3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! 2/3


three reasons why we should stop using
nuclear energy one. nuclear weapons proliferation nuclear technology made a violent
entrance onto the world stage just one year after the world’s
first-ever nuclear test explosion in 1944 two large cities were destroyed by just
two single bombs after that, reactor technology slowly
evolved as a means of generating electricity but it’s always been
intimately connected with nuclear weapons technology it’s nearly impossible to develop
nuclear weapons without access to reactor technology in fact the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty serves the purpose of spreading nuclear reactor technology without spreading nuclear weapons, with
limited success in forty years five countries have
developed their own weapons with the help of reactor technology the fact of the matter is that it can be
very hard to distinguish a covert nuclear weapons program from
the peaceful use of nuclear energy in the nineteen seventies the big
nuclear powers were happily selling peaceful technology to smaller countries
which then developed weapons of their own the road to deadly nuclear weapons is
always paved with peaceful reactors 2. nuclear waste and pollution spent
nuclear fuel is not only radioactive but also contains extremely poisonous
chemical elements like plutonium it loses its harmfulness only slowly over
several tens of thousands of years and there is also a process called re
processing which means the extraction of plutonium
from spent nuclear fuel it can be used for two purposes: to build
nuclear weapons or to use it as new fuel, but hardly
any of it is used as fuel because we don’t have the right kind of
reactors for that, a milligram will kill you a few kilograms make an
atomic bomb and even an inconspicuous country like Germany literally has tons of the stuff just
lying around because re processing sounded like a good idea decades ago and Where will all the waste go? after dumping it into
the ocean was forbidden we’ve tried to bury it, but we can’t find
a place where it will definitely stay secure for tens of thousands of years over 30 countries operate nearly 400
reactors managing several hundred thousands of
tons of nuclear waste and only one is currently serious about
opening a permanent civilian waste storage: tiny
Finland 3. accidents and disasters over sixty years of nuclear power usage
there have been seven major accidents in reactors or facilities dealing with nuclear waste
three of those were mostly contained but four of them released significant amounts
of radioactivity into the environment in 1957, 1987 and 2011 large areas of land in Russia Ukraine
and Japan Were rendered unfit for human habitation for
decades to come the number of deaths is highly disputed
But probably lies in the thousands these disasters happened with nuclear
reactors of very different types in very different countries and several
decades apart looking at the numbers we may as well
ask ourselves: are 10 percent of the world’s energy supply worth a devastating disaster every 30
years? would thirty percent be worth another
Fukushima or chernobyl somewhere on earth every 10 years? what area would have to
be contaminated so we say no more? where is the line? so should we use nuclear energy? the risks may outweigh the benefits and
maybe we should stop looking into this direction and drop this technology for good if you
want to hear the other side of the argument or a shorter introduction to nuclear
energy click here our channel has a new sponsor if you use the URL you can get a free audiobook and support
our channel producing our videos takes lot of time. and we fill a lot of it by listening
to audiobooks For a really entertaining book, we recommend
“into thin air” by Jon Krakauer he’s a great writer and the story is
really absorbing and true. go to to
get the book for free thanks a lot to audible for supporting
our channel and to you for watching

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

100 thoughts on “3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! 2/3”

  1. Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell says:

    There's brand new stuff in the Kurzgesagt Merch Shop. Check it out here:

  2. Unnecessary Jargon says:

    I live in Australia and it seems so illogical that we're still so reliant on coal despite being the country with the most uranium in the world. We have plenty of desert where legit no one lives and hardly any wildlife is found there, nuclear waste could be left there with little affect on life (i probably havent done enough research on this part tho so please correct me otherwise). It seems we basically have the perfect location for nuclear power, and while yes it has downsides, it cant be any worse than coal which is already causing our great barrier reef to die due to rising temperatures…and if our government isnt going to make a decent investment into renewables then nuclear power is the next best thing, at least temporarily so that we can buy some time to solve our energy crisis before fossil fuels run out for good

  3. Joshua Thompson says:

    People who see nuclear power as a threat to public health, when the byproducts of coal, solar, and wind power are responsible for deaths THOUSANDS of times over nuc power blow my mind.

  4. Luc Fauvarque says:

    It's been decades now since Chernobyl has become habitable again. And Fukushima is no longer radioactive enough to prevent human lifestyle already. 96% of nuclear waste is recyclable into usable nuclear fuel. And the reason why Germany doesn't use it is because it has old reactor designs, not because it can't be used on more recent ones, which it does. Finland stores, France recycles and stores. You absorb far more radiations by simply taking a commercial flight than entering a nuclear reactor maintenance room. Finally, if abundance of nuclear reactors really was a huge issue, something bad would have happened in France already, since 80% of our energy budget used to come from nuclear power for decades now (It's closer to 70% now).

  5. Oskar Beres says:

    stop fearmongering

  6. Jolmner , says:

    Id say its pretty unfair to go out on fukushima. There was nothing wrong with the reactor, its just that most buildings cant handle a tsunami. If they had built the reactor anywhere where tsunamis doesnt happen, it would have still been running.

  7. D Rageway says:

    Tip #1: Don't fuck with other people's boats.

  8. Rude Uno Card says:


  9. James Dunn says:

    Shut your bullshit mouth no-one cares about your opinion unless its not a nag you know it all 🖕🖕🖕

  10. phorque2 says:

    at 0:41 it shows the 1994 (and present) South African flag, but South Africa's nuclear weapons program was developed and eventually dismantled in 1989 before that flag was adopted.

  11. Dipak Chakraborty says:

    We as humans are not ready yet to handle the aftermath of a Nuclear disaster. It will take much time for us to be that advanced.

  12. Better Tomorrow says:

    But there’s much safer nuclear reactors now than before so therefore it will become safer and safer over time

  13. p.escobar says:

    dump it into Mariana Trench. 12 km of water are enough.

  14. Jed Miller says:

    In light of the Chernobyl series, that was riddled with scientific inaccuracies, this debate is becoming even more fueled. If you're a nuclear operator or engineer, these arguments and shenanigans will thoroughly annoy you.

    1. Reactor Technology and understanding helped create nuclear weapons, but those that have ability to create them and already have them don't need nuclear reactor plants to do so. Nuclear Reactor Plants aren't going to give nuclear weapons to people that don't already have them, so this "nuclear proliferation" argument is the most tedious and trivial point that anti-nuclear activists raise. The amount of resources and technological access that one would need in order to create a bomb from a low-enriched reactor plant is like finding a unicorn. Let's take Iran for example and the US' Nuclear deal. Iran was limited to a set amount of centrifuges, and very inefficient ones too. They're also bound to not exceed 3.67% enrichment, which is consistent with every other commercial reactor plant in the world, at 3-5% enrichment. HIGH enriched uranium, on the order of 90%+ is nuclear weapons material. Also, all of their NSF is shipped OUT of the country. This is heavily monitored and regulated by the IAEA. The IAEA does this with a multitude of countries that people don't want to have nuclear weapons (as if the world doesn't already have enough to cause humanity's destruction).

    The IAEA inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on;
    Material Accountability – tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, review and verification of operating records.
    Physical Security – restricting access to nuclear materials at the site of use.
    Containment and Surveillance – use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site.

    To this date, we don't have nuclear proliferation occurring (well, because of nuclear power). 

    2. Spent Nuclear Fuel is quite literally the ONLY waste that is meticulously maintained. Never once has it hurt anyone, and it never will. Tell me, what are the plans for solar waste and the toxic elements, like cadmium, that don't decay? That can't be used in reprocessing? Also, we do have reactor designs for reprocessing, and France is a good example of this. It is quite perfectly within the scope of our scientific capabilities, but democratic administrations oppose this legislation. It's also worthy to point out of little waste there actually is. It is effectively nonexistent. The "SNF could be use for proliferation" is merely a part of point 1, not 2. Countries that have this technological capability already have nuclear weapons, so it's a red herring to even bring up. A "milligram" can kill you.. okay, show me a single person in the past 70 years that has died form the small amount of nuclear waste that is apparently so plentiful? Oh, wait, that's right.. not a single person. And reprocessing IS a good idea in regards to Germany. You know what is ironic in this context? They decommissioned all of their nuclear plants, went "renewable," and ended up with higher electricity costs and CO2 emissions because of this, and now rely on natural gas to fill the void that nuclear left. Mhm, strange, wouldn't you say? The "hundreds of thousands of tons of waste" is, again, misleading like most of this video. Uranium is EXTREMELY dense, and so are a lot of nuclear byproducts of fission. It weighs a lot, but comparable to the amount of room it takes up, it is considerably less than you would think. For the US, it's about the dimensions of a football field that is 15 meters deep. That is negligible. Now, imagine if we also had reprocessing and the anti-nuclear nutcases weren't so patently absurd about opposing this legislation. 
    3. Accidents and Disasters….

    Well, look no further than shear data and statistical probability. If you are irrationally scared of nuclear incidents, of which only one in 6 decades (Chernobyl) resulted in the deaths of humans, but you are totally content on flying planes, you are a nutcase. No, there haven't been "7 Major Accidents." That's a lie. Only THREE are considered major accidents: TMI, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.. TMI, nothing ended up even happening, and the other 4 you listed were even less of an impact. These 3 are the only ones that suffered considerable core damage, and this point is a good example of why it is annoying listening to individuals who have no professional background in this industry. Realistically, only 2 are of any major concern, as nothing even happened with TMI, leaving just fukushima and chernobyl. "Four of them released significant reactivity into the environment." Two*.. the word you're looking for is two*. While many claimed that lands were "unfit for human habitation," a lot of these efforts were just completely bananas. Japan is PERFECTLY fine to inhabit in the relative vicinity of the reactor plant. What you're claiming is just an utter lie and pure sci-fi. Even the local marine life is doing just fine, and Ukraine was never uninhabitable, ever. Only the immediate area, and to assert that it was for "decades," again, is another lie. This just isn't true. You're propagating fear-mongering myths of the extent of radiation. How people reacted is NOT indicative of what was actually true or how they should have treated the situation. For example, the mass evacuation effort at Fukushima made things MUCH worse. Some ionizing radiation from a reactor plant isn't going to make countries uninhabitable. That is just fucking science fiction, dude. Honestly, did you guys consult experts for this video? "The death toll was probably in the thousands." NO, NO IT WASN'T. Where are you getting research? You should know this isn't true if you have read anything from the UN in this century. It's on the order of a few hundred, were the vast majority of deaths occurred from first responders. Chernobyl is credited by the UN as being responsible for about a quarter of the thyroid cancer cases, and no other cancer. They reported 20,000 cases, leaving about 5000 cases of thyroid cancer attributed to Chernobyl. Thyroid cancer has a 1% mortality rate.. yes, abut 50, maybe 100, maybe less, died from cancer as a result from chernobyl, and a couple hundred from radiation sickness, and a few from fire and one from rubble. You can't even break 500 with the most recent reports, let alone "in the thousands." It's like you're so careless with the data you're gathering, that you're taking it from reports in the 80s or early 90s.

    Also, when you suggest "different reactor types having a disaster every 30 years or so" is, again, bull shit. What happened at Fukushima was entirely different than Chernobyl, and the consequences were too. NO ONE died at Fukushima as a result of radiation. NONE. Every experience is also a valuable learning lesson, especially as reactors gets more advanced. You also have to remember, only Chernobyl and Fukushima are the real offenders here when it comes to significant core damage and the release of radioactive material. Fukushima was hit by a 9.0 fucking earthquake and tsunami, and even then, the US' NRC criticized their plant design and said it could have been avoided, which it could have by merely elevating diesel generators. Chernobyl, if you understand the physics, cann't happen with other reactor designs. It is unique to the RBMK-1000 reactor because it has a positive reactivity coefficient, and even then, they had to DELIBERATELY disable emergency cooling, bypass the scram, and disable other redundancies, as well as go below the minimum requirement of rods that are supposed to left in the core. That reactor couldn't even be licensed in the US, and reactor operators here wouldn't be able to disable safety equipment like that on a whim. The RBMK was also not a LWR, and it had a graphite moderator with NO containment vessel. Despite the poor regulations, incompetent operators that maliciously disabled safety features, and just utter stupidity, the situation could have been avoided if they merely installed a containment vessel, like they do with every other reactor in the world. We have reinforced steel with several feet of concrete here in the US. The design flaws were just the cherry on top for Chernobyl, and if one were to replicate that day perfectly with their own RBMK-1000 reactor, ALL of it could have been avoided form releasing radioactive material into the environment if they just had a damn containment vessel.

    HOWEVER, despite these, nuclear still is statistically the safest with the lowest mortality rate, deaths/Kwh, and there are energy disasters that have been FAR worse that no one seems to talk nor care about, like the Banqaio Dam collapse in China that killed 200.000 people and displace 11 million from their homes. I guarantee 99.9% of the population has never even heard of this. We'll never get movies, series, or YouTube videos warning people about the dangerous/pros&cons of hydroelectric power, nor the level of fear-mongering, fictionalization, and sensationalism that Nuclear receives.

    If you care about climate change, you can't oppose nuclear. It's an oxymoron. With the nuclear plants that are being decommissioned in the US, cheap natural gas is replacing them, just like it did in Germany.

  15. Saurabh S says:

    @Kurzgesagt I usually expect better from your videos, you’ve been the best channel on YouTube but I didn’t enjoy this video.

  16. Bobby Pssomcods says:

    Sorry for the waste of time guys. nuclear power is the future.

  17. Shakennothurt says:

    Well, if you put your limited uranium in your energy reactors, then there is less to put in bombs… Not building reactors for energy doesn't make the plutonium for weapons just vanish…
    2- at least we can store nuclear waste, the wastes from most other sources can't contained and are shot into our air (car exhausts, factories, oil plants… These kill millions of people every year)
    Tsjernobyl was a man made accident and Fukushima was built near a fault line and near the ocean where it was overexposed to the floodwave that destabilized 2 of the reactors… Truly, in this video it is said that since its origin only a few thousands were killed by nuclear energy (add some more because of plutonium mines and exposure) but other forms of energy kill more than a few thousands every year

  18. AD UNUM TRISTIS says:

    Yep , that's big NO from me .

  19. xwingextreme gunn says:

    and its only ten 10% not worth it!

  20. xwingextreme gunn says:

    lets sue the usa, to stop nuculear plants, and those …mess ups… probably helped the process of global warming

  21. 11TehDude says:

    Thorium. The end.

  22. Madrasa Mahmud Efendi Mexico says:

    Yes! We should use it.

  23. Bhekty Kusnenda says:

    Someone : i think it's safe
    Kim jong un : hold my nuke

  24. Juhnu plays says:

    In Finland we have very good educated workers at ncpp's and very good reactor designs

  25. william gorham says:

    The Trinity test was in 1945 not 1944. 🤣🤣

  26. william gorham says:

    Chernobyl was in 1986 not 1987. Your videos seriously suck when it comes to actual facts lol. 🤣🤣

  27. Zachary Baldwin says:

    Look at the real facts and take your bias click baiting bs somewhere else.

  28. Aidan Sebastian Geronimo Cailles says:

    dlsz squad whre u at?

  29. 3rd axis says:

    errors will happen anyway. Nuclear has more disadvantages than advantages. It should be banned. we better control the population & our needs.

  30. The one can't be lied, Vcvrpj says:

    Finland is fine land •_•

  31. Y0UGUR7 says:

    Suomi mainittu, torilla tavataan!

  32. W Game och Retro says:

    2:01 TARDIS here too?

  33. EvidentlyChemistry says:

    Nice Channel.
    It is unfortunate there are so many untruthful claims in this episode. For instance, of the eight nuclear weapons states, only India had an electricity producing reactor before they made a bomb. That is 1/8 not "always". Any nation can replicate 70 year-old technology, so proliferation is a political not a technical issue.
    Fear of nuclear waste is childish. It is contained. Not more toxic than other heavy metals we don't worry about at all.
    Most importantly, failure to fully embrace nuclear energy condemns 1 million species to extinction. Childish fears exterminates these ancient lineages of our fellow earthlings. That is a high price for childish fears.

  34. Tyler C says:

    Technological advancements allow us to overcome these problems.

    1. It is certainly possible to build nuclear reactors while minimizing nuclear proliferation. Since the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons in the US and in the world has decreased significantly (although the number of nuclear reactors has also dropped – but that needn't be the case!). More to the point, if you're concerned about other countries using nuclear fuel for weapons, as other commenters pointed out, give them Thorium. Thorium reactors don't produce Plutonium and are desirable for other reasons. (I also think that the video exaggerates our inability to tell if other countries are building weapons; we have ways of gaining intelligence).
    2. First, we are good at storing nuclear waste and there's not much of it. All of the nuclear waste we have ever produced could fit on an area the size of a football field, with negligible risk of an accident if cared for properly. Further, newer designs for reactors would produce waste that could be reused entirely. And reactors could be kept offshore to further security.
    3. Nuclear energy causes less deaths per unit power produced than any major energy source by far! On a par with wind and solar. (Look it up, it's baffling that most people don't know this.) And while the notable past accidents are truly terrifying, they were primarily the result of extraordinary negligence. Reactors of the future will merit improved design and safety measures. Further, coal and natural gas kill millions every year in the form of pollution.

    It is imperative that we stay open-minded. Many climate scientists today think that without nuclear there is no way to avoid a climate crisis.

  35. chipan9191 says:

    Yeah, none of these hold up. First off, i think we need to stop worrying about nuclear proliferation. There have only been two bombs ever dropped on people and despite several other countries (including North Korea which never had nuclear reactors) getting nuclear weapons, they haven’t ever used them. Everyone is deterred by self preservation because if they would be taken out if they even tried. And we have to face the fact that getting what you need to make a nuclear bomb is actually quite easy and all the information you need is available online for free. If a kid in the 80’s can build a function nuclear reactor in his backyard, how easy do you think it is for someone today to build a nuclear weapon? Fact is we can’t stop them, we can only detour them, and nuclear reactors have actually caused many countries to dismantle their nuclear weapons to use for fuel.

    As for the waste problem, there are several solutions to this. The reprocessing you said we can’t do yet we actually can do in high power reactors. You also have the nuclear pebble solution which significantly reduces the waste and eliminates the possibility of meltdown as they can simply design a heat plug at the bottom that will melt if the reactor gets too hot emptying out the reactor without any actions required by operators. We can make reactors that can go unsupervised now.

    As for the accidents, those have all been from old reactors that were entirely avoidable if they had admired to protocol. Chernobyl was gross negligence, and Fukushima was outdated technology that had should have been updated but wasn’t. In fact, there was a nearby power plant that’s didn’t melt down because it was newer. Also keep in mind Fukushima caused no deaths, aside from the botched evacuation which killed over 100,000. The fear of nuclear accidents kills more than nuclear accidents, and future generation power plants are physically melt down proof. Meaning a nuclear disaster is impossible with current technology implemented.

  36. Zuzia Treneiro says:

    It is sad as I loved getting to know that you do a lot of research to make sure your videos are accurate. Then why ignore all research and data denying how the results of Czernobyl were overestimated. Why would you repeat the legend about thousands of deaths resulting directly from the Chernobyl breakdown. Scientists who actually specialize in radiation research all agree the dramatic results are a gross exaggeration and the only rise in illnesses that was noted after Chernobyl was thyroid cancer – however in case of this desease it cannot be decided whether it was the rise of number of cancers or simply the fact that more people would get tested to the cancer that has hardly any symptoms. Spreading misinformation about actual effects of eventual malfunctions of nuclear power plants caused a lot of harm to programs promoting clean energy in my country. It was a reason why we have 0 nuclear plants and rely on coal.

  37. rickyay26 says:

    Can we have a legit space race and program to research building solar panels around the sun?

  38. ELverdaderoOVALAO says:

    1: Chernobyl
    2 : Chernobyl
    3 : Chernobyl

  39. Крепость Холишота says:

    In Russia 100% of radioactive waste get recycle(no matter if it from nuclear reactors or from somthing else) it makes much more profit. So no waste for us.

  40. Erik Blue says:

    Another Chernobyl wouldn't happend since the RBMK reactors were discontinued

  41. Robert Petties says:

    1)nucular bombs would not be an issue because the nuclear resources would go to energy instead of weapons.. LOGIC..
    2)nuclear waste won't be a problem because its reusable. and yhe "waste" is actually THE BEST contained substances. With no pollution risk.(just ask France)
    3)out of every incident with nuclear ever happened including, the meltdowns in Russia and China.. had far less deaths than fossil fuel, wind, hydro, and solar.. (human and animal)


  42. Nicolai Wigdahl says:

    Terium is a thing

  43. Moren Lee says:

    Indonesia must stop doing secret nuke weapon. Goverment lies and everybody knew about the disaster.

  44. Nicolas Gaston Lanternier Muratore says:

    The Argentina flag repeats in the minute 2:10

  45. SRT 8 says:

    deaths per terawatt hour
    natural gas-4000
    rooftop solar-440
    wind -150
    statistically nuclear is the safest option.
    chernobyl happend because of the ussr cutting corners and because Dyatlov didnt follow the instructions so basically a tyrannical government and user error, and fukushima was because of a 9.0 earthquake a amazingly rare event and also there preemptive measures could have been taken to prevent the extent of damage that occured.
    edit:kyshtym was also the ussr's fault because the cut corners and so on.

    thorium is the best alternative

  46. My Music Playlist says:

    When you try to scare everyone by using nukes and pollution lmfao. Literally almost all of the nuclear waste is re purposed for fuel plus most demilitarized warheads are made into fuel as well.

  47. Mikee 1234444 says:

    2:58 Nice

  48. Blanik L-13 says:

    I would rather have a nuclear power plant in my neighbourhood than a coal power station or even wind generators.

  49. Neko Destra says:



    Me at 2:20 : THORIUM! Why ppl so stupid?!

  50. Strygger says:

    Dear power hungry people: please make at least 80% clean energy first before developing weapons out of it. Who knows, maybe you could invent much cooler laser guns instead of boring nuclear bombs. Thanks.

  51. my devj says:

    Pakistan's nuclear is bluff

  52. Avaxa Sirvina says:

    More safe nuclear energy please.

  53. Yavorrex says:

    nah nuclear energy is gucci

  54. Shaw358 says:

    People in the comments are really fucking retarded by sating this video is BS.
    It's a 2 part series, go watch the "pros of using nuclear energy" of the same team and stop whining for FUCK SAKE

  55. Flarbargason says:

    All forms of power have disadvantages and they all produce waste products (besides wind power)

    Coal power plants emit 1.9 tons of CO2 and 240,000 tons of waste each year.

    Solar panels contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. And the parts of the panel are nearly impossible to recycle.

    As said earlier, wind power doesn’t produce any waste so it has no negative effect on the environment… besides killing 328,000 birds a year.

    As will other forms of power, nuclear power does make waste. However, it produces much less. Since 1942, when nuclear power was invented, all of the waste nuclear power plants only produced 90 tons of waste. It is radioactive although it does not produce it over a large area.

  56. Flarbargason says:

    I’m glad that most of the comments are from people who know the benefits of nuclear power

  57. Flavien Mas says:

    plutonium is also used in RTG for space missions.

  58. bamfbabybamf says:

    Only 7 isn't that bad honestly

  59. Puckosar says:

    It's funny how basically all their arguments against nuclear are countered in their pro-nuclear video. Shows that coming up with arguments against a good idea can be really hard. Nuclear power is one of those things that is overall (barring blatant missuse and recklessness) an objectively logical solution to humanity's greatest problem yet.

  60. B Nagy says:

    Stop this nuclear shit:/

  61. Bastian thoning says:

    0 died from radioaktivity in japan 47 died from cancer in russia but their was some quastion if it was because of the nuclear power explostion cause their have done something before their sat op the nuclear power that also leat to cance cant remember what but u can go in and read… and the other things i havnt really reasearched about but their is prob a argument aginst it

  62. Ben W says:

    Can you have another go on this one? Many of point 3 issues have now been rectified by things like liquid fluoride thorium reactors among others. Currently I think these videos need a rework as they are not delivering an accurate portrayal of what we know in 2019.


  63. Ryan Hallahan says:

    What terrible arguments…

  64. Jarred Emanuel says:

    But fossil fuels are way worse in regards to accidents

  65. maddog 1043 says:

    I oppose nuclear energy I understand that it gives us electricity but its dangerous one problem can cause a meltdown or explosion, nuclear waste won't stop being for hundreds of years radiation from nuclear reactors can cause cancer or radiation poisoning

  66. Ivan4es1 says:

    2:36 Chernobyl was in 26 april 1986, not 1987. And now, after 30 years, some people live in forbidden zone.

  67. Anon iconaclast says:

    A Van Halen concert could power the world.

  68. Alexander Vallera says:

    Basically every problem they describe in this video is avoidable through Thorium reactors. It's incapable of being used as a weapon, it's pretty much impossible for it to result in a Chernobyl/Fukushima situation, it's more efficient and lasts for a much longer time. Plus, when it's spent, it takes 10x less time to degrade than uranium. On top of that, if we managed to achieve fusion reactors we would never have to burn a single oz of fossil fuel again. After fusion power the only next step we would have would be a Dyson Swarm. So yeah, nuclear power is the best form of energy to invest in for the foreseeable future. Hands down. Solar, wind, tidal etc are great but nuclear is the true sustainable source of energy today and for the future.

  69. 7 0 7 says:

    Idk if anyone will read this but im doing a debate on nuclear power plants and at first i wanted to disagree with the idea of building more power plants but now im conflicted seeing all these comments

  70. Jensen Palmer says:

    Look at all these nuclear engineers in the comments everyone.

  71. Matt Weger says:

    No seriously please explain why ocean dumping is so bad. I don't think there's a better place for a heavy radioactive element than under miles of water.

  72. Kevin The Cat says:

    All these points are false in nowadays society

  73. Cody Choules says:

    Death toll due to reactor melt down is definitely lower than 1000

  74. Ermanos22 says:

    all of those three arguments can be solved by humans being careful and responsible

  75. AstralWither says:

    counterargument time!

    these issues pretty much only apply to the light water reactor. LFTRs are much better

  76. nrsrymj says:

    I hope Kurzgesagt will post a retraction of this drivel. Nuclear energy is the ONLY source dense enough to get us off of fossil fuels ASAP while meeting the ever growing demand for electricity.

  77. Andrew Theodore says:

    This is baaaaaaaaaaaaad

  78. Strazdas says:

    Nuclear weapons is what prevented WW3 and instead resulted in cold war. They were a net GOOD in the world.

  79. Strazdas says:

    Spen nuclear fuel is a nonissue. The amount of waste it produces is negligible and even if we were to put it somewhere with no protection it would cause no ecological problem.

    Not only we can reprocess it in molten salt reactor. but it can literally be stored in the same place it came from – uranium mines. It stayed there for far more than tens of thousands of years. Also US has a good and functional storage facility (literally the best in the world), but it was closed down a few days before opening because Obama wanted plants to store waste locally.

  80. Strazdas says:

    There is literally a single disaster of nuclear power in entire history. Fukushima is NOT a problem. The tsunami is what caused all the damage, not the nuclear power plant incident. That whole argument is fearmongering bullshit and you should have done better than that.

  81. Noah Flannigan says:

    First of all, you are not thinking of the alternatives. In 70 years, the disasters you listed above contributed to only around 14,000 deaths. Where as in one year, coal and oil kill 115,000 people, just in India. And over a period of 70 years, that adds up to 8050000 deaths. That is 575 times the deaths from the nuclear disasters. Second, may I remind you that Kyshtym was a reprocessing plant, and was not actively producing power at the time of the disaster. Third, some of those disasters were avoidable and it was the humans not taking safety precautions. And fourth, two of those disasters happened in the Soviet Union, which to my knowledge, does not exist any more.

  82. Isaiah says:

    I love this channel but this video is disappointingly filled with false information.

  83. Ned Miller says:

    How primitive

  84. Deus Scout says:

    This was uploaded on April 1 – nice troll attempt; we know that Fukushima and Chernobyl were caused by improper practices.

  85. kukkeli says:


  86. Charles Ringling says:

    What idiotic logic. 1. We now have fusion plants at 300 degrees. 2. Waste was a out 100 gallons every 2 years in the USA. 3. Waste can be used in waste power plants and there is much less now. 4. Worldwide 6 people die per petowatt, 60 die for the same amount of solar power. Not counting gallium poisoning which is proven deadly to animals and a neccessary component of solar power. 5. New metamaterial can manipulate nuclear material in unusual ways, making small safe nuclear batteries possible. 6. Half of what is on this video is a lie and the rest is seriously misleading. Read up on it. Knowledge is truth.

  87. Lima Bravo says:

    Nations like the United States and it’s allies should be the only ones with access to nuclear technology. Also there should be massive resources devoted to developing fusion technology as a replacement for fission reactors. Wind, wave and solar energy systems should be developed as well but to provide power to more than 7 billion people fusion tech is really the only viable solution and it wouldn’t produce any harmful waste

  88. Brady says:

    TARDIS anyone?

  89. Sydney Martinez says:

    3:12 they threw in 1925 as a predicted nuclear accident instead of 2025 lol

  90. Lux Studios says:

    I'm happy that our little Finland has been talked about in a big video, and in a good way!

  91. Biednymaniek says:

    Theoretisch möglich ja aber der energieaufwand ist zu hoch

  92. Biednymaniek says:

    Da müssen die stadtwerke mehr Power liefern 🤣

  93. blaszta says:

    I'm Afraid that if nuclear power rule the world then we will be destroyed by our own creation

  94. ShamblerDK says:

    There are ways to make safe nuclear energy, but we're not doing it and it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in it. We'd rather want to continue pumping millions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere every year.

  95. Drew Marchand says:


  96. Kevin Parkerson says:

    Nuclear energy has its uses but overall solar is the way to go.

  97. Ashys Review says:

    U ever heard of thorium

  98. Dinorex 109 says:

    1 thorium
    2 thorium
    3 thorium

    Coincidence? I think not!

  99. Clark Snelgrove says:

    Sorry that this video repeats the standard myths about nuclear. These three statements are only slightly true but we never get to that point and discuss the real issues. No one has ever made a nuclear bomb from power reactor plutonium. hypothetically it is possible but the materials are hardly 'just lying around'. Yes there have been a few reactor accidents but compared to other energy and other industrial accidents their impacts have been very small. There is no real indication that even the worst accident in Ukraine has contaminated the area 'so that no one can live there for decades' There are people who have lived inside of the exclusion zone for more than thirty years without showing any adverse health effects from their exposure. Nuclear waste is not dangerous for 10s of thousands of years! most of nuclear waste is dangerous in a few hundred years and the stuff that last longer isn't really that dangerous. The stuff that is most dangerous decays quickly and releases a large amount of energy over a short period of time. If it decays away over a long time it isn't releasing very much energy in a given amount of time and so it is not as dangerous. If we do our research we find that these statements are not well supported by fact but they have been repeated so often that many people take them as fact without any thought. Let think more about the facts and then when you understand what is really fact and myth then you can decide if you like nuclear power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *