I read the article as: 1) We're decommissioning a recycling plant because no one wants to recycle rods. 2) We don't know where on earth we're going to put the

I read the article as: 1) We're decommissioning a recycling plant because no one wants to recycle rods. 2) We don't know where on earth we're going to put the waste from the decommissioning. 3) We don't know how we're going to do this quite yet, the technology doesn't exist. 4) It's going to take 100 years. 5) The entire endeavor was massively expensive (who's paying for this, btw?) Given that, I'm not sure I can accept that Greenpeace is or was on the wrong side of common sense. They may not have seen the entire playing field, they may not have have have proposed the best solution when they started out, but given what they knew at the time of their inception, and how they've grown, I think they are on the right side of common sense. I don't have a timeline of their stance on renewables, nor of coal/oil/gas, but they currently advocate for 100% renewables. And after reading that article, I think that's the only common sense position.