It’s like comparing airplanes to cars. More people die in car accidents than plane accidents per usage, but every plane accident is larger so it seems much scarier

I mean I hope these people know they are more likely to die of cancer living near a coal plant than a nuclear plant

I hope when future historians talk about why we didn't reduce our use of fossil fuels earlier, they have a whole chapter about the irrational fears of nuclear energy.

Very unfortunate. I am from Maharashtra, India. Government had planned world's largest nuclear power plant in my state in Jaitapur. However, due to anti nuclear sentiments, that plan is on hold. India's per head carbon emissions had increased by 4% per annum in last 20 years. It's very unfortunate.

What was missed in video is that despite high capital expenditure, nuclear plants have very low operational expenditure that will offset the investment in long term and make it more profitable compared to many types of power plants due to its exceptionally long life time

I am French and I fear that my country makes a mistake closing the nuclear plants because of the pressure of a part of the population which didn't seen your video

You know this guy is serious when he has eyebrows above and bellow his eyes

I've never heard an argument against nuclear power that included an understanding of nuclear power.

Nuclear may be the biggest way out of reliance on fossil fuels, it’s just a matter of understanding what we have to endorse it. Accidents get less and less likely as the years go on, and with the miniature reactors popping up now, we have an even better chance at affording cheap and safe power to everyone.

According to James Hanson and Columbia University 1.8million people lives have been saved by nuclear energy. And that number is increasing year after year.

As a nuclear engineering student, i really like this video and i hope the nuclear industry gets more mainstream support. It's literally a huge advantage against climate change and medical industries.

In my opinion the one main reason we have a climate emergency is because we did not embrace nuclear power like we should have done. I've always said that.

When you hit randomize on the Oblivion character generator.

The main obstacle to nuclear power is public sentiment.

Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

conventional energy companies 🤝 climate "activists" dunking on nuclear

We need more nuclear plants! New plants have minimal waste, great for the environment too

we live in a world exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science or technology. Instead of making scientists lead the implementation of technology in society, we have political figures make the decisions for us.

Of course it's irrational fear, here's hoping small modular reactors(SMR) will change the general perception of it

US wholesale electricity prices (2019): Photovoltaic: $83/MWh Wind: $36/MWh Fossil fuels: $34/MWh Nuclear: $25/MWh - Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona sells the electricity that it produces for $15/MWh. - Why does nuclear need to get cheaper?

"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology." - Carl Sagan

Because "Nuclear" has been turned into a scary word. That's pretty much it.

Small modular reactors & thorium salt reactors are the way to be 100% renewable.

Why no mention of nuclear waste?

But more importantly what’s with that guy’s sideburns??

The main reason for the cost and time overruns are the constantly updating safety requirements, which only keep getting more stringent - precisely because everyone is so afraid of the technology. Whereas reactors built in the 60's-70's were designed and commisioned within 5-6 years, these days the time to design and build a reactor is longer than the typical working career. This results in a massive overhead on constantly retraining the workforce. In the West, most people working in nuclear reactor design, licensing, or regulation, have never in their career seen and likely will never see an example of a new reactor going critical. The currently operational reactors might as well be relics handed down from an ancient civilization; everyone involved in the design process is dead or long retired. It's like that COBOL codebase that no one wants to touch or replace. A nuclear renaissance would require orders of magnitude more funding for R&D and man power, because we effectively need to re-invent the wheel. In reality there's only enough going around to keep the current fleet operational. There is no way economics of scale can ever thrive in this environment, leading to a negative feedback loop of "nuclear is expensive, therefore we don't fund it". Another point of frustration: the cost of solar and wind are very misleading as they are calculated based on current grids, which are only enabled by back-up on-demand coal, gas, and nuclear power. In general, electricity is cheap. It is the grid and the infrastructure that are expensive. Current grids are not made for intermittent sources like wind or solar. An honest evaluation of renewables without fossil fuel back-up would include the costs of updating the grid and adding reliable energy storage to it. I can guarantee you that nuclear will come out quite favorably as a green alternative in this comparison. Politicians just know they can score easy points with windmills and solar panels wile ignoring the consequences; not so much with promoting nuclear. Source: I did my Ph.D. on a project in the nuclear industry whereby the goal was to develop a next generation liquid metal cooled reactor. While I totally support the project goals, the red tape, the uncertainty of funding, the ever shifting government priorities, and the lack of long term perspectives or sense of progress made me leave the industry. Another free pro-tip: if you are a sensible citizen who is pro-science and pro-environment, please don't vote for green parties. Scientists will thank you. Green parties generally have their roots in organisations like Greenpeace, which from their founding where an anti-nuclear movement and gradually adopted other environmental causes. The anti-nuclear dogmatic stance is still at the foundation of most Green parties in Europe today. If we are going to do anything about global warming, let us at least try to keep the lights on with the existing nuclear power plants, instead of prematurely closing them down for no valid reason.

Nuclear power is being held to an impossibly high standard. New reactor buildings are required to withstand an impact by a passenger jet. Plus, the requirements keep changing and so the price tag keeps rising. China has shown reactors can be cheap, and built within reasonable time. As for "environmentalists" opposing nuclear power - they either have an ulterior motive, or are technological luddites. For as long as there is a single coal power plant operating we need nuclear, and we need to expand instead of contract it.

Well, this time video is missing one important aspect - the unpopularity (and problems) of nuclear waste. Without including that topic, I don't think you get the full picture about nuclear energy.

Glad i subscribed, all clips thus far have been outstanding

i think you have forgot to mention the cost of storing the spent fuel. currently in the uk the government is studying geological waste facilities which will have to be monitored for atleast 1000 years, this will only increase the running cost of fission nuclear reactors.

Almost all domestic heating in Japan uses electricity. Power from Fukushima and other nuclear power stations in Japan has prevented countless deaths from hypothermia among old people during Japan's cold winter months. And people forget that the Fukushima event was triggered by an entirely natural event - a tsunami. The tsunami killed around 18,000 people directly. Ian Graham

They focus so much on the death aspect, but pretty much ignore that areas where accidents happen have to be abandoned for tens or hundreds of years. Thats the real issue at hand.

Great piece. I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t delve into the “new” technologies a bit more such as the thorium salt reactor which is supposedly meltdown proof. You only mentioned mass production steps which doesn’t address the safety concerns of current reactor technology.

I support nuclear power Nuclear energy is the way forward

It is interesting, that not a word was lost on the issue of the signifcant challenge to safely dispose the radioactive waste or the price to be paid both in monetary and environmental terms, when plants reach the end of their usefull life span.

why is it so unpopular? Because Mr Burns operates the nuclear plant

Film makers should bring the reality of the poisons of coal and gas to light. I am sure there is an Erin Brokovich like case out there tackling the deregulation of carbon foot print in the US. It is surely going to have a higher death toll than nuclear.

"Nuclear reactors built between 2016 and 2019 average time of construction was 17 years" That is really not correct. The issue is that in 1990 a number of nuclear power plant project was aboundand. Some of then when only the foundation was finished. Between 2012 and 2014 a lot of those projects was restarted and most of them finished in this window.

Great segment, thank you team and particularly Mr. Morton!

Has someone been taking notes on style while watching Adam Curtis documentaries?

What about the nuclear waste it produces? All of it won't break down for thousands of years..

Plot twist: His sideburns are sitting high, it's his face that's sitting low

The lack of any interest for nuclear power is why I don't take environmentalists like Greta Thumberg seriously.

But disposal issues are well documented and yet to be adequately dealt with. Quite aside from how cheap solar, wind and battery tech is becoming. It will be quicker to deploy renewables than build nuclear for the coming climate disaster.

Nuclear power: why is it so unpopular? Because most people are bad at risk assessment 😑

Nuclear Power is awesome and we should use it more

Show me a save way to deal with nuclear waste and I´m for it, but as long as we have not a single final storage space for high nuclear waste nor a plan how to keep that space secure for ages. I hate the way people show how save nuclear power is by showing death/power production figures, how can you say that without knowing how many people will die or get ill in 100 or 1000 years from that waste? not even mentioning the costs of that storages which is paid by the puplic and not the companys who run and profit from the power plant.

Nuclear plants are cheap compared to their energy output

This video was an eye opener to me

Thorium would make nuclear energy much safer and accepted through the general opinion if a serious news provider like the Economist support it.

Nice piece. Particularly interesting all the minutes you spent talking about radioactive waste and how that is one of the last hurdles the industry is yet to overcome... Oh, sorry what, this wasn't even covered? Oh, I must have mistaken the video then...

Maybe next time don’t put people at prayer faded over footage a nuclear missile. If you’re talking about Iran, maybe show a map of Iran.

you forgot to mention most new nuclear reactors use thorium and plutonium reactors which is near impossible to have a meltdown, cleaner than uranium, produces more energy, harder to make nuclear bombs, safer to mine and more abundant

Funny that they don't discuss the clean up costs when its finally done its time and how the power companies usually make the government pay the costs.

they completely ignored nuclear waste...

This is a great video and very informative.

"Perhaps if the environmentalist" ignore the lobbying of the gas and fuel industry. lol

One factor which had been missed by The Economist is that during the Heights of cold war, there was a prevailing threat of devastating nuclear war between the USSR and the US.

It seems to me to be an incomplete episode. What about the Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)? What about fission brought about with thorium (with decay time of hundreds of years instead thousands) and, more importantly, the new technologies that would allow to cut the traditional decay time? Finally, what about the investments on nuclear fusion (laser, molten salts,..)?

Nice video.

Why have you not talked anything at all regarding nuclear waste?

How can you make a video about nuclear energy and don’t mention their radioactive waste, which still has no longterm deposit?

What the video doesn't address is nuclear waste. I realise there's waste coming from production of solar and wind farms but this was waste can be recycled. What can you do with nuclear waste?

This is one of the main reasons I can never vote for the Greens. Their unscientific opposition to nuclear energy is baffling, as is their opposition to HS2.

Oh look at that, anyone who thought about growing hair on just they’re cheeks can be rest assured that, it does look ridicules.

10:20 is the only time they say the actual reason, money, but they obfuscate the point almost immediately.

(8:00) Chernobyl didn't had containment building. Just a shady Soviet cost-cutting BS. Compare the results with Fukashima!!! Why the this reportage didn't pressed that fact?? A missed opportunity.

Blame oil companies for constantly fueling the fears behind it

Does anyone here think Japan should adopt nuclear power program again? Even with its geographical limitation and risks?

📹 this video is very helpful, interesting and insightful. 💡 Muito obrigado for sharing 🤝

Thanks!

Nice report. May I suggest you add some total cost per Kwh comparison between the clean energy sources including proposed new Small Modular Reactors (SMR)?

Molten salt reactors can reuse nuclear waste

Nuclear power may be better than coal in almost every way but a video on why nuclear power is unpopular that doesn't say anything about nuclear waste? 🤔

Impressive, informative, and perfect.

Great video

Absolutely no discussion of the problems with the storage and disposal of waste material and waste water. Ignore the biggest issues with anything and you can make it sound amazing. Whale oil was a wonderful source of power if you ignore the extinction of the species.

I have yet to hear an argument against nuclear power from someone who actually understands nuclear power.

It's because most people don't understand Nuclear power, and especially modern nuclear reactors.

I thought that the risks of nuclear power were manageable until Fukushima. In December 2004 a massive tsunami wiped out coastal cites surrounding the Indian Ocean. Given that Japan is prone to earthquakes it would have been reasonable to expect that the Japanese would have treated this as a warning and taken steps to mitigate the risks to nuclear plants from this happening. In spite of Japan being one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, they did nothing and Fukushima happened. If that is the best risk management to be expected then the risk cannot be adequately managed. Given the consequences of mismanagement nuclear cannot be justified.

Why is nuclear so unpopular? It is expensive.

The Economist thinks it’s all about how many people die. Maybe it’s about how people live, for example in the exclusion zones in Fukushima or the people living with radioactive waste for the next 100000 years

7:00, not a lot of people died in the Fukushima accident, that is true. However, the Fukushima nuclear disasater caused massive economic damage to agriculture business around Fukushima plant. Displaced thousands of people. Dented Japan's tourism industry for numerous months. If you don't look at the indirect effects, you are missing the whole picture.

Oh look SMR (Small Modular Reactors) thanks to Rolls Royce we will have near commercial use of SMRs by the end of the decade, they've been reformatting they're military hardware into industrial hardware. These things will be able to go to space, power towns and cities in scalable stations. It's not a LFTR and fusion is still a ways off but it's yet another stepping stone we really need.

just realized The Economist and Etsy have same logo lol

Well, you could say like comparison between car travel and airplane travel. Nuclear power plant is more safe than people imagined, but once it blew out, well it would be like plane crash. You know it happened already twice in Russia and Jappan.

Why paying more for a (still) much riskier energy source? You have lower total costs for renewables and get rid of the risk.

I think you should add the dismantle costs to the equation

Safety depends on the means you put into it. In France, the country that is the most powered by nuclear reactors, you got 0 serious accidents in their whole History. BUT their reactors average age is getting old and some should already have been retired, they weren't because of $$$$. I always found it funny that the government in France became more & more reluctant to back nuclear projects YET claims more & more to want a green economy: with our current tech the 2 actually go together. But then again ecologist movements everywhere don't see nuclear as the only actual solution we have - only solution because people get used fast to their way of life and don't wanna go back - but as an additional problem, so politically at least it makes sense.

Well.... there are two topics I'd like to raise. A) Fuel waste and the possibility/probability of mismanagement.

im japanese some realist in japan says that we should build as many nuclear plants as possible cause the area is already doomed but it means some people lose their homes which is right?

Will you continue the segment to talk about emerging nuclear power science? A while back I saw a video where they talked about new nuclear fuels and me system that prevent meltdowns. One described a fuel that reacts in proximity to another element, and makes meltdowns impossible as gravity can be used to pull the fuel away and stop the reaction.

"It's gonna cause some harm innit" IM DYING FROM LAUGHTER

Elephant in the room: nuclear waste. Other forms of energy produce their own waste, but it is remiss to not mention the creation of waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years.

Decades of fearmongering has caused public opinion to think nuclear is unsafe. But on the contrary, much safer than other sources, and we obviously improve technology as we go.

The primary circuit is going in the wrong direction

Nuclear technology is actually a lot safer than some alternatives. It is hated irrationally

When will you show the part where the only us nuclear storage site is still sitting empty and materials are still piling up

You can't create nuclear weapons from spent nuclear fuel. Spent fuel contains the wrong isotope of plutonium (Pu-240 as opposed to Pu-239). This is why we refer to 'weapons-grade' plutonium. Please edit this.

This isn't an ad. Ads are less than a minute. This is a ten minute video