Nuclear energy: A (not so) necessary evil

Nuclear energy: A (not so) necessary evil

Nuclear energy releases very few CO2 emissions. So why isn't a realistic and efficient solution to the climate crisis?

Join Alix, Energy Transition campaigner at Greenpeace France, as she takes a closer look at the facts and figures involved in producing nuclear energy and explains why it is far from a magic solution to our climate problems.

[juvenalsdad]

The reason nuclear power plants will not be able to provide low carbon energy by 2030 is because Greenpeace and it's associates have hampered development for the last 40 years. Do you people actually work for the fossil fuel industry?

[bberdan]

Too slow to build, because our fears have hampered the nuclear industry. France, in 15 years, built most of their reactors, and amazing feat. We have to compare a lot of different metrics between all our energy choices and nuclear does have some very attractive sides- and some scary ones. But covering the earth with solar panels is definitely not a win-win situation. And building huge batteries is problematic too. As for our fears of nuclear, look up 'deaths per unit energy produced' and you'll see it's an interesting story.

[petermueller]

why dont you put the sources for your numbers into the description?

[factnotfiction]

Too slow?
1:46 - nuclear is presented as being too slow to reduce GHG emissions by 2030; however, there must be an outside chance of doing this, because
7:10 - RE is presented as being able to finish by 2050; indicating even Greenpeace believes it will take RE at least 20 years extra over nuclear to replace fossil fuels.

2:11 - currently nuclear avoids 2.5% of global emissions
However, intermittent RE like wind and solar must be even worse, because GP does not present those numbers!
Nuclear provides about 10% of global electricity and wind only provides about 5% and solar about 4% (IEA data). I guess wind and solar must be too slow!

2:26 - how many wind turbines and solar panels need to be installed per hour to match 1 reactor per week? Germany provides some data - let's see - several new coal plants since 2010 when they decided to shut down nuclear!

2:50 - Water usage. Very reactor specific, not at all a characteristic feature of all nuclear plants or all nuclear designs. From specific allegation to general smear is such a small step.

3:42 - Bangladesh shows that even the 3rd world prefers dispatchable reliable power to intermittent unreliable energy from wind and solar! Bit of an own goal there GP!

4:18 - nuclear plants as both a weapon and a target - spoken like someone who has never really thought about the issue. It isn't much of a weapon, and as a target the non-nuclear parts of the plant are much easier to attack and disable. Any idiot who attacked the reactor itself would be court-martialed for incompetence.

4:27 - typical casual racism and bigotry! - "We can't let the little brown people have nuclear power! They might do something bad!"

4:45 - pictures of GP acting like hooligans should convert me to your cause?

5:09 - nuclear waste does NOT contaminate the environment. It is captured, stored, monitored. Unlike other forms of energy production, which don't bother to have an accident, they just pollute as the normal course of business.
As for volume, you present hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste (about 400, 000 tonnes from 65 years of providng 10% of global electricity!) vs the:
* millions of tonnes of waste from wind and solar, or
* billions of tonnes of emissions and ash from coal and natural gas

6:12 - Flamanville, yes, a management fiasco, but not inherent to nuclear power - Despite these extra costs, France will still pay much, much less for electricity than RE Germany or RE Denmark.

[adammada]

A radiology unit in hospital is a potential target too, let's ban radiology! :) Tell your ''experts'' to go to collage.

[SC-yysw]

> Le nucléaire est trop lent.
On a déjà un parc en place qui produit 75% de l'électricité en France !
Dès lors, pourquoi vous acharnez-vous à demander le démantèlement de centrales bas-carbone déjà en place ?

> Le nucléaire est à l'arrêt régulièrement l'été
Oui, contrairement aux renouvelables, qui elles tombent aussi bien en rade l'été que l'hiver (là où la demande en électricité est la plus forte).

> Les équipes de Greenpeace ont réussi à s'introduire dans les centrales
Votre équipe de peintres n'a rien réussi du tout à part mettre une banderole et lancer des feux d'artifices.
Pas franchement un enjeu de sécurité.

> Les déchets nucléaires.
Les déchets nucléaires sont un meme. C'est LE déchet industriel le plus étroitement surveillé. Evidemment, Greenpeace ne se préoccupe jamais des autres déchets industriels ou même des déchets des renouvelables (pales d'éoliennes enterrées, panneaux PV qui s'accumulent dans des décharges en plein air).

[wojtekqwe]

I understand, that in France you do not need to build new nulcear plants, because you have a lot of it. They give you a stable source of energy. Now what you need is to invest in wind and solar technologies. But it is not a cas for many coutries. Especially one that use carbon or oil/gas. For that countries nuclear plants seem at the moment the best option as base stable source od low emission energy. And please do not try to trigger fears regarding the danger of nuclear disasters/pollution. It is just unfair. Coal/gas/oils is a way more dangerous and produces tons of pollutions. And also wind and solar plants harm the nature. Nothing in this world is ideal.

[MrEagle-OFFICIAL]

I guess that hydrogen for cooking, heating and cars and nuclear energy for the rest would be pretty nice. Electric cars aren't really environmentally friendly if you make the energy with coal power plants for example. And if everything runs on electricity, all the networks should be upgraded as well.

[timmyjefferson]

You contridicted your self you said that The dead line was 2030 and then praised renewable energy for being able to do it by 2050

[agiftfromdracosfather]

Now I'd be with you, if there only existed one type of nuclear power but that isn't the case and there are cheaper, safer, and less time consuming options. The strip mining required for alot of metals used in renewables as well as their sub optimal life span makes them less attractive on a wide scale. The unstable nations that you talk about, a separate issue and one that France is deeply involved in and not in a good way.

[amciuam]

I completely don't understand you greenpeace. You are literally fighting against humanity using a lot more energetic reaction than chemical reactions of oxygenation (burning) the reaction of fission. This is a wise choice to make this kind of step forward but you say NO. What alternative do you propose? Renewable is not enough and will never be unless we start constructing energy efficient buildings, cars, planes and all other stuff we use. Not to mention the change that has to happen to our psychology in order for average human not to overuse his environment. Gen 4 liquid thorium fueled reactors, working under 1 atmosphere pressure or less, with a potential to breed it's own fuel is a huge step up from burning fossil fuels. Yet you prefer us to use the good old methods and just keep burning the coal, gas and wood + small usage of unstable renewables. Idiotic, meaningless waste of time. I think you are being sponsored by big names and funds from fossil fuel industry and that is why you fight nuclear.

[gabrinch]

Whenever there is a discussion about nuclear only bad sides are shown. You haven't talked about new nuclear reactors such as SMR, which could really solve the problem about time construction and waste treatment. And if you are so concerned about POLLUTION just tell us about how much pollution solar panels and batteries construction release (SPOILER: much more than nuclear). Also talk us about CAPACITY FACTOR of renewables and nuclear. And I could go on. u are only making DISINFORMATION

[wbaumschlager]

Nuclear energy is a not-so-evil necessity. You just have to overcome your 50 year old prejudices.

[jaqd]

it's a little hypocritical at 4:57 when greenpeace is shown letting off fireworks, which releases heavy pollution, then cuts away to how nuclear power plants causes needless pollution

[Siegfried]

It brought me great happiness to hear such a fair maid, with such funny yet wonderful speech, speak against such a dreadful evil, when so few will these days.

I would also like to ask if you have heard that humans going vegan would end climate change for good?

[Neferpitou-]

Blatant science denial is not a good look Greenpeace...

[Captain_potat]

Fine
Let’s destroy nuclear energy
And replace all of it with specifically coal
That’s what this person (and maybe the organization) wants

[TravisKastl-uimk]

It kills me how people still have this irrational fear of nuclear energy.

[ianhomerpura]

I will support anything that can hell decrease the power of multinational corporations that control the oil, coal, and petrochemical industries. If the best way to do so is nuclear energy, so be it.

[arvalb]

0:04
cause green peace isnt that smart.
who would have tought listening to feelings and not listening to scientist would lead to a completly dmb org.-