Menu

Is Nuclear Energy the solution?

100 Comments



This video is sponsored by Skillshare Growing up, I lived 12 miles away from Indian
Point Energy center, a nuclear power plant that supplies one quarter of New York City’s
energy, which is a massive amount of power when you consider that over 10 million people
live in the city and its metropolitan area. But despite the plant’s huge energy output,
residents constantly worried about pollution and safety surrounding the 57 year old power
plant. My mom would often lay out an emergency escape for me and my siblings in case Indian
Point failed and there was a disaster on par with Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island.
These three disasters have persisted as spectres in the imaginations of the world, including
many New Yorkers, and as a result, have led to a backlash big enough to decommission the
Indian Point Nuclear center for good in 2021. But considering that this nuclear power plant
has provided ¼ of all of New York City’s energy for over fifty years, is this actually
good thing? What I really want to know is what role does nuclear power play in a full
transition away from fossil fuels and towards a zero-carbon future? As I came to realize while researching this
video, the debate behind nuclear power is complicated, and in order to really analyze
the value of nuclear power as an energy source, it’s important to look at emissions, waste,
cost, and safety. Let’s start with emissions, which are a
huge factor when trying to understand whether nuclear power is a serious option for mitigating
climate change. Many proponents of nuclear point to the lack of greenhouse gas emissions
from power plants as a major reason to increase nuclear energy production. While this is true
for the actual nuclear fission process that creates energy, the processes surrounding
nuclear, like uranium mining and refining, demand emissions. A life cycle assessment
of various fuels conducted by the IPCC reveals that the average greenhouse gas emissions
of nuclear power production is relatively the same as renewable counterparts. But, when
compared to natural gas and coal, nuclear emissions are drastically lower. So as an
alternative to gas and coal, nuclear power is certainly less emissions heavy, and could
be a viable low-carbon energy option. But waste also comes hand in hand with emissions.
This is big sticking point for the anti-nuclear movement, and rightfully so. No one has really
implemented a viable long term solution for nuclear waste storage. There are currently
three main options right now: onsite storage, long term deep storage, or reprocessing fuel
for use in other nuclear energy plants. Reprocessing spent fuel sounds like a perfect solution,
but it’s not. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, one consequence of reprocessing
spent fuel could be the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The by-product of this recycling
process is more plutonium, which can be easily used to build weapons. In addition, only a
little bit of the reprocessed waste can be used again, and you’re still left with a
host of other radioactive materials. And on top of all of that, recycling this waste has
a substantial cost tied to it. So, ultimately, the only answer right now to our current nuclear
waste is long-term storage. Unfortunately, the only country that is currently setting
up a facility is Finland. The rest just stockpile their waste onsite, with no options or outlooks
for long term storage. The other two main elements that really hold
back nuclear are cost and safety. Combined, the drawbacks of these make nuclear an infeasible
solution to a swift decarbonization of our global electrical grid. “The cost of nuclear
power is extremely prohibitive and it’s very slow to build.” That’s Arjendu Pattanayak,
a professor in the Carleton College physics department, who teaches a class on sustainable
energy policy. And this cost is in the range of an average cost of $9 billion per plant
in the U.S., with the possibility of the plant taking up to “I don’t think $30 billion
in 30 years is an unusual number to hear for a single plant.” With that kind of price
tag, nuclear energy production becomes almost twice that of other fuels, all while needing
someone with deep pockets to finance the whole operation. Once a nuclear power plant is built,
the energy may seem low cost in part due to the small amount of physical fuel needed to
be shipped to the plant, but the actual construction and decommission costs of these plants are
huge financial burdens, especially when you consider that they often run over budget and
way past schedule. At this point, you might be thinking, “Hey, but what about a country
like France?! Doesn’t it support 75% of its energy consumption with nuclear power,
and hasn’t done so for many years.” Unfortunately, France is an outlier, not the norm. Partly,
this is due to France’s strong nuclear initiatives and top-down political approach: “France
is top-down political system…the bureaucrats called their friends and said what should
we do? And they said let’s go nuclear, and they said ‘okay’ and they just kept on going.”
In the U.S. and other countries lacking clear plans for nuclear power, however, the opportunity
to use Nuclear as a transitional fuel to solar and wind has passed. “It would take so much
momentum that doesn’t seem to exist for nuclear power to have legs.” Indeed, if we are trying
to rapidly decarbonize an energy grid like the U.S.’s within the next 10-30 years,
Nuclear power just isn’t the answer in terms of cost and time. Part of the prohibitively slow and expensive
nature of Nuclear comes from safety concerns, which when you look at death tolls, seem to
be more a product of the public perception than an actual occurrence. “Nuclear power
per capita is actually the least harmful.” According to a tally accumulated by Forbes,
deaths caused by nuclear energy are much less when compared to coal, natural gas, or even
wind and solar. But, this low death rate could be due in part to the heavy safety regulations
put on nuclear power plants, already. Ultimately, Nuclear power is a contentious
source of energy. As a result of both the public imagination and the complexity of its
system, nuclear requires a large chunk of initial capital and time to become a feasible
source of “clean” fuel. A fact which professor Pattanayak agrees with, “I personally don’t
see nuclear roaring back.” A transition away from fossil fuels will definitely involve
current nuclear power plants, but renewables like solar and wind have nowhere near reached
their potential, especially once we’ve sorted out battery storage. Not only are renewables
cheap compared to nuclear, but they can also be produced quickly and spread widely across
the globe in a decentralized fashion. While nuclear does have the benefit of a massive
power output, it is a slow and cumbersome beast. If we are to swiftly and effectively
transition away from a fossil fuel reliant energy grid, we have to explore other energy
options. If you want to learn more about how to make
motion graphics similar to those in my videos, I’d highly recommend checking out this week’s
sponsor: Skillshare. Skillshare is an online learning community
with over 25,000 classes covering topics like motion graphic design, video creation, and
much much more. Skillshare has been an essential way for me
to hone my motion graphics skills and ultimately create the highest quality Our Changing Climate
videos possible. I especially love the course taught by Evan from Polymatter, which shows
you how to make video essays from start to finish. Above all else though, Skillshare is affordable.
Their Premium Membership gives you unlimited access to high-quality classes for under $10
a month if you sign up for an annual membership. So, join the millions of creators and learners
on Skillshare today with a special offer just for you: The first 500 people to use the link
in the description will get 2 months of unlimited access to Skillshare for free. Hey everyone, Charlie here. Thanks for making
it all the way to the endscreen! If you’re loving the videos coming out of Our Changing
Climate and are looking for something more, then I’d recommend heading over to Patreon
where you can get additional behind the scenes content, secret video essays, and more for
just a couple of dollars a month. Thanks so much for your support and I’ll see you in
two weeks.

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

100 thoughts on “Is Nuclear Energy the solution?”

  1. Our Changing Climate says:

    Are you pro-nuclear energy or against it? I would love to hear your thoughts. Rebuttals and counter-arguments are welcome!

  2. Kisen Liang says:

    There's no zero carbon future.

  3. SPOOKS says:

    Your arguement for solar power over nuclear power is false in the sense that nuclear power has not yet reached it's full potential yet, either. Have you heard of thorium?

  4. SPOOKS says:

    You're really cool but you're wrong, and i am still hopeful that nuclear energy is the future.

  5. Aleksandr Vasilenko says:

    2:20 that is a very sleazy quote. Nuclear power isn’t “comparable” to renewables, it is more clean than them. Nuclear is the gold standard for environmental impact, length of service, power output, and consistency.

    Keep up renewables

  6. Levi Good says:

    A great case of perfection being the enemy of good. For decades people have said that nuclear isn't the right solution and decided to sit on their butts waiting for the "perfect" solution and now they want to say it's too late/expensive to implement nuclear energy while still offering no faster/cheaper options. Sure nuclear has its drawbacks (like everything) but it would have bought plenty of time at least with respects to the carbon emissions dilema. Also, we have experience in solving the problems associated with nuclear energy (they're mostly structural problems afterall). We can build more secure facilities in anticipation of natural disasters and create better sealed storage facilities (at least we can store nuclear waste instead of releasing it into the air) but does anyone know how to reverse climate change caused by carbon emissions?

  7. CMDR Blacksabre_ says:

    the problem with nuclear energy is jow it is perceived as a singular type of energy production with one set of risks costs and benefits. the classical type uses uranium and water pressure. this reaction is a controlled runaway process that has the nuclear spent fuel problem and the reaction cannot be stopped once active. it also produces weapons grade plutonium.

    But a newer variant of nuclear production is the LiquidSalt-Thorium reactor. this is a process where the reaction requires a continuous stream of new two new fuels. which are both moved around in molten form. you then mix these (namely thorium and liquid(molten)salt). this process doesn't produce (or just not nearly as much, don't remember everything about it tbh) any plutonium and has two built in 'off switches'.

    it's still in a somewhat early stage this variant. but if i remember correctly there is atleast one of these types of reactors running allready.

  8. CMDR Blacksabre_ says:

    if we can get nuclear fusion to work that will be our best option since it requires nothing but hydrogen (the most common compound in the universe) to fuel it.

  9. Robin Gilliver says:

    To power the grid…

    Tridium + Dueterium Fusion

    Algae (97% solar efficenty)

    Solar thermal (75%)

    Solar concentrated (44%)

    Solar (25%)

    Solar (20%) / Wind (both off and on ocean)

    Geothermal

    Algae (0.5 – 2 %)

    Thorium Fission

    Tidal

    Uranium Fission

    Biomass (0.1%)

    Hydro

  10. Jerry Kreutz says:

    We, as in humankind, have spent some 80 years researching and testing nuclear power, figuring it out very well, having invested billions into it and sacrificed people's health in the process. As a reward, we've created the cleanest and most efficient form of energy, which powered our exponential growth during the boom in the 70s-90s. And now, after all that, we just say nope, fuck it. It's ridiculous.

    For example, manufacturing solar panels produces insane amount of CO2 emissions. They are not only inefficient, they are useless, because they only produce energy during sunny days, when no one actually needs it. We can't store the energy, even if we made lots of batteries, manufacturing them is insanely emissive as well. "Solving the battery problem" is for now a utopia. But sure, we "just need to figure it out". Right after we figure out teleport.

  11. cuong nguyen says:

    AUCTION PATENT
    (Invention Nikola Tesla)
    STARTING PRICE: 50, 000, 000 USD (fifty million US Dollars)
    Contact Number: +84983048194 viet nam
    “CLEAN ENERGY: BEST SOLUTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD”
    The invention has the great potential to compete with factories such as, hydroelectric power, geothermal power, nuclear power, wind power, solar power, etc.
    By the cost of generating electricity at a super cheap price, pro-active, unlimited amount of electricity, non-toxic, non-hazardous, low risk of disasters, this invention is the best solution. Furthermore, it is easy to manufacture and easy to export anywhere.
    If a country, corporation or a company registers to own the invention’s copyright, the benefits will be massive. I choose to sell the invention because I am just an individual with limited funds, and can’t afford this project. Your 50, 000, 000 USD capital can give you an earnings of hundred billion dollars.
    For those who are interested to buy, please contact me in Vietnamese through my phone number above.
    Bán đấu giá sáng chế (phát minh ""Nikola Tesla"") năng lượng sạch "giải pháp chung cho cả thế giới" để xây dựng nhà máy điện . Giá khởi điểm: 50,000,000USD (năm mươi triệu đôla mĩ ) . +84 983 048 194 . Sáng chế có tiềm năng cạnh tranh với các nhà máy (( thuỷ điện, địa nhiệt , điện hạt nhân, điện gió, điện mặt trời … )) Bởi chi phí tạo ra điện giá thành siêu rẻ, chủ động , không giới hạn lượng điện , không độc hại, không nguy hiểm, ít rủi ro xảy ra thảm họa, thiết bị dễ chế tạo , khai thác ở đâu cũng được. nếu quốc gia , tập đoàn , hoặc công ty nào đăng ký sở hữu được bản quyền sáng chế thì lợi ích sẽ rất vô cùng to lớn. Tôi bán sáng chế là bởi do tôi là 1 cái nhân , vốn ít , không kham nổi công việc này. 50,000,000 USD mà mang lại sự thịnh vượng , thu lãi vài trăm tỉ USD thì số tiền bỏ ra mua sáng chế là quá nhỏ bé. Ai mua hãy liên lạc bằng tiến Việt Nam cho tôi, bởi tôi là người Việt Nam

  12. cuong nguyen says:

    AUCTION PATENT
    (Invention Nikola Tesla)
    STARTING PRICE: 50, 000, 000 USD (fifty million US Dollars)
    Contact Number: +84983048194 viet nam
    “CLEAN ENERGY: BEST SOLUTION FOR THE WHOLE WORLD”
    The invention has the great potential to compete with factories such as, hydroelectric power, geothermal power, nuclear power, wind power, solar power, etc.
    By the cost of generating electricity at a super cheap price, pro-active, unlimited amount of electricity, non-toxic, non-hazardous, low risk of disasters, this invention is the best solution. Furthermore, it is easy to manufacture and easy to export anywhere.
    If a country, corporation or a company registers to own the invention’s copyright, the benefits will be massive. I choose to sell the invention because I am just an individual with limited funds, and can’t afford this project. Your 50, 000, 000 USD capital can give you an earnings of hundred billion dollars.
    For those who are interested to buy, please contact me in Vietnamese through my phone number above.
    Bán đấu giá sáng chế (phát minh ""Nikola Tesla"") năng lượng sạch "giải pháp chung cho cả thế giới" để xây dựng nhà máy điện . Giá khởi điểm: 50,000,000USD (năm mươi triệu đôla mĩ ) . +84 983 048 194 . Sáng chế có tiềm năng cạnh tranh với các nhà máy (( thuỷ điện, địa nhiệt , điện hạt nhân, điện gió, điện mặt trời … )) Bởi chi phí tạo ra điện giá thành siêu rẻ, chủ động , không giới hạn lượng điện , không độc hại, không nguy hiểm, ít rủi ro xảy ra thảm họa, thiết bị dễ chế tạo , khai thác ở đâu cũng được. nếu quốc gia , tập đoàn , hoặc công ty nào đăng ký sở hữu được bản quyền sáng chế thì lợi ích sẽ rất vô cùng to lớn. Tôi bán sáng chế là bởi do tôi là 1 cái nhân , vốn ít , không kham nổi công việc này. 50,000,000 USD mà mang lại sự thịnh vượng , thu lãi vài trăm tỉ USD thì số tiền bỏ ra mua sáng chế là quá nhỏ bé. Ai mua hãy liên lạc bằng tiến Việt Nam cho tôi, bởi tôi là người Việt Nam

  13. Gig27 says:

    I get a little frustrated that Thorium is not mentioned in the nuclear power debate.
    Thorium – The Future of Energy?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1lIfFcxVuY

  14. nootics says:

    Nuclear isn't just nuclear fission, it can also be nuclear fusion. It's almost criminal that you don't make the distinction because in the following decades nuclear fusion could actually become a thing and its benefits should not be underestimated. It has zero waste, runs off of the most abundant elements in the universe, hydrogen, and can create an insane amount of energy with very little. All in all completely clean and sustainable like no other fuel. Scientists managed to make it happen in the lab, but it is extremely difficult at the moment. Still, it looks very promising.

  15. Taiba Saeed says:

    I am a nuclear engineering student so definitely I’m pro-nuclear energy

  16. The player says:

    Three mile island isnt a good example for a disaster.
    Maybe kyshtym disaster.

  17. suresh krishendeholl says:

    Nuclear power is the way. It is the only power that result in the least death. The world should go nuclear.

  18. Deep SKULL says:

    ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO. PLEASE DO A THOROUGH COMPARISON BETWEEN NUCLEAR POWER VS. HYDROPOWER. WOULD LOVE YOUR TAKE ON THIS ISSUE. THANKS AND KEEP RESEARCHING AND PRESENTING!

  19. Captain Sum Ting Wong says:

    This video is such BS. He makes the cost and slowness of nuclear one of the major downsides and then tells us to just sit tight and wait for battery storage technology. So he'd rather have us sit on our hands and wait for a technology that may never happen and even if it did present its own environmental problems, instead of using the technology we already have to build new nuclear reactors. I wonder who this "Our Changing Climate" group is bankrolled by…

  20. chipan9191 says:

    The waste isn't that much of a problem, even if we only resort to long-term storage, it still would be a good option considering how dense the waste is it could fit in a few warehouses. As for the cost and how long it takes to build, that's largely in part due to the heavy regulations the government has on it. it's incredibly hard to get approval to make a nuclear power plant in the first place, and they put so many hurdles it takes forever to build one. Consider the fact that in the past 20 years the US has commissioned 15 nuclear submarines. that's 15 battle-ready nuclear reactors along with the submarines they come in built in the last 20 years. We have the ability to make nuclear power work, it's simply the politics that again the way.

  21. Skill KillZz says:

    Very weak Video hardly biased and Not objective

  22. Tryggve Larsson says:

    "tell them why they cant, and they will show you how they can."

    -Some Wiseperson

  23. Conor Flanagan says:

    Something completely missed in this video I feel is how to regulate the large flucations in wind and solar today. I believe we don't have time to wait on better battery technology and with this in mind as you scale renewables up you also have to upscale other power sources like natural gas to keep the grid going.

  24. CBeTHaXKa says:

    Can I dislike this video more than once?

  25. Bradley Post says:

    Where did this guy grow up? I live quite close to Indian Point and I’m actually upset it’s closing since it’s good for the environment.

  26. TruthSeekers says:

    You forgot to mention all the research spent on solar and wind compared to nuclear. Nuclear is nowhere near its potential either and is operating on 1970’s technology.

  27. Axxess Mundi says:

    This is a weak incongruous video nuclear energy. Expand your research on the topic. The phone interview seems chopped and cherry picked to inflate the bogus narrative.

  28. dread lord says:

    There is no need to fear nuclear energy because the three biggest accidents killed less than 5000 people in total and 7million people die if air pollution each year most of which is caused by natural gas and fossil fuels and less than one percent of energy is solar and the materials in solar panels are toxic and the materials in batteries are also toxic and only about 30% of the time solar and wind produce energy and there's currently not enough batteries to store the power and one tonne of thorium is equal to 200 tonnes of uranium which is equal to 3500000 tonnes of coal and thorium reguires plutonium to work and that stops accidents from happening by having a meltable cork if it over heats to move it away from the plutonium also nuclear is the only energy source that contains it's waist also after a few hundred years nuclear waste becomes vastly less deadly and most nuclear power plants are over 25 years old meaning the less safe than new ones and most power plants are light water reactors which aren't the safest or most efficient

  29. Conrad Werner says:

    Technically… Humans have relied on nuclear energy from the start. The sun is a big ole nuclear furnace. If we keep adding hydrogen and other lighter elements, we could use it as a kiln for everything iron and lighter. Eventually we could siphon them out, once we develop such technology. Critical thinking is key for a sustainable and environmentally friendly future. We've come a long way in a century, be a shame if was the last as well.

  30. Justin Martin says:

    Reprocessing spent fuel creates more Plutonium? Ugh… What the f**k? NO. Hard no. If you fission Pu²³⁹ or U²³⁸ you end up with smaller elements… Splitting an atom does NOT result in more of the same atom. It creates two smaller isotopes plus a few extra neutrons that are released to continue the Nuclear process. Congrats. You spent a lot of time and effort producing completely BS "facts." You should really, honestly, do your research.

    Seriously consider the environmental impact of Solar and storage. Just solar PV cells alone average 42-48g CO2 / KWh. Compare it to 12g CO2/KWh for Nuclear. Then consider EVERY Tesla vehicle produced up to Q1 2019 would be required to take California completely Solar and Nuclear. Now extrapolate to a global scale and you'll realize you have to be insane to suggest such a thing.

  31. WORLD AVIATION NEWS says:

    This video, like many others pushes to ideas that are wrong. Cost and the claim that its too late. When it comes to cost we always compare the cost of a nuclear plant to the cost of solar or wind but fail to factor in or consider the cost of batteries which are needed to ensure stability in such networks. Failing to do so is like not including the cost of a cooling tower in the cost of a nuclear plant or the cost of coal mining in the cost of a coal-powered plant. Moving onto the claim that its too late, you say that if the US is to move to rapidly reduce its carbon emissions in the next 10-30 years nuclear cannot achieve that, while failing to acknowledge that we have no hope of achieving it anyway. Isn't some progress better than none?

  32. Mathurin Dorel says:

    This is a factually terrible video…

    Finland is far from the only country with long term storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository). You forgot that France is also building a huge repository in Bure for long term storage and the demonstration lab is exploited since 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute_Marne_Underground_Research_Laboratory), the long term storage license for the USA in Yucca mountain is still valid and they have the WIPP storage in operation (https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-waste.aspx), and Sweden has been operating a 50m storage since 1988 (http://www.euronuclear.org/events/topseal/transactions/Paper-Session-III-Skogsberg.pdf).

    You also clearly overlook the fact that a nuclear power plant produces as much energy as litteraly thousands of solar panels/wind turbines, that 30 years is a gross overestimate, and that even 10 years is a bad case scenario (http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/). Pattanayak is cherry-picking bad examples without looking at the reality. If you asked him about EPR technology he would point at the hugely delayed Flamanville and forget the already working Taishan reactors.
    The finance argument is bogus, renewables are more expensive per unit of power, there have been huge renewable projects, and several actors can associate to operate a power plant. By the way the "momentum" of solar and wind is called *subventions*.
    The argument about France specificity completely overlooks the fact that the US also built over 100 nuclear power reactors, that Japan has 55 or that South Korean, the UK, Canada have around 20 nuclear reactors each (https://timeforchange.org/nuclear-energy-and-nuclear-weapons-per-country).

  33. ufoengines says:

    Go with  Smart Grid , Renewable  Energy, and  then Thorium   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6BXvw6mxtw   A  Thorium  Nuclear  power plant the uses Stirling Cycle Free Piston Engines can blow up like a steam turbine plant .  We are up to our ears in Thorium it's everywhere and there is waste that  but far less waste that is only dangerous  for three hundred years and produces no weapons grade anything.

  34. ufoengines says:

    Oak Ridge Thorium Reactor film   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o&t=11s  Kinda cool.    Patent 672256, 3190554, 3013505 .

  35. Eric Liu says:

    In the future we really should use nuclear but instead of uranium we should use thorium. IT was just that the government made the @$# bullshit
    Choice to use uranium because it was better at making bombs.

  36. Piers Morgan says:

    “Renewables like solar and wind have not reached their potential” I agree but neither has nuclear fission, I haven’t heard of thorium rector development and implementation yet.

  37. DUCKanay says:

    Was thinking this would be an impartial video and it sure wasn't. Definitely a slight spin piece.

  38. Xhaust says:

    If germany would want to cover it's whole enegry only by renewables it would have to cover the whole country with wind turbines, solar panels and punp storages. Much fertile ground would have to be replaced with concrete, forests would have to be cut down – I would be okay with this – but nature wouldn't. If germany and the whole world would do that, we would destroy our planet – and u didn't mention recycling of batterys, solar panels and wind turbines. And there hasn't been a fully built-out battery storage system for cities. All of these are unsolved problems that would not be there with nuclear. I am not against renewables – but I would be cautios to overuse it and to blend out other carbon-low energy sources.

  39. ConvexEd says:

    "Is Nuclear Energy the solution?"
    It's the only solution while we transition to renewables. It has killed less than every energy source out there, it emits the least amount of pollution, it works 24/7, and it's here right now . As technology advances with Small Modular Reactors, Molten Salt Reactors, and Fusion (forever 20 years away) we would have the perfect energy source for the foreseeable future while solar and geothermal tech get perfected.

  40. Robert Hayward says:

    Pity you ignore molten salt nuclear designs. Projected construction costs are now in the order of $1 per watt. Generation of power is somewhere in the range of 4 to 8 c per kWh. Negative temperature reactivity provides load following capability. Additionally the technology has awesome desal capability.

  41. Sven Dahlström says:

    You must keep in mind that The alternative probably is natural gas or coal.

  42. Daniel Hebard says:

    Don't forget that there is no foreseeable way to transition away from fossil fuels without nuclear. Wind and solar simply cannot be used to provide the brunt of any large area's power needs. The fact that energy production is intermittent with renewables precludes them from ever being used as our main source of power. Nuclear is the only way to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. And as far as moving away from them entirely, there is no way to make electric air travel feasible anytime soon. If we had a cheap and readily-available source of electricity (like nuclear), the building of high-speed rail lines across the country could supplement or even supplant a decent amount of domestic air travel, thereby also reducing carbon emissions further. It's good to protect the environment, but rapid "decarbonization" isn't realistic. Any politician who promised to force an entire country to immediately get rid of their ICE vehicles would never get elected.

  43. Hurricane Dorian says:

    Just don’t shut down the current ones.

  44. k0ppit says:

    If we want reliable clean energy Nuclear is obvious answer. The technology already exist and is proven.

  45. Flamebuster32 says:

    6:37 where did the solar power deaths come from? Also the wind one's how do people die from solar and wind energy?

  46. Grand Duke Eli says:

    Thorium produces less waste, and is harder to use for weapons, if that is a bad thing. Even if Nuclear Weapons are made, it will just increase MAD.

  47. Amecareth Qc says:

    Why can't we just launch the nuclear waste into space? That would fix immediately the storage issue.

  48. ferkeap says:

    Allot of mistakes on cost and waste. This also makes the conclusions too negative.
    Also on renewable your too optimistic, especially storage.

  49. Jonathan Lee says:

    Renewables✊🌍fridaysforfuture

  50. oystla says:

    Nuclear have NO role in a fossil free future. The reason? Cost. ITS extremely costly as proven in the latest projects in France, Finland, UK. The cost of Offshore wind is becoming grid parity. And solar is now the cheapest source of electricity in a growing number of places on the globe. Cost of Energy storage is falling. So I see a future of solar + offshore wind + enery storage.

  51. Mark M says:

    Nuclear is the way. Energy density makes every other solution a joke.

  52. Mark M says:

    The physics are clear. The universe has spoken. Go nukes!

  53. milou80 says:

    yes nuclear is the way. it wins every field. enormous ,stable & cheap output, complete control at any time unlike all the rest, actually way safer if you look at the actual casualities ever recorded compared to how many workers die in other sectors of energy every year, it's petty peanuts. each time a dam fractures, it often kills more people than dropping a tactical nuke on the area, just so you realize what is what. third world people dying in work accidents thanks to the renewable insdustry is also worth multiple 9/11 attacks worth of dead people each YEAR. but this, western liberal mid class snowflakes don't give a fuck about, as long as it's not them.

    Nuclear chain is the cleanest of all means available CO2 wise, also least reliant on fossil than any other existing source, it's also the least cumbersome system unlike what you pretend, as it converts energy from its densest form avaible by breaking atoms. one freaking gram of U238 puts hundreds of ugly ,massive, cumbersome , noisy and unreliable wind powered units to shame for a fraction of the cost. if you had to subsidize a nuclear power plant for wind, you'd need to fill the fuck out of the land with those over dozens of miles. Sorry a thousand windmills are just way more cumbersome than a tightly packed nuclear facility, that is a fact.

    You're completely wrong on the cost man. the "over budget" thing is not an argument. any big project ever went over budget. constructing the eiffel tower went crazy over budget, the eurostar tunnel linking paris to london went crazy over budget, going on the moon went over budget, any weapon research program goes over budget. most of those were still worth it. not mentionning the cost of nuclear is all about construction. once it's built you're pretty much done with the heavy financials for as long as the plants is able to run, unlike renewable which on top of being unreliable energetic shite costs a fat ass carbon print and billions to maintain.

    The reason we're getting over budget and over schedule regarding nuclear plants NOW is because of nuclear fearmongering. had we spent the last 40 years getting better at nuclear and forming skilled labor instead of being irrationnally scared of it and deserting the field, we'd be expert at building plants. The reason why you see people struggling with power plants building logistics is because the people who successfully built the first reactors are now retired or passed away, meaning the people in charge of nowadays nuclear construction projects are rather inexperienced at it and crush budget and schedule because of that . You can't expect people to suddenly become experts again at building power plants when it's been 40 years they havent built any plants. by building plants, you actually make their cost go lower & lower as well as being safer because the more you build the better you are at it.

    That's exactly like america not being able to go back to the moon without re-studying the subject. The people that did it in the first place are gone or retired, and the skills necessary to put people on the moon went with them. same thing happened with nuclear.

    not mentionning nuclear has a tremendous tech progression margin that no other energy sector has and already boasts many methods of extracting nucleide's energy with various pros and cons you can choose from depending on the needs. classic fission, very safe thorium salt based fission, different reactor moderators available, upcoming magnetically sealed fusion, laser triggered fusion and many other things the sky is the fucking limit, and the fuel is literally unlimited.

    Renewables can't be maintained without fossil fuel anyway so once fossil is exhausted, your renewables are inherently doomed because they can't be manufactured or maintained but by 100% fossil dependant industries, nuclear can do with minimal fossil, renewables just can't and they'll get exponentially more expensive once fossil fuel availability really drops. that on top of not being able to properly sustain the grid in the first place making fossil mandatory to be exploited as a backup. what a shit idea.

    Not even mentionning barely anyone reuses the heat exhaust of nuclear plants, which rivals its electrical output in energy. Meaning a nuclear power plant is not only the best source of electricity , it's also your unexpected best source of heat. The technology required to transfer that heat on long distances without significant loss, unlike that fantasy electrical storage you'd need for solar and wind, actually exists.

    In france if you produce 900k through nuclear powered turboalternators , you actually also produce 800-850 K as heat waste that can actually be used in peoples house instead of radiating away. they just didn't bother setting up a heat network or fit plants with such a system but they could in the foreseeable future, and if they did, they simply would save dozens of billions on heating.

    as far as the waste is concerned, nuclear waste can be stored and contained at least. while fossil & renewable fossil dependent manufacturing waste ends up stored directly into people's lungs , and it's less than people think (france's total waste stack since it went nuclear half a century will still be roughly equivalent to a medium habitation building total, including containers. that's what 60 years of the most by far nuclearized country on earth waste looks like, a well contained stack of barrels the size of the average appartment building. and that's the 2030 "potential" estimation, meaning it "could be" reaching this by 2030, it's less than that.

    the real reason people lobby against nuclear despite being objectively the only way out of the environnemental mess, is because it's hard to get quickly rich from selling nuclear tech and their only goal is money.
    they are big, high tech quality controlled ,very regulated devices, that your government will force you to be responsible with and they have been thought as the best way to provide cheap energy, not as the best way to pull a quick money scheme and get away with it.

    that's why the new green capitalists don't like nuclear : it's not meant as a scam and puts all their renewable scams to shame in all regards, meaning if there were no nuclear, they would get very very rich by making their junk chinese photovoltaïc devices and shit electrical windmills the only way to access energy and make the cost skyrocket. that's what they are trying to do.

    Note that they are willingly trying to deprive mankind of the only known working solution to keep the environnemental issues in check without triggering a world wide energy financial crackdown (and likely the world war that ensues) with the end of fossil ,out of pure capitalist greed on the basis they'll likely be dead when shit hits the fan. People advocating for renewables nearly all have an obvious financial interest for doing so, either by getting paid or wanting to sell renewables themselves, they obviously don't give a fuck about the environnement .Common people advocating for nuclear are mostly concerned with REALLY lowering C02 through the most rational way available and hold no share in any energy sectors.

    These people's head should be promptly removed from their body as if that's not a crime against humanity, I don't know what is.

    my final opinion is that we should go all in nuclear for mass production, and use renewables for what they are fit to do : practical small scale solutions for powering things that don't need more than that.

  54. Deep Blue says:

    France: abolishes slavery

    World: well that’s an outlier, there’s no way we can do that…

  55. Diogo Coutinho says:

    Hey! I loved the video, i'm a bit late to the party but can you make a video exploring the proposition Bill Gates offered with using impoverished uranium to generate nuclear power with his new Power Plant Prototype? Thanks!

  56. G Sterling says:

    Climate alarmists say the earth is warming (true) and that warming will be catastrophic for all life on earth. More rain, storms, drought, cities drowning islands submerged, etc.
    Then comes the proposed solutions: solar and wind energy. OK. No cars. No cows. No plastic straws. Etc.

    Almost never do I hear discussions of the most obvious solution, modern and safe nuclear power generating plants as a source of reliable energy which can replace fossil fuels completely.

    So, we are told we are facing Armageddon yet the only reliable energy source which exists at this time is studiously avoided. That is not how serious people think. Reliance on "future developments" is nothing but Magical Thinking, not a good strategic plan. I believe that much of the hysteria around the issue is not about global warming at all, but there is a political agenda at work.

    Climate alarmists who do not enthusiastically support nuclear power options are virtue signaling, not serious people.

  57. Random Guy says:

    Maybe not THE solution, but a pretty damn good one.

  58. Jacob S says:

    I liked your video, up until the end where you simply dismissed nuclear as slow and cumbersome…

  59. GlasgowSmile_ says:

    Lots of countries reprocess the spent fuel, so you are wrong

  60. Jude Dean says:

    Why do you say its fortunate that Finland is the only country with a long term storage plan, then talk on how everyone else stores on sight. What am I missing. Finland is doing good.

  61. PK Cazadores says:

    Anyone who is against nuclear power is either poorly educated, or owns shares in fossil fuel energy… Or really really dumb.

  62. Allen Natian says:

    You should go into more detail of the type of nuclear reactor used. There are different kinds. The oldest and most popular one are light water reactors that are horribly inefficient. Newer ones extract more energy per gram of fuel which means it produces less waste. Also look at thorium reactors (LFTR) This video is too generalized and needs more than 9 minutes.

  63. Eric White says:

    This is a good assessment and respectable. Watch the TED talk by Michael Shellanberger. He points out the issues with wind and solar that few talk about. My hope is for projects like TerraPower to help us along faster than we thought possible. I think nuclear has to be looked at.

  64. Heil Omar says:

    France is a great example of the success of nuclear power. I’m pretty sure that Germany has to borrow energy from them because the wind power and solar power isn’t effective.

  65. john smith says:

    I really thought you'd dip a toe in all the thorium hype.

    Yang is all for it. I however, think that the Greenpeace-approved environmental plan that Bernie has come up with is the better alternative, primarily because it doesn't rely on nuclear, and that matters primarily because for all of nuclear energy's low mortality rates, shit only needs to hit the fan once for this green planet to turn into a grey, arid, unbreathable hell.

    The consequences and drawbacks of every country going pro-nuclear energy far outweigh all the advantages of all countries going nuclear. This is because if multiple accidents occur, the disaster this will cause will encompass an unbelievably large geographical area.

    And to those thorium fans: what do we do with the nuclear W A S T E ? Sure, the waste products of thorium reactors have a less dangerous half-life than the waste products from the usual nuclear power plants, but they're still dangerous, and we still dont know where to safely store waste from either nuclear energy methods.

    Nuclear power plants have been hacked into malfunction before (Iran), and since thorium reactors are still in their prorotype phase, countries will likely build more of the conventional, hackable power plants in their misguided belief that they are the best way to fight climate change.

    Proponents of nuclear, here's another way to resolve the world's energy crisis: a decentralized energy distrubition system using solar and wind (but mainly solar).

    Let's go solar and wind and geothermal (where we can) before we resort to the most dangerous renewable option.

  66. Lithostheory says:

    Nuclear is essential and this video is biased. Looking at the elements needed to produce a solar cell, it is very obvious that we will be running out of some of them in the near future. Moreover, solar cells contain many toxic elements, but that is only a minor point obviously if we take proper care of them. Anyhow, the same goes for batteries, there are not enough resources to make the batteries needed to switch to solar and wind only.

    Also you argument about the cost of nuclear power is mostly qualitative and you don’t compare it to the cost of the alternative solutions, so it is a groundless statement.

    Also, your argument for the fewer deaths due to nuclear power is completely absurd, wtf.

    Environmentalists are stupid when they’re ignoring nuclear power.

  67. Lithostheory says:

    Environmentalists are idiots for dismissing nuclear power as a solution for climate change and are doing a lot of harm that way.

  68. George Kafantaris says:

    Beggars can't be choosers. When it comes to carbon-free energy we’re clearly beggars. So voice your objections to nuclear energy elsewhere — we’ve got work to do — and running out of time.
    Will we succeed? Don’t know. But we’ll try everything out there — and then some.

  69. Acey Kerr says:

    The whole argument against nuclear cause its expensive…was solved by france. 100% bullshit to think cost is prohibitive and that running over budget and schedule is a fault of nuclear.

    All of the problem with nuclear could be solved with one easy solution. Get the fuck out of the way. Stop being a fucking worthless roadblock and let the reactors get built with all your stupid bureaucratic bullshit.

  70. Jeremy Rogers says:

    Great video, it really highlights everything well. I might use it in my conversational english classes because you don't talk too fast, and your speech is clear. Also the information is good.

    However, I have some issues with it:

    "Once we've figured out battery storage" is like saying "Once we've figured out cold-fusion." Or for that matter, just positive-power fusion. We have tech that is already verified and capable in thorium. It is already melted down and is walk-away safe. It has engineering problems, but can be basically made on a conveyor belt. It needs to be decommissioned in 10 years, likely, but It's cheap and can be recycled. It's small and portable. It was designed initially for aircraft! It can use old "waste" products in some configurations and burn it up completely. Waste isn't really waste, as it still contains 95-99% of the uranium. Also, if it is a liquid then the other products of fission can be used because it can be chemically separated easier in liquid state. Once everything is used or siphoned, the only real issue is the stuff that's about 300 year halflife. Much better than 100,000 since both are harmfully radioactive. HARMFULLY radioactive.

    It's proven, but it's so different that there are no regulations regarding it. Since it doesn't fit any paradigm of nuclear before it, it is just denied in a political sense (thanks, nixon and nader). More research needs to be done to prove the system works to paranoid old guys in government and a paranoid mis-informed public.

    Again, though. Great video.

  71. SHUBHAM KUMAR says:

    The issues like the high cost of development of Nuclear reactors can be easily solved by adopting a method of the scale of economy in which US Governments selects a Nuclear reactor design like AP-1000 and mass produces it for Nuclear power plants all over the Country.
    This will solve the cost issues but will also greatly reduce the development time of reactors and nuclear power plants.

    As far as Nuclear waste is concerned there are already technologies like Fast Breeder Reactors available in the World and Russia's BN-350, BN-600 etc are successful examples.

    This video doesn't mention the continuous supply of electricity by Nuclear reactors in comparison to Renewable sources of energy like Solar or Wind.
    If US governments invest sensibly in Nuclear energy and Uranium mining as it did on Solar than Nuclear reactors can help the US achieve its Green emission reduction goal way before time.
    Seawater recovery technologies being developed for Uranium can potentially make it a Renewable resource and the ongoing research on Thorium based reactors another area where Nuclear energy can provide a continuous supply of cheap and carbon-free electricity.

  72. Dylan Milne says:

    I think the negative effects of wind power are often glossed over. The most overlooked point for me is that the constant noise of wind turbines has been found to stress animals around them significantly. Of course wind turbines do also kill birds and bats – we don't know how many or in what percentage but it's quite clear that they have a negative impact on wildlife around them. Also I think that people often fail to recognise how hard it is to recycle the components of turbines, composite blades are incredibly hard to recycle being very costly to do such with and with having almost no easily reusable materiel gained from the process.

  73. GafanhotoGamer says:

    Yeah, let's use nuclear, a technology with potential for improvement with thorium and fusion, as an alternative while switching to a failed tech.

    I think it is amazing how videos anti-nuclear never mention efficiency or actual data.

  74. IndustrialDonut says:

    This is proper badmouthing of nuclear power. The waste, is literally a non-issue. Bringing up reprocessing and nuclear weapons is a classic anti-nuclear fear that has no basis in reality. We already have nuclear weapons out the ass, why tf would we forage for second hand fissile material to make more with; that's like dumpster diving when you're already doomsday prepared with your whole house full of food and also just went grocery shopping for the entire month.
    Also just no with the "renewables haven't lived up to their potential yet" like literally they've been given a chance to, they just suck, nuclear on the other hand isn't being funded and given its chance.

  75. CloudDayLight says:

    Smh coal mining and plants kill more people than a nuclear plants

  76. Matt L says:

    Russians made a poor power plant and Fukushima incident was bc of negligence

  77. loki katzbalger says:

    We humans forget we are living on an island and space is a vast ocean with other islands. It's time for us to look for other planets to live on.Nuclear fission then fusion will be mankind's future not wind not solar not bio fuels.

  78. Mikey Fagi says:

    There is a tiny problem with nuclear power: they are storing dangerous, nuclear waste outside of the nuclear power plants in the US. They cannot reprocess it economically and have no place that will agree to accept it, so it has been accumulating for decades. See https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/14/3038814/yucca-mountain-wipp-wasteland-battle-entomb-nuclear-waste

    It is as if we put fragile containers full of Ebola or a some similar disease outside our office buildings and waited for someone to break them, so that the people around would all die. Until nuclear power advocates have a way to treat and cheaply entomb nuclear waste, which has incredibly long half lives (which is the time that it takes for HALF of the waste to lose its radioactivity, e.g., for plutonium 239, 24,100 years), so that the US does not face crippling liabilities to store it practically forever. See https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/plutonium.html.

    That element's HALF life is longer than the period since we started using agriculture. See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm. Thus, our country will likely not exist for that long, and remember the other HALF of the plutonium 239 in the waste would then STILL not have decayed and could kill you for 24,100 more years.

    I think that the best way to deal with the issue is to make the nuclear industry executives and nuclear experts that insist that nuclear waste is safe and nuclear power has never killed anyone live on water from Chernobyl/Fukushima, drink milk from cows that ate grass there, eat vegetables raised there, etc. Then, it will be evolution in action: their resulting deaths will stop their stupid, greedy, self-serving arguments permanently.

  79. Mikey Fagi says:

    There is a tiny problem with nuclear power: they are storing dangerous, nuclear waste outside of the nuclear power plants in the US. They cannot reprocess it economically and have no place that will agree to accept it, so it has been accumulating for decades. See https://www.theverge.com/2012/6/14/3038814/yucca-mountain-wipp-wasteland-battle-entomb-nuclear-waste

    It is as if we put fragile containers full of Ebola or a some similar disease outside our office buildings and waited for someone to break them, so that the people around would all die. Until nuclear power advocates have a way to treat and cheaply entomb nuclear waste, which has incredibly long half lives (which is the time that it takes for HALF of the waste to lose its radioactivity, e.g., for plutonium 239, 24,100 years), so that the US does not face crippling liabilities to store it practically forever. See https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/plutonium.html.

    That element's HALF life is longer than the period since we started using agriculture. See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm. Thus, our country will likely not exist for that long, and remember the other HALF of the plutonium 239 in the waste would then STILL not have decayed and could kill you for 24,100 more years.

    I think that the best way to deal with the issue is to make the nuclear industry executives and nuclear experts that insist that nuclear waste is safe and nuclear power has never killed anyone live on water from Chernobyl/Fukushima, drink milk from cows that ate grass there, eat vegetables raised there, etc. Then, it will be evolution in action: their resulting deaths will stop their stupid, greedy, self-serving arguments permanently.

  80. Adomas Novogrodskis says:

    Great video, thanks!

  81. Exunary says:

    So the comment section is just gonna ignore the fact that we don't have enough nuclear power plants to power everything already reliant on fossil fuels in order to make a complete transition.
    And that it's 10 billion dollars for a 9yr project, that, by the time it's finished, there could be better and more efficient and cost effective methods around. Essentially making the nuclear powerplant a waste. Not to mention that climate change is predicted to worsen significantly in a 15yr period if we continue the same energy practices we use today. So the clock is ticking.

    But Im guessing halfway along they realized this video didn't 100% satisfy their opinion so they stopped evaluating this information.

  82. Heinz Heinz says:

    I would count myself in on the pro-nuclear energy faction. However, I also see several problems, also mentioned in the video, which are a real challenge.

    You guys mention, we should upgrade our nuclear power plants insted of decomissioning them – and I completely agree. The reality, however, is different – even in France and Belgium which some of the comments depict as nuclear "model" states. Most power plants are old: Several french power plants (I know about them because I live around there), have their youngest parts build some 30 years ago. Also, this starts to show: the number of registrable incidents is increasing the last decade for almost all major french power plants. Although I understand that these incidents are not harmful, it is determining the tone in which media is going to talk about nuclear energy. In addition, most companies are not willing to upgrade: they simply expect their costs to be too high. Which brings me to a 2nd drawback.
    Costs for building, mainting and upgrading nuclear power plants are insane because virtually anyhting about nuclear power plants is regulated. Which, persumably, makes them safe but also damn expensive. Without most of the european subsidization, power plants are actually not doing so much better in cost/watt. I find these practices condemnable.
    The last concern I share with the public is about nuclear waste: I understand that nuclear power produces less waste than wind or solar. I also know that radiation is not as harmful as people tend to think. However, you cannot deny that there is a remaining hazard and having virtually NO plan what to do with the waste is unacceptable. Also, companies running power plants should be tasked with finding viable solutions to that, not just dump those costs on the countries they are operating in (which btw would further increase the cost/watt).

  83. Red Warlord says:

    Firstly, you lay out the old stereotype of large-scale, centralised nuclear power, then assert that this “isn’t the answer in terms of cost and time”. Unfortunately you never explain which option is the answer in terms of cost and time – you merely asserted that renewables will become more advanced, battery storage technology will be solved, and that therefore we don’t need to invest in nuclear. This conclusion can only be reached if you completely ignore the current and future developments in nuclear technology, which are heading towards smaller scale reactors to eliminate the problems of centralisation and high-capital investment.

  84. chuck majlinger says:

    I think that Nuclear Fusion power plants would be the best option. I believe we're are getting closer, until then we need to explore all other options including safer Nuclear Fission power plants.

  85. America 2.0 says:

    Smaller nuclear plants to power 1000 homes with salt cooled thorium reactors.

  86. Shannon Hughes says:

    thumbnail looks like boobs

  87. Michael Edwards says:

    3d Printing has decreased waste drastically, to the point that only 3% of waste is left, and the decomposition process has dropped from 100,000 years down to 1,000 theoretically. In combination with HARP printing it is extremely cheap to eliminate nuclear waste

  88. Anonymná hyena says:

    How did we sort out battery storage? Renewables are cheap? You have to compare apples with apples, not just instalation cost, but energy storage cost for renewables, cost of land for renewables and lifespan. Solar panel can last cca 20 years and what about lifespan of battery? Why the cost of energy in France is one half of the cost in Germany? And I don't understand logic in decommissioning working nuclear power plants, building and decommissioning cost of plant is most of the cost. So why would you destroy something which can produce lot of energy cheaply? No logic just emotion! Just fear of things we don't understand.

  89. NymArcadion says:

    "*once* weve sorted out battery storage" – how long is that going to take? I dont see renewable technology being ready anytime soon

  90. Tony Sax says:

    Quotes from just one physics professor plus describing nuclear energy in France as 'unfortunate' makes it seem like you have a personal issue with nuclear energy. You told us mostly the scary stuff about nuclear, but didn't compare it to the fossil fuel problems it solves. It might take a long time to set up, but nuclear energy can be very safe. This video is making me reconsider this channel as valid unbiased source on climate change.

  91. kael070 says:

    Once nuclear fusion is a thing, it will be the next energy source for the world, less waste, much safer, we just gotta teach the ignorant masses that fission=/fusion

  92. kasa says:

    In US, Nuclear gets only about 1% of the total energy funding. That's one reason for it's cost. Fossil fuels get 25% and renewables 60. Nuclear kind of has to be part of the solution for climate change. It's statistically safe, aka. it does lot less overall harm per kWh than any fossil fuel and it's on par with solar. And we need stable source of power like what fossil fuels can provide. And while there is a lot of talk about waste, there has been little to none issues with it in recent years. You can literally stand next to used waste and be perfectly safe due to it's shielding. And long term solution for it is to bury it in bedrock in stable area.
    If we want to replace fossil fuels, phasing out nuclear power like many countries are doing now does not help at all.

    Also, most of nuclear plants in the world are 40+ years old. China is pretty much only place where you bigger % of new ones. Nuclear has so much potential, but unfortunately it receives least amount of investment. Nuclear sector was pretty much abandoned after atomic bombs and Chernobyl. Which I get because people are like that, they react to dramatic things but not numbers. I mean it's literally same thing as climate change, people have still not wrapped their head around it even though situation is quite critical already.

    Fear of nuclear is like fear of planes. Some people happily drive cars even though it's one of the most dangerous form of transport, but still fear planes. If plane crashes, it's really bad. But that's only if.

  93. Captain Horror says:

    Chernobyl was enough to turn me away from nuclear. I say go with electric. No electricity plant ever blew up. As far as I know. At least none as bad as Chernobyl.

  94. Noe Ortega says:

    The nuclear is cheaper and relatively safer, but here is the point, just one mistake can destroy everything.

  95. Bely Gorod says:

    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona
    Nananana Liga šampiona

    I'm sorry there was a commercial for the Championship League before the video started

  96. GIboy1990 says:

    The irrational fears of Nuclear power are a direct result of Big oil and liberal politicians. Proliferation IMO has no business even being in the discussion. as it has nothing to do with energy production. Also on the point of recyclable energy sources, the MAJORITY of nuclear fuel can be recycled. Just ask France. as they do it. And their energy costs are comparitive to ours.
    The major problems with "renewable" energy sources that you failed to mention for wind and solar compared to nuclear are as follows
    1. Land usage: pretty straight forward
    2. availabilty: solar's highest output occurs during our lowest energy-consumption periods. Wind is entirely unreliable as no place is constantly windy.
    3. you cannot store or regulate the power output reliably. wheras with nuclear the power output is constant and can be throttled to energy needs.
    4. both sources (and even more so on battery technology that currently doesnt meed needs) are more carbon intensive and rely on REM, which require mining and excavation that are even more harmful than uranium mining.
    Until we figure out fusion, and of course besides Hydroelectric, Nuclear energy is the cleanest, cheapest and most reliable energy source at our disposal.
    Renewables such as wind solar and bio-fuel is a dead end and spending money on research is a waste in my opion. the future is fusion. zero emissions. cheap fuel (literally just hydrogen) and safer than nuclear.

  97. Raid says:

    This video fails to address advances in nuclear technology. Materials science has enabled the potential construction of molten salt reactors; old technology that's been historically limited by the extremely caustic nature of these salts. Modern alloys that are relatively low in chromium and iron with high concentrations of alloying elements like nickel, silicon and molybdenum are far more resistant to corrosion. The disadvantage here is that eventually the coolant system will eventually need to be replaced due to this corrosion. At that point the pipes and related components will themselves be radioactive. The advantages to these are numerous, such as their commonly touted "inherently safe" nature. The fuel in bulk remains subcritical and will not fission, but when piped into the proper geometry will go critical and produce sustained fission until it exits the reactor vessel. In the event that it overheats it will melt a plug at the bottom of the vessel and drain into an underground storage tank to cool and be recovered.

    Also, three words: small modular reactors.

    Granted, these have not yet truly been put to the test but they must be implemented if we cannot utilize renewable sources quickly enough. I believe the urgency of climate change is enough to justify this, if only temporary, solution. Sure, maybe in a hundred years we'll have commercially viable fusion reactors and the use of oil will be limited purely to polymers and lubricants. Until we can see a purely renewable or fusion energy dominated future we need to pull out all the stops.

  98. guillermo palomar says:

    Change.org to promote Nuclear energy in Spain!
    http://chng.it/Tg24m8yytp

  99. Fireball Xl5 says:

    I would rather have gas generation (fossil and bio),I do not believe we need to go net zero.Nuclear is very expensive to build and decommission,no more one knows what to do with the waste-stick it in a cavern.When it goes horribly wrong a large area of land is contaminated for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Leave a Reply

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