power that we will

365.34 -> get the amount of electricity that we are going to be able to produce on 37 nuclear reactors how

370.44 -> many of those in Renewables we need to build to get the same amount of energy how much will that

375.12 -> cost compared to the nuclear reactors how fast can we do it how efficient is it for the environment

379.56 -> in case of if we consider materials that need to be constructed the changes of the nuclear of the

385.98 -> solar panels and their wind turbines every 15-20 years and how much will that reduce the greenhouse

392.58 -> emission that would be a morphic discussion don't you think nuclear power plants are dangerous and

397.5 -> vulnerable nuclear factories and plants are easy targets for malevolent acts terrorist threats

403.26 -> the risk of unintentional or voluntary Airline crashes cyber attacks or acts of War they the

409.86 -> enclosures of plants or and certain ancillary buildings containing radioactive materials are

416.1 -> not designed to understand this type of attack and shock actually they are they are precisely

421.32 -> designed to withstand airplane crashes to handle situations in case of terrorist attack or any of

429.42 -> those before mentioned incidents are very well known to the nuclear industry and they are

435.6 -> highly considered when designing and constructing a nuclear power plant I would like to see what is

441 -> the link here that is showing that someone from a nuclear industry actually says that we build

445.62 -> power plants without never considering a terrorist threat or an airplane crash nuclear power plants

451.98 -> presents unique hazards in terms of potential consequences resulting from a severe accident

455.34 -> nuclear reactors and there are associated high level spell fuel stores are available to natural

461.94 -> disasters showed but they're also vulnerable names of military Conflict for the first time

466.62 -> in history a major war is being waged in a country with multiple nuclear reactors and

471.12 -> thousands of tons of Highly radioactive spent fuel the world in southern Ukraine around the

475.5 -> balagia puts them all at heightened risk over several acts and nuclear power plant are some

481.62 -> of the most complex and sensitive industrial installations which require a very complex set

485.82 -> of resources in ready State at all times to give them operating this cannot be guaranteed in a war

492.48 -> this can be guided in a time of climate crisis and extreme weather events either nuclear power is a

497.76 -> water hungry technology nuclear power plant consume a lot of power for cooling they are

501.9 -> vulnerable for water to water stress the warming of rivers and Rising temperatures which can be

506.88 -> weakened the cooling of power plants and Equipment nuclear reactions in the United States and France

512.34 -> are often shut down during heat waves and see their activities drastically slowed so it is again

519.6 -> interesting for me that even though yes important information are being provided that I cannot

525.84 -> dismiss for example that it is difficult to handle a situation in case of a war when nuclear power is

534.18 -> present in the country and of course both parties even during the war should know that something

538.74 -> like this would be of limits and thankfully nothing has happened so far to prove otherwise

544.38 -> however at the same time they do complain that the efficiency of the reactors and the activity

551.28 -> is slowed down during heat waste because they are shutting them down but they're also dangerous at

557.16 -> the same time if they keep working so it is again showing a kind of contradiction of then

563.88 -> the nuclear industry being able to handle the reactors and knowing their weaknesses and where

569.64 -> they should basically put more focus on handling the situation properly for an accident not to

574.92 -> happen yet groupies again would come and complain that in that case they are being shut down so they

581.82 -> are basically not efficient anymore but if they are not then they are too dangerous to operate

590.4 -> what nuclear energy is too expensive to protect the climate we must Abate the most carbon at least

599.76 -> at the least cost in the least time the cost of generating solar power ranging from 36 to 44 per

605.88 -> megawatt hour the world nuclear industry State status report says while onshore wind power comes

612.48 -> in 29 to 56 per megawatt hour nuclear energy costs between 112 and 189 per megawatt hour

621.96 -> over the past decade the world nuclear industry status report estimates levelized

627.12 -> costs which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to Lifetime

632.94 -> output for utility scale of solar have dropped by 88 and for the win by six nine

637.68 -> according to the same report these costs have increased by 23 percent for nuclear

642.96 -> really who wrote this reward what is where is the link for this report because that would

647.1 -> be interesting to see that there is so many information that are being presented as facts

652.38 -> but I don't see much about where the facts come from I don't disagree of course that we do know

658.5 -> that nuclear power is quite expensive to build and does require some time to be built and this is of

665.64 -> course a well-known uh problem that the nuclear industry is dealing with and trying to resolve

672.48 -> and Reduce by introducing small modular reactors for example that would be factory made readily

678.42 -> available and shipped to different countries that are necessary to be built there hence reducing

683.1 -> the cost and the time to be billed and generally improving the efficiency of the whole process so

688.98 -> I do not disagree and I cannot disagree with the statements in this paragraph but at the same time

694.2 -> in order to be more factual one could add that the nuclear industry is working towards more

700.2 -> sustainable financially sustainable solution such as small module reactors that will be the future

707.64 -> and of course more research and more funding would be necessary in order to develop them faster if

714.24 -> that would be of interest but it seems that for very big organizations like Greenpeace this is

719.52 -> not of Interest hence they are not the ones that should be let's say complaining for the fact that

724.62 -> it takes longer time to do according to November 2021 started released by Greenpeace France and the

730.92 -> it was so Institute power from the under construction European pressurized epr in

736.62 -> flammable in France would be three times as expensive as the country's most competitive

740.34 -> renewable source it is very funny for me how they cite each other's websites so the USA Greenpeace

749.52 -> cites information provided by the Greenpeace in France that's very interesting why not the French

756.42 -> nuclear authorities providing the same information making these calculations and giving you those

762.9 -> results because it's very interesting to go behind the calculations because we have seen that it's

766.98 -> very easy to portray numbers that are true but not in the right context so I'm not gonna take this as

776.34 -> a fact even though they're very hardly trying to promote it as one nuclear energy is too low

783.72 -> slow stabilizing the climate is an emergency nuclear power is slow well if you know always

788.88 -> complain that nuclear is slow while not building it in the meantime then it will always be slow

797.16 -> from the 70s 80s in the 2000s when the nuclear interest for nuclear energy dropped because of the

803.76 -> nuclear accidents then everybody was complaining that they're not being built enough and there is

808.68 -> not much happening in the nuclear sector and now 20 30 years later there is the same complaint that

818.1 -> it is slow and nothing is being built but no one from back then ever supported it or promoted the

823.98 -> building of nuclear reactors for them to take let's say 10 years to be readily available now

830.4 -> so of course if you're always complaining that it is slow

835.26 -> yet never supporting for it to happen it will always be slow because it will simply never happen

843.78 -> in 2001 the world nuclear industry starts report estimates that since 2009 the average construction

849.84 -> time for reactor worldwide would be under just 10 years well above the estimate given for the

854.4 -> world nuclear Association industry body of between 10 and eight and a half years

860.46 -> the extra time that the nuclear problems take to build has major implications for climate goals

864.36 -> as existing fossil fuels plans continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution the construction

869.82 -> of a nuclear power plant is a long and complex process that obviously releases CO2 and thus

875.52 -> the demolition of decommissioned nuclear sites as usstruction transport and processing is obviously

884.7 -> not free of greenhouse emissions either all in all nuclear power stations score compatible

890.28 -> with wind and solar energy but this ladder can be implemented much faster and on a much bigger scale

898.26 -> we cannot wait for another decade for emissions to go down they need to go down now with clean

903.3 -> renewable source of energy efficiently efficiently we can do that interesting how the links that are

909.3 -> cited are only for negative information nothing for positive information for example it says here

914.1 -> that um nuclear power stations score compatible with wind and solar energy in terms of greenhouse

921.24 -> emissions while they're being built but there's no information to show that because it would make

925.62 -> them less biased and more towards the neutral side and give the perspective to people that okay it's

932.1 -> not all black and white there is an understanding that there is a middle solution to this problem

936.9 -> but this is clearly what not the agenda of Greenpeace is hence that I promise

942.42 -> providing all the facts and the links and the reports and the references from which

947.58 -> you're taking their information from as well as as I said previously that

953.76 -> they still do complain about the fact that it takes a long time to build nuclear but nobody

958.5 -> really opposed to Renewables to be built while the nuclear industry is working on a power plant

967.02 -> or is building a nuclear reactor in the moment I have not seen many nuclear physicists who go and

974.22 -> say that renewable energies are bad and you should not try and build solar and wind but

979.86 -> you should only focus on on nuclear actually on the other hand I have seen the opposite nuclear

985.44 -> physicists and Engineers are the ones who go out and say that the nuclear industry is available and

992.04 -> very let's say happy to support the need for extra energy that the renewable greed will need and they

1001.34 -> are exactly there for that reason but it always seems that from the other side the opposition is

1006.62 -> quite strong that they try to make it look that it's a it's a thing that both parties share and

1013.76 -> this is not the case because as I said the nuclear industry is not against the Renewables as much as

1019.22 -> renewable seems to be against nuclear nuclear energy generates huge amounts of toxic waste

1027.14 -> the multiple stages of nuclear fuel cycle produces large amounts of radioactive waste no government

1032.84 -> has yet dissolved how to safely manage this waste as I said before this is not true this

1037.7 -> is not a fact they don't provide any information about this because there is information out there

1043.22 -> and this is a blog post from last year and we know from last year for a fact that Finland

1050.36 -> was building and probably had finished their uh final repository already Sweden is uh starting

1057.32 -> as well and other countries are following as well some of this nuclear waste is highly radioactive

1062.24 -> and will remain for several thousands of years two nuclear waste is a real SC courage for our

1069.14 -> environment and for future Generations who will still have the responsibility of managing it in

1072.98 -> several centuries no this is not how it's supposed to be if you have read any manual or the mentality

1082.28 -> of the nuclear industry is that every generation should be able to to handle its own waste and the

1087.98 -> work that is being done now is for minimal to no observation or care so much about the final

1096.8 -> repository of the spend nuclear fuel waste which will after 100 years or so that is going to be

1101.48 -> shut down will be completely self-sustained and without the need of any exterior interference or

1108.62 -> care and worry about the future generation for the waste that is deposited down there countries

1116.24 -> like France are pushing hard for nuclear power in that EU level hoping that when it comes to waste

1122.96 -> out of sight is out of mind but nuclear waste will never go away and will never be sustainable it's

1129.08 -> very interesting how they bring France into the conversation and they say that France hopes that

1133.7 -> by the time they discuss about waste nobody will be interested in the conversation which couldn't

1138.74 -> be further from the truth because France of all countries is the one that actually reprocesses

1144.68 -> nuclear fuel the process that spent uranium dioxide into mixed oxide fuel which I'm planning

1150.32 -> to do a video about in the future and reuses that into their reactors so this is the definition of

1157.88 -> mishandling information and poorly and very biased way providing actually false information

1167.12 -> I was trying to say it in a nice way but there's no nice way to say about it this

1170.24 -> is false information that has no backup and no justification behind it and it's simply not true

1180.38 -> this is one of the obvious reasons why nuclear power shouldn't be eligible for green funding

1184.94 -> nor marketed as sustainable as pointed out recently by the countries like austral

1189.56 -> Denmark Germany Luxembourg and Spain who spoke against the inclusion of nuclear power in the U.S

1194 -> green Finance taxonomy this is also one of the reasons why on the 9th of March of 2020 the EU

1198.8 -> commission technical expert cloud of stability Finance rejected nuclear energy because it did

1203.12 -> not meet the eu's do not do not significant harm principle and recommend excluding nuclear power

1208.88 -> from the green taxonomy nuclear waste management is costing taxpayers absurd amounts of money

1215.6 -> as if building of Renewables or any other energy source it doesn't and it's interesting how they

1220.28 -> talk about the nuclear waste right but at the same time they never talked about the

1224.48 -> ways that the renewable energies are producing I'm not saying it's radioactive which will do

1229.46 -> indeed last for a couple of thousands of years but it is toxic which will last forever the

1234.8 -> toxicity of the waste that is produced from solar panels for example will never go away

1240.38 -> is there a way to handle it hopefully there is is it presented here no because somehow the

1247.7 -> waste from the nuclear in the renewable energy was magically disappear even though there is no

1253.88 -> plan for it but for nuclear where there is a very specific plan in place somehow it's

1259.88 -> the biggest deal so just a very quick Google search solar panels have hazardous waste and

1265.94 -> contain Metals such as lead cadmium which are harmful to human health into the environment

1270.5 -> at very high levels what happens to the solar panels after 25 years the majority of the sonar

1276.08 -> of the panels to produce energy just 25 years albeit and slightly reduced output how about

1282.14 -> the waist gallium arsenide panels may be hazardous due to the arsenic inside them and just for

1291.08 -> facts and how the storage of the renewable energy waste looks like it doesn't look like because it's

1301.76 -> not stored in any proper nice well-maintained way this is how it's stored and I doubt if there is

1311.36 -> any solution to treat them or reuse them or recycle them hopefully they do recycle them

1320.12 -> but nevertheless as I say again nobody ever talks about the ways that the renewable industry is

1327.02 -> producing as if it will magically disappear same for example for the wind turbines they are huge

1334.58 -> constructions massive of tens of meters tall that after 20 25 years are pretty much useless

1342.8 -> and what are we doing with them let me guess we bury them

1347 -> and we reached number six painfully the nuclear industry is failing falling short of its promises

1354.92 -> the epr the European pressurized reactor and nuclear reactor technology has been

1360.68 -> showcased by France government and the French nuclear operator ADF as revolutional technology

1367.16 -> announcing the dawn of nuclear Renaissance the reality is that this technology isn't any kind

1371.9 -> of technological leap more importantly the France friendship ER reactor located in flammable is more

1377.12 -> than 10 years overdue and nearly four times over budget this is so called Next Generation

1381.62 -> nuclear reactor and has also sustained multiple problems delays and costs over runs in France

1387.32 -> United Kingdom in Finland hypothetically new nuclear power technologies have been

1392.48 -> promised to be the next big thing for the last 40 years but in spite of massive public subsidies

1401.06 -> it's mostly private subsidies that come to develop r d in small model reactors not so much public

1409.58 -> the Pro Prospect has never planned panned out this is also true for small model reactors what is true

1417.14 -> for small body reactors they are being planned out as we speak in countries such as U.S Sweden China

1424.28 -> Korea are very very heavily working on those and for nuclear fusion an idea that is also as old as

1431.36 -> the nuclear industry which somehow always seems to be 50 years away the cost and uncertainty of

1436.34 -> fusion means investing in thermonuclear reactors at the expense of other available energy options

1442.22 -> technology won't arrive in time even if and the money would be better invested elsewhere

1447.62 -> says Greenpeace who requests from you to give them 25 a month for this opinion let's

1455.54 -> exert the outmost caution when presented with pro-nuclear options coming from expert and

1462.32 -> organizations working with stakeholders from the nuclear sector says Greenpeace will probably work

1466.82 -> from stakeholders from against nuclear sector companies and potentially trained by vested

1472.4 -> interests as if they are describing themselves in a sentence nuclear energy has no place in a safely

1478.16 -> and sustainable future we heard that six times already it sounds a little bit sad and insecure at

1482.6 -> this point it is more important than ever that we steer away from false Solutions and leave nuclear

1488.12 -> power in the past interesting interesting how they mention in the one blog post about nuclear

1494.72 -> weapons nuclear power that we currently use as in fission and they also talk about Fusion

1501.5 -> reactors which in they disregard simply in two and a half sentences even though Fusion

1507.62 -> reactors are much better than fission reactors right they don't produce nuclear radioactive

1512.36 -> nuclear waste they would have significant amount of energy to give you would be highly sustainable

1518.54 -> and environmentally efficient and friendly but somehow they are not of interest for green fish

1527.12 -> maybe they just don't understand how it works so they just disregard it all together maybe they

1532.52 -> thought that because the word nuclear is before the world Fusion somehow this is associated with

1537.98 -> fission which is the only thing they seem to be obsessed about so it's not of interest to them

1544.1 -> I don't know it's not like there's a lot of things to back up their statements either and

1550.82 -> it was interesting to me that there was an asterisk up here which I was trying to

1556.16 -> find it says here that the full-scale utility solar have dropped by 88 and the Wind by 69

1562.22 -> however the nuclear has increased by 23 and the asterisks usually means that there is something

1569.06 -> on the bottom of the page that will lead you to more information but I am at the bottom of this

1576.2 -> page and there is no more information so I have no idea what the asterisk was about but again no

1587.96 -> website or link or reference to back up their statement no nothing

1594.86 -> here you have it let me know what you think down in the comments and if you support more the Green

1600.26 -> Piece side or are you more on the neutral and objective side or maybe you do think that the the

1605.96 -> way that Greenpeace projects things is actually neutral so I would like to know your thoughts in

1611.12 -> the comments down below thanks for watching don't forget to like And subscribe and turn on the Bell

1615.44 -> notification icon it's been Elina your friendly nuclear physicist and until next time see you soon

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnkgdpnAmp4