When are we going to get fusion energy!?

I would like to see a collaboration with Kurzgesagt

Well explained, and what about water used in reactor does it become radio active?

It has not changed. I am not sure we should build reactors left and right but i am not against it. But we have to stop generating electricity and heat by coal an gas etc.

@@mattjones5105 ever heard of solar energy? That's fusion energy you getting

Those are incredible machines, nearly unlimited range.

For real. I was an RO on an aircraft carrier. The guys on the flight deck got higher radiation doses than we did, by quite a lot.

Spot on Bobby. I hope the young blokes who made this 12 minute introduction to reality understand that MANY nuclear reactors have been built in the decades since WW2 and all operating safely. Those reactors are effectively SMRs within assorted Naval vessel types from many nations. A major flaw in the presentation (there are a few) is the ASSUMPTION that nuclear was not pursued "likely due to cost". An errorneous and naive comment. In fact (apart from cost) three primary reasons exist for the continuation of coal. (1) JOBS and local economies (2) Investment and amortisation of existing infrastructure (3) The overly onerous and destructive process involved in gaining approval for new nuclear facilities - which translates to placing the modern nuclear cycle (note - the whole nuclear cycle - not merely a reactor) as a square peg trying to fit into a round bureaucratic hole.

Not relevant, nuclear industry workers health was never a public concern. The Navy's reactors a small, lack the concrete containment structures of site built plants, and have a decade long span between refueling by virtue of using highly enriched uranium. Allow that kind of reactor to dispersed in huge numbers as a civilian power source will be far too dangerous, and prohibitively expensive.

smallest commercial ground nuclear powerplant generate 581 Megawatt of electricity, the largest submarine one generate 48 Megawatt electricity. Which is (probably) around ~30% of the actual thermal power of the fission reaction (ie: thermodynamic heat-engine efficiency limit), ie: around ~Gigawatts of actual thermal power on the smallest ground reactor, and ~hundred-of-Megawatt of heat on the largest submarine reactor. Those submarine reactor was not for money and so will run cooler than commercial counterpart.

All power plants are

Yes. All power plants boil water by way of a fuel (coal, natural gas, nuclear) to make electricity. It is the best and cheapest option we have at the moment. That is unless you are lucky to live next to a giant body of water, in which case you can build a dam and spin the turbine by using the water's kinetic energy instead of steam.

YES! So few people realize that. Many think is some direct connection between the power lines and the reactor.

@Verum Similis Hey. It works.

@Verum Similis what a shame the Chinese don’t have enough coal to operate them… As far as I recall, the only major source of power generation that does not involve a turbine is photovoltaics, and they cannot provide base load power without expensive storage and some excess generation. Some sort of energy is required to rotate a generator to provide the electricity, and steam turbines are very efficient at this.

Unfortunatly some people will complain that digging this big and deep holes are bad at enviroment. And bring Renewable energy. I really want to explain them that Wind turbos and solar panels are actually more demanding to make due to rare materials and need to terminate the wastes of old equipments permenantly which is more dangerous than safe to enviroment

​@@temuulenamartuvshin1204that is why we should ressearch how to control nuclear fusion.

Really 😂 Why should anyone choose nuclear energy while we have Green hydrogen that will become as cheep as solar in the next decade. Green Hydrogen creates almost no waste, while nuclear creates radioactive waste that has to be carefully deposited. Not to mention how expensive the nuclear power plants are.

@@lightingwalk 1 nuclear waste is the safest waste its so safe you could swim in it. 2 yes nuclear energy is expensive but its all so far more productive only costing 29.13$ per MWH were as green hydrogen cost 95$ per MHW.

@@Godzillaminusone70 Most nuclear waste produced is hazardous, due to its radioactivity, and can last for a few thousand years. I hope you are not being sarcastic. 🙂 By 2030 Hydrogen is expected reach the price of gasoline. Do your research.

@lightingwalk I will admit nuclear waste is dangers, so I was wrong about that so let's explore how well contained it is Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste (Updated January 2023) Radioactive wastes are stored so as to avoid any chance of radiation exposure to people, or any pollution. The radioactivity of the waste's decays with time, providing a strong incentive to store high-level waste for about 50 years before disposal. Disposal of low-level waste is straightforward and can be undertaken safely almost anywhere. Storage of used fuel is normally under water for at least five years and then often in dry storage. Deep geological disposal is widely agreed to be the best solution for final disposal of the most radioactive waste produced. Most low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is typically sent to land-based disposal immediately following its packaging for long-term management. This means that for the majority (~90% by volume) of all of the waste types produced by nuclear technologies, a satisfactory disposal means has been developed and is being implemented around the world. For used fuel designated as high-level radioactive waste (HLW), the first step is storage to allow decay of radioactivity and heat, making handling much safer. Storage of used fuel may be in ponds or dry casks, either at reactor sites or centrally. Beyond storage, many options have been investigated which seek to provide publicly acceptable, safe, and environmentally sound solutions to the final management of radioactive waste. The most widely favored solution is deep geological disposal. The focus is on how and where to construct such facilities. Used fuel that is not intended for direct disposal may instead be reprocessed in order to recycle the uranium and plutonium it contains. Some separated liquid HLW arises during reprocessing; this is vitrified in glass and stored pending final disposal. Intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW) that contains long-lived radioisotopes is also stored pending disposal in a geological repository. In the USA, defense-related transuranic (TRU) waste - which has similar levels of radioactivity to some ILW - is disposed of in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) deep geological repository in New Mexico. A number of countries dispose of ILW containing short-lived radioisotopes in near-surface disposal facilities, as used for LLW disposal. Some countries are at the preliminary stages of their consideration of disposal for ILW and HLW, whilst others, in particular Finland, have made good progress. Finland's Onkalo repository is expected to start operating in 2024. It will be the first deep geological repository licensed for the disposal of used fuel from civil reactors. The following table sets out the commonly accepted disposal options. When considering these, it should be noted that the suitability of an option or idea is dependent on the Waste form, volume, and radioactivity of the waste. As such, waste management options and ideas described in this section are not all applicable to different types of waste. Green hydrogen (GH2) is hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water, using renewable electricity. A typical nuclear reactor produces 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity. That doesn’t mean you can simply replace it with a 1 gigawatt coal or renewable plant. Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid Nuclear produces energy 92.5% of the time were as geothermal produces energy 74.3& of the time fallowed by natural gas which produces energy 56.6% of the time then hydro power which produces energy 41.5% of the time fallowed by coal which produces energy 40.5% of the time wind only produces 35.4% of the time and solar only produces energy 24.9% of the time.

@@lightingwalk fine i will shorten my reply. nuclear waste containment is underground which means it not really a threat to anyone. nuclear is also the most productive energy source producing energy 92.5% of the time were as solar only produces energy 24.9% of the time BTW green hydrogen i produced by renewables which cause more deaths than nuclear and they are less efficient so why waste your time using an inferior energy type to get a new energy type when you can use the better energy type.

Hahahaha 🤣🤣🤣

😂😂i actually laughed out loud

So funny and true

@@kookiesensations4798 me too!

Boomers in general think they understand, what they actually don't. And they are governing us

Try learning from reality not YT videos. Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

11:20 Although we can run out of radium, thorium, uranium, americium et cetera, we could synthesize more if need be. If we can't synthesize anymore; that almost means that we have used all of the helium produced by every star in the universe, and also not have any available protons nor neutrons anywhere in the universe.

@@andrewpinedo1883 Helium is produced in stars. However, all the Helium on earth is produced when an isotope decays by alpha emission. The alpha particle captures electrons and becomes Helium. Most Helium is produced from the radioactive alpha decay of Uranium and plentiful in most natural gas deposits.

I also wish that were the case, but nuclear seems the best bet. Renewables provide us with energy 30% of the time at best, which means we need an alternative energy source to deal with the intermittent solar and wind. That is difficult with nuclear as you can't change the output simply like you can with gas. Big gas companies know this, which is why they invest ridiculous amounts of money into renewables. Support for renewables is pushing for the dependence on dirty energy. After we figure out a plan to clean up all of these lead-filled solar panels, we should be trying to faze away from renewables into the least wasteful and the least polluting energy.

@@raywhite7832 New nuclear is costing 2-3 times that of any other generation method. Do you thing consumers are going to accept electric rates increasing 100% to 200% ?? Remember that one political party and 45% of Americans (I am not one of them) not only believe climate change is fake news but a liberal plot that they will fight to the death. I am interested in your solar panels and lead comment. The only lead (solder) in a solar panel is at the junction where the copper output wires join the panel. One cell phone has 100 times the lead solder than found in a solar panel and can be disposed in a regular land fill as they are not considered hazardous per RCRA.

Your teachers should be fired.

It isn't surprising. The Greenpeace organization constantly spouts misinformation about nuclear power and many environmentalist view them as a reliable source.

anti nuclear "environmentalists" are the people who have the highest chance of destroying the environment if their information continues spreading like this.

Wow, who were your teachers? They need to be fired for teaching misinformation

@Lisa Walters Your instructor was correct. When fuel rods are removed after a fuel change, they're still too hot and are stored in water tanks inside the reactor buildings. Once they're cool enough for dry storage, they're stored in casks on power plant grounds. A big source of radioisotope release from Fukushima was from fuel rods in wet storage catching fire after the water pumps failed. The hot rods will separate water into hydrogen and oxygen to feed the fire.

... Curious, how to go that way as a career path if I wanted to work in the industry? Nuclear is just- I don't know. The future?

@Ralph Tamez comparing a nuclear weapon test site to a nuclear power plant is stupid

@Ralph Tamez by deaths no, environmental damage is higher and could be higher we can thank the Chernobyl liquidators for that. And Chernobyl is getting new inhabitants and Fukushima happened due to earthquakes and a tsunami which then caused a chain reaction such that the reactor core stopped getting cooled down. The total death toll according to the Japanese government was 18000 or more way less than a nuke hitting a major city or any city for that matter and "According to the official, internationally recognised death toll, just 31 people died as an immediate result of Chernobyl while the UN estimates that only 50 deaths can be directly attributed to the disaster. In 2005, it predicted a further 4,000 might eventually die as a result of the radiation exposure.". Way less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed

@Ralph Tamez another thing you are bashing Chernobyl whose design should not have even existed but given the Soviet Union does not have good or any standards for nuclear power plant employees it was bound to happen anyway. Newer generation of reactors are orders of magnitude safer due to Chernobyl and a lot of nations high safety and employee standards the "designing reactors to be able to withstand a jet airliner ramming into it" kind of standards.

@Ralph Tamez Third, I did not call you stupid I called comparing a nuclear weapon test site to a nuclear power plant stupid

Currently doing the same thing but for a speech!

Right on.

Fukushima was also a Westinghouse reactor designed in the 1950s. Today’s reactor designs would have never overheated or released any radiation after a massive earthquake.

Also, if the backup generators for the cooling pumps had been located somewhere more sensible than the basement of the plant, they could likely have achieved a safe shutdown. Particularly somewhere like Japan, which is prone to earthquakes, if nuclear plants were deliberately over-engineered with multiple independent redundancy mechanisms and designed to survive a an earthquake / tsunami bigger than the biggest ever recorded, although it would push up the cost significantly, it would make it almost certainly survive whatever nature could throw at it.

The water was not mildly irradiated. You have some serious bias issues and seem to be very intellectually dishonest

@@Ryukikon so, how irradiated was the water?

Hey, it's an energy-free lifestyle of blissful ignorance to the problems of the world, I can't blame him if this is what he wants.

Ape together strong!!

But really, people like that hamper progress and are dumb

Honestly that is a respectable position. At least it's logically consistent.

Based

Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

how.. how do others say it...?

@@amandahigirl nukyular

Hey!! Murcan!

@@steepsm bro ppl srsly say it like that?

@@qaday123 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nMtorKWZxqrTgmg.html

Man that sounds sick, how'd that come about?

As an engineering student, you know that energy of any kind from any source eventually becomes HEAT. We cannot allow additional heat to be pumped into our environment. We can only allow energy sources that derive from recent solar activity.

@@craigcorson3036 yes, because heat is the main issue. Except solar related technology required deepearth mining and create far more waste, meaning this waste must be disposed of, all of these things using fossil guels and creating more heat that any nuclear reactor ever did. Until we can create and use a dyson swarm, we have to rely on nuclear as its the cleanest and safest of all the energy production methods.

@@craigcorson3036 If you don't want heat, you don't want energy, regardless of the source. Have you got a solution as to how we feed 8 billion people without energy?

@@craigcorson3036 Someone skipped physics lessons then, because you should have been aware a physic law called Thermodinamics. ALL energy (regardless of its source, so including solar, wind etc.) are not vanishing, its just transform (and all of them into HEAT). So, your solution is going back to the medieval age, good luck convincing EVERY single country and every single man. By that ponit you can jsut go ahead and trigger WW3, thats your best bet to solve your worries - by killing all mankind or at least nuking all of us back into the stone age. I love Climate radicals, their make Jihadist look like reasonable moderats all the time.

Why were they understandably concerned?

@@KarlKarpfen I was essentially asking how to make an atomic nuclear bomb.

@@VrieChica078 Why shouldn't you, its quite interesting, rather easy but very laborious.

@@KarlKarpfen wait how is it easy to split an atom?!?

@@tanuki_sleep There isn't too much more to it than bringing the right isotopes together in large enough quantities to create a nuclear explosion. The difficult part of military nuclear explosive devices is the urge for more yield for less material and smaller form factors. That is difficult. But a bomb like "little boy" requires no very special skills, just high efforts in enrichment of natural uranium, that is extractable from rocks of vulcanic origin like granite, basalt or obsidian. If they get the level of enrichment they need, the Hiroshima-bomb is the level that any garage hobby-workshop can produce. It isn't much more than a donut-shaped piece of higly enriched uranium fixed to a pipe containing an explosive and an uranium cylinder which is to be shot into the donut on which's other end you have a neutron emitter. It's so simple a design that the researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratories refuesed to test it before it's use in combat.

The problem ist that there isn't a safe place to store endproducts (radiating trash) which can't be used anymore. With ongoing improvements in renewable energies it will get better and better and, in the end, overtaking nuclear energy

Its sad, I believe Germany is going to shut down their plants if they haven't already. Nuclear energy isn't perfect but, its the best that we currently have considering the fact that fusion is only 30 years away. (That last point is a joke).

@@CrownTheGame doubt renewables are reaching their theoretical potential plus the massive amounts of batteries needed to store their energy to offset their deficiencies we need constant and reliable energy source of energy

@@CrownTheGame Those byproducts can be recycled into new fuel, as said in the video. It would take an extremely long time for renewable energy to beat out Nuclear. In fact it wont ever win unless we can cut down the amount of space we need for said renewable energy sources

@@CrownTheGame When we have the batteries... Maybe... But I thought climate needs to be fixed ASAP instead of "lets wait for the different tech"

Because France decided to flip off OPEC after the 1973 oil embargo, today you guys get like 95% from non fossil energies, a majority being Nuclear and Hydroelectric.. And evn today most of the French are for Nuclear power. I remember reading somewhere that each French person has something like 50g of nuclear waste as their footprint each year... if one lives 100 years, its 5kg of waste. Its nothing. in the same time you would go through how many sets of equivalent generation in wind turbine blades and solar panels? Like 4? And this is just with chemical reprocessing, no Superphenix FBR to help burn it up further.

Nuclear waste is recyclable since the 1960s.

Dude you've been on KZfaq for 4 years and you still don't have a good PFP

@@tanuki_sleep leave him alone, why do you care?

Your ultimate challenge is changing $$$ culture, the tech is possible.

Is this me from the future? I'm still not sure if I should mechanical engineering or nuclear engineering

Apparently if you want to work as nuclear engineer, the jobs are in China.

The key now is educating others. Next time someone mentions renewables as the only option. Or that nuclear is bad. Remember this video and explain what you know in a calm, rational and respectful way. Can't change the world by ourselves. So we gotta do it one mind at a time

Because of the lies that have been constantly shoved down our throats for years. Care to guess who pushes those lies? Hint: It's the same people who push the lie that renewable energy can't replace coal and oil.

You will go far young fella. You have the ability to challenge, to question and to learn, and that takes time, whereas the majority are lazy and believe that dished out to them .... and that on ANY subject be it Guns, Climate, Virus or any of the many demons that have beset the world by people who capitalise on alarm. Look up HL Menckeh "HOBGOBLINS"

I've suspected as much, and appreciate you confirming. Your perspective is a glimmer of hope. There was a lot of fear surrounding nuclear *anything* in the 70's and 80's when I was growing up. I've spent my career (25+ years) on trying to do less harm while providing the blessings of electricity to people where they live. Nuclear generators are base load - meaning they don't like to go up and down; conversely they don't fluctuate with the breeze or solar irradiance...it's more like geothermal. Nuclear generation produces virtually no air emissions. It is a good, stable, and reliable source of electricity.

@@BrianLocke In my experience environmental organisations and political parties are just as much to blame (at least in France/ Europe) Greenpeace for example is agressively pushing against nuclear energy at every opportunity.

Be*

I'm studying to be ChemE right now!! Definitely fun and challenging. I hope to help with nuclear power one day!

@@chefmo182 that’s awesome! I hope your doin good so far :)

@nhà độc tài Yang Wen Li ok this is my language but you used it in such a way it confused me

If I didn't have youtube, school would have completely killed my curiosity. Public education is an abomination and a shameful excuse for an education. There is so much information kids NEED to know that they just don't get to hear. We are entirely responsible for our education these days. But I think that's a good thing, in some ways. Kids can consume so much information about things they WANT to know. I get to study quantum physics and biology niches that I never got to learn about in school.

Wasn't being pro-nuclear energy basically what got the Dutch branch of Volt seats in the parliament?? It seems the opinion on nuclear power is changing at least in some countries.

Meanwhile in Belgium :/

@@Khenfu_Cake no, volt are sadly anti nuclear.

Which parties are pro Nuclear in the Netherlands?

@@dudewhatthehellman Depends on the branch. The Danish and Dutch branches are fairly pro-nuclear.

that dude is smart I wonder what he named his cat

@@Golden2962 Not that it absolves him of anything, but to be fair technically his dad named the cat. Having said that, he also didn't rename the cat, so...

But it sounds more impressive if you say it like this. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b8CKd9CpqKi5gaM.html

I like that Lovecraft said this, that people know he said it, that agreed with him, and then are surprised when it turns out he himself was afraid of everything strange and unknown to him.

@@anosmibell6473 Just because you know something does not mean you are safe from it. He said it was the strongest form of fear for a reason.

Thorium is actually a more efficient and abundant nuclear fuel than uranium. Less waste and not fissile on its own, needing a catalyst (usually a small amount of plutonium) so pretty much unable to melt down the reactor. At the dawn of nuclear energy research, it was preferred by scientists as a primary focus, but this shifted over the course of the cold war, as depleted uranium could be used for nuclear weapons, unlike depleted thorium. Thankfully, research into thorium reactors has been slowly catching up, though the huge investment into uranium reactors over the course of the cold war has given it a significant headstart, so it's still not widely used. You can go to the wikipedia page for more information on thorium-based nuclear power, I think it's quite an interesting topic, and one that is sadly seldom discussed among renewable energy proponents, who mostly tend to focus overly on wind and solar. Even uranium is not that bad, considering there are already reactors that are able to reuse the spent uranium and enrich it again, reducing high level nuclear waste to virtually nothing.

Wind and solar need 100% back-up, and if that back-up is nuclear, what was the point of building them in the first place?

But but nuclear energy = bad. Or that's what is said.

@@chapter4travels "If one lung stops working, what do I need a second lung for?" One of the most self-defeating arguments I've ever seen - but it's also false. We store extra energy from wind and solar, and extra energy can always be used, even without emergencies.

@@ezakustam Who are you quoting? Oh, and we have no way of storing electricity at scale, only small amounts.

Wind and solar are sufficient. The sun produces more energy on earth in 20 minutes than we use in a year. Backup systems are ease to build.

The huge spike is grossly misreported. Sure, it was a 300% spike, but that means it went from 10 to 30, a statistically meaningless number

Not to mention all the folks that died of rapid onset lead poisoning

@@Leafbower It doesn't matter if the number is small if the growth is that high. In a more populated area it won't be just 10 people so the 300% is really significant.

@@Leafbower Well i didn’t say any specific number since I think no one has a correct percentage, but we know that a very significant part of ukraine and belarus is uninhabitale for more than 10 000 years. And the costs associated haven’t stopped either. The new containment was built, but even it will last only for another 100 years, and then we will need a new solution. Also, ukraine has to pay the victims to this day for this, and all the costs add up. Don’t get me wrong, I support nuclear energy and think that it has a very significant place in the future, but let us not downplay the risks here. Until we have nuclear fusion there’s always a chance for serious environmental and humanitarian damage.

I also don't think that only 51 died from Chernobyl

I feel like Russia has a good nuclear program. Is that true?

@@witty_username8793 Well, I think we do. Infact we have the largest state-run nuclear company in the world.

@@filipblaskovic9420 love your Russian reactors. They are powering our smoky and unliveable cities! Love from India 🇮🇳❤️🇷🇺

@@witty_username8793 Post 1986 ya mean.

hail Hydra!

Some bloke who worked there told plant management to increase the flood wall height multiple times and even predicted the wave height which would eventually smash into the plant.

m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rJt7ZKye36-WZIE.html

Cuz most people who fear it are scared of the words nuclear, radiation and explosion

@50ph14 3F think it would blow their minds to know that most of the food they eat has been radiated to make it safe to eat?

@@BrianLocke I almost forgot about that

@50ph14 3F The media should explain the difference between radioactive and irradiated

I'd love to live near a reactor. Sign me up for the sweet sweet cheap electricity!

I don't think the industry is trustworthy enough to report a leak at a plant to the public.

Just cause you're not afraid, doesn't mean that it's safe.

My state has had the largest uranium mine spill in the USA. People 40 years later still have health problems. That is in the North. The nuclear storage facility in the south of our state was supposed to be accident free for over a hundred years. It had an accident in less than 20 years. I personally know 2 people damaged by uranium mining. No, I don't think nuclear is safe.

It's safer than Fossil fuels

Yes we sure do, but for some reason our government (currently lead by a socialist party) decided that it is better to let the market regulate the energy mix. The result of that is that nuclear is too expensive and is getting phased out. Our politics confuse me...

@twentyfivekgplants tomake1kgbeef this is completely unrelated to the comment. I understand that you want people to be vegan, but there’s a time and place for it.

I don’t really like his documentaries, but maybe I should watch it.

@@marcusodenmarck840 that is called free market which only ever takes place in England when there is a lot of money to be made. They promised us a free market, let the market decide lowest cost, lowest CO2. That meant no Nukes so they give big subsidy to Hinckley point. Not that I am usually a big fan of 'free markets' but it is probably because its just a lot of talk. I mean look at all the subsidies for fossil fuels! And Fracking!!

@@marcusodenmarck840 Oh come on, who doesn't like a little extra dirty coal power? Our government sure does! 🙃

WE MISS SCHOOL (tell you class and teacher we say hi!)

@@AsapSCIENCE OMG STOP IM LITERALLY SUCH A BIG FAN OF YOU GUYS DEFO TELLING THEM THAT

@@baharsabet2895 How comparable is what you learn at school and this vid?

HEY BAHAR!!!

@@spicyananaspizza well in school we haven’t looked at it in THIS much detail (and luckily we aren’t being taught it in a biased way or anything) but this video has really made me realise that nuclear energy’s pros far outweigh the cons and is very necessary if we want to reach 0 carbon emissions in the future, as fossil fuels are our real enemy.

OECD countries could have all had 100% carbon-free electricity generation by a decade or two ago, and the climate crisis would be far more distant and less certain to end in disaster, if the fossil-fuel industry hadn’t spent decades waging a successful campaign to kill its only viable competitor via ongoing campaigns to spread misinformation and scare tactics. Then we’d be arguing about exactly how fast to replace how much safe and carbon-free nuclear with safe and carbon-free wind and solar coupled with energy storage, not futilely hoping that we will someday have the will to actually reduce our usage of fossil fuels and even more futilely hope that that day isn’t after the planet is already destroyed.

@@matthewv789 renewables are a lot less viable than nuclear. They rely on the environment far too much. A hurricane comes and thunderstorm boom all the solar panels are useless.

@@matthewv789 yes you are right. at the end of the day humans are greedy monkeys in clothes.

ain't that the beginning plot to fallout 4 thoe?

Someone needs to go in a time machine to 1970s and prevent that nuclear movie from occurring.

that's hard to do because fossil power is a slow creeping problem. "if you see no danger theres is no danger"

they already do, but the green nutters are also against nuclear energy.

@@BrunoHenrique-gi1wd Another way of viewing that is most people drive a car all the time and don't worry if it is safe but get alarmed when an Airplane crashes. We are more confident with perceived risk we feel in control of

@@AverageAlien truth. I expected this video to be more greenie fear mongering. I was pleasantly surprised

@@Nick-ce6lt This particular youtuber used to be anti nuclear (I thought). Perhaps his opinion changed?

It's a slippery slope..

@@BrianSantero I know, one day you think you're 'just eating a banana' and soon enough you find yourself in the new mexico desert digging a hole. Bananas are a slippery slope kids, be careful.

a banana took my leg in the great fruit wars of 2022

Sorry for your lose, the banana wars were dark times

To be fair... bananas are mildly radioactive.

@scomo's maccas adventure fun time. Well, the ones Bill Gates started to make a prototype of in China (then covid took over our lives putting it on hold) actually uses nuclear waste as fuel, it is self contained and requires no human workers at all. It could be buried underneath a suburb and just do its thing...it is also 100% safe.

@@Defensive_Wounds source? sounds pretty interesting actually

@@Damascene_ I think these reactors are called „thorium reactors“

@@hamsteriges9902 Thorium is actually safer and in larger quantities than uranium lmao, you have to use a different element to make it work efficiently, so in the case of a meltdown, you only have to disconnect the helping material to stop the process. It also produces MUCH LESS waste. Tho these dont sound like thorium reactors?

@@Damascene_ I am not an expert about this subject, but thank you for informing me

Have you still followed LLNLs work in nuclear? Their MSAHTR with thermochemical hydrogen splitting is freaking cool. Unfortunately they’ve only made a white paper on it and it seems like the project is likely lost for a while now

You might be right back then, but they've made the technology a lot safer in the last 30-odd years so you would be on the same side now :)

Now go down the rabbit hole of Molten Salt Reactors... not sodium cooled reactors, but Molten Salt Reactors. "LFTR in 5 Minutes" is a great primer on a reactor tech that dates back to the late 50s and through the 60s.

Now go look at the newer gen reactors that use 95% of the nuclear energy than the one in the past that used 5%, the safety procedures that make nuclear meltdowns physically impossible, and the technology that let's us use nuclear waste produced by the old plants as fuel meaning no more need for mining. Then go look at the environmental impacts that battery production has, the batteries that are used in solar and wind farms, then look at how much carbon emissions the chain of production of the materials for wind and solar produces, look at the energy efficiency of solar and wind (they're very inefficient) and how they are terrible to scale. You'll not only understand why your dad was right, but you'll lose hope for humanity looking at how we're going from destroying the planet with fossils to destroying the planet with toxic chemicals and fossils but from behind the scenes while completely ignoring nuclear

Don't be fooled by this propaganda. WHO SAYS on all those figures quoted. The Nuclear Industry Marketing Association?

I was going to say the same thing. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've heard people deny science because they believe, or they felt, was a sound refutal of the truth.

INDEED - and why? I proffer this: Mental laziness. Far easier to be a chicken - pick and scratch for crumbs that are provided to eat.

I love basing my decisions off emotion, really spices up life

I can believe and rely on science but what I can’t trust is people with all their greedy politics and money grabbing

@@Sam89365 🤣🤣🤣

Lol you know nothing

Maybe that’s cause they don’t exist

This looks like an interesting google search thanks for the direction I'ma learn me something new now...

How about Integral Fast Reactors as well?

Yup. Wut @@albertjackinson sed.^^^

@@albertjackinson WHAT

yes, please molten salt reactor can reuse the waste of conventional reactors and if more people knew this they wouldn't fear it so much

The fossil fuel folks though very happy.

as well as renewable energy folks, due to being the only way people on the left can think of saving the environment.

@@ultralight9625 Even as someone who is left leaning(actual center left, not stupid far left), i support nuclear power. So do my parents. My father was an electrical engineer, he worked at a coal plant, but he knew coal would become obsolete sometime or another, he just also knew he would retire by then. Even back then though, he was pro nuclear. We are also pro geothermal which just gets outright ignored. It to could help. There isnt a one size fits all towards cleaner energy, but the one track mindedness of only going for a power source that looks cool is like simping for a woman lacking personality. People are really wanting solar and wind to be the end rather than a means to the end. In other words, they are simping for solar and wind.

The nuclear industry betrayed the public trust. Their secrecy and half-hearted attempts to follow voluntary standards are risky. Fukishima could have happened in the U.S.

@@laughingalex7563 You are correct, and governments and industry know it. That's why they are investing huge amounts in fusion. Problem is fusion is a huge roll of the dice, we may get to something practical in a century or so but the problem is time has run out. For next hundred years or so we need something we know how to get working at large scale without wrecking the atmosphere.

You’re correct, the design of the RBMK reactor was flawed in comparison to its graphite-moderated 1st generation (excluding pile reactor) Magnox counterparts in the United Kingdom. The Magnox fleet of UK reactors were so successful, they lasted well over 40 years in operation, despite being designed and constructed long before modern computational engineering. Its reliability is a testament that even with its relatively low thermal efficiency in comparison to more modern reactors (early Magnox was primarily for plutonium production) that nuclear is absolutely safer than almost every other form of conventional energy generation out there.

The one that blow was build with mistakes. The night Apr 24-25 an old experienced crew got an order from Moscow to make load testing on reactor # 4. They knew that builders were in a hurry and made mistake. They refused to do it. Next night crew was young and ambitious. They just did what they were told to do. Unfortunately to a lot of people it ended up awful. There were much more than 51 victim and more death than that in a longer run. a lot of cancer and other unpleasant diseases. If that 4th reactor never had load testing and all the crews knew about building progress - it would still be working.

"It wasn't real socialism."

@@CvnDqnrU no one's saying that. we're proud of the USSR and want it back, most of us having lived in the USSR. its flaws and all.

@@vixen878 Of course, if you're a communist and young enough to not have lived there. But you didn't understand my point, these guys defend nuclear energy because "it hasn't been done correctly and this time we'll get it right" which is the same excuse of all failed techniques, ideologies and religions.

Exactly! I was stunned that they would claim that, while they do count indirect deaths from coal!

Getting thyroid cancer is not the same as dying. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) www.unscear.org/ has the following: * 62 dead - 47 from radiation (~30 in first few months, ~20 later), 15 from thyroid cancer * 1800 diagnosed with thyroid cancer (but living, and will likely live fairly normal lifespans) ** data unclear on how many cases due to the accident, vs background * 4000-9000 will have shorter lifespans than otherwise www.iarc.fr/media-centre/media-centre-iarc-news-chernobyl-30years/ suggests slightly different numbers (but this could be for methodological differences): * 11,000 total thyroid cancer cases ** but does not state how many were due to the accident * incidence of eye cataracts in liquidators is slightly higher than background population At this point in 2021, 35 years have passed since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster - at this point all radioactive iodine is gone, and cesium-137, strontium-90, etc, are halved (i.e. one half-life for these isotopes is over). If there are more dead or sick people - then there should be more death certificates, more graves, and higher incidences of cancer diagnoses, etc - and there are not.

This is actually fundamental design basis for plants.

A depleted uranium projectile or missile would go through that thing like a hot knife through butter! Seriously. The U.S. Army has done such tests done tests.

@@davidgeary490 that's an out of context statement. It's plenty of military tech that can penetrate such a building, yet you cannot consider it a risk. There's difference between risk and danger. The event you describe is inherently really really dangerous, yet the risk correlated is absurdly low as the likelihood of it happening without an open war is quite small. On the other hand the possibility of a plane being hijacked is much much higher, so to reduce the risk coorelated to a more likely event you decrease the danger associated with the event actually happening

Firstly, a large plane would definitely break through the concrete and steel dome of a nuclear reactor with a direct hit! Nuclear proponents can claim that, theoretically, because its never been tested in the real world. We all saw in real time , big planes going through the concrete & steel twin towers in New York. Re: Danger and risk: terrorism & rogue states are real things...and they now have DU weaponry. We all didn't think that 9/11 incident would ever happen or was even possible - it wasn't even in our imagination, until it happened! Secondly, apart from the dome covering the reactor vessel, the spent fuel pools and dry storage casks do not even have a dome over them - and if a plane crashed into them, that would create the largest fission products-dispensing "dirty bomb" ever, dwarfing Chernobyl.@@REVOLUTIONS51

@@davidgeary490 well, in order. A concrete dome is quite a simple structure to model, a plane is more complicated, yet is totally possibile Tu file out the entity of damage of such an encounter. Has it been really done or it's just a publicity gimmick, I can't tell, maybe there's someone out there that could double check their claims, I'm a mechanical engineer not a structural, so I'll limit my statement to "it's plausible but can't confirm". But just for reference, 9/11 was quite a different story, the structure was fine on itself until it reached such a temperature to start loosing integrity. At just 750 Celsius normal steel is considered basically useless as a building material, it gets too soft. The nice thing of 3th generation reactor is that they do not need any support system from outside the reactor building to safely stop the reactor. For the cooling pools, well, thousands of liter of contaminated water used in Chernobyl were lost in the ground. It was not from the reactor fire itself, but from decontamination procedures in the area and from the damaged cooling loop of the reactor. But Chernobyl was awfully because the reactor burned at 1800+ Celsius in open air for days, it's estimated it vaporised more than 400 kg of highly radioactive materials between the fuel itself and other components. So on one hand you have an accident releasing moderate amount of moderately radioactive water in the environment and quite some nuclear fuel in the nearby area. On the other hand you had an explosion that spread highly radioactive waste over a vastly wider area and a fire that vaporised it in the atmosphere. One can be addressed locally, with minimal impact in the areas around the powerplant, the other required the biggest clean up known to history. I really cannot see how it could be even remotely comparable.

seriously, educate yourself on nuclear energy. it's an amazing subject and really worth the time and effort. you'll definitely enjoy it. especially all the new and improved technology that is being researched about ways of creating safe clean power.

I am the funniest KZfaqr of all time I watched my latest video and laughed for 69 minutes straight I am extremely funny I am dangerously funny and I have two girlfriends who think I am extremely dangerously funny and they watch all of my videos thanks for listening dear tayloe

@@AxxLAfriku no

I have a video on my channel explaining on how nuclear energy. It was a school project, so it’s kind of boring, but it explains a lot.

I recommend watching the video at 1.5 to 2 times speed. I talk pretty slow in the presentation.

Finally some sense in these seriously deluded and sometimes demented comments. Those two ninnies are not just harmless morons, they are positively dangerous.

Until then keep paying lots of money for electricity.

I think the true numbers of Chernobyl will be debated for years to come but will still per kW be along the lines of wind and solar over all. It must also be noted that as a result of the Fukashima incident, the japanese shut down almost all of its nuclear plants and switched to fossil fuels instead for "safety". This switched caused over 20,000 deaths due to pollution. That's more than 10x the deaths of all the direct and indirect deaths from the nuclear incident. Also it must be noted, the deaths due to the evacuation were at a time that most of Japan's west coast was destroyed and in chaos and hospitals / services already unable to cope.

People do tend to not consider the long term effects.

yes! i was totally thinking about this while i heard that. i think it’s important to talk about the benefits and i will always be pro nuclear- but i think maybe they could’ve covered that the death toll of chernobyl is controversial.

yup. downplaying czernobyl rubbed me the wrong way

I think, the video does in general a great job at downplaying the problems with fision. Of cause there are many irrational claims out there. But it is still true that fision is extremely expensive. It is so expensive to build such power plants that Investors for newly built plants don't exist in several places. And nowhere in the world exists a solution for the waste in practise. The costs next generations will have due to the waste are unestimated. If every country chose the french way the uranium would reach only for some decades. One or two generations benefit, hundreds will pay the price. Castors in Germany for example are save for fourty years, and there we talk about the highly radioaktive waste... Yes, there are more moderns systems discussed. Most of them are discussed since the 60's. Wow, that makes me hopefull. Perhaps we need fision to some extend. But the is no way around building lots and lots of renewables.

Mucha Ivana Nadal, Greenpeace e intereses neoliberales (los dos primeros son parte de lo mismo) dando vueltas. Esto ultimo es lo mas importante: una inversion china en latinonamerica? A joderse por haber votado a Macri (PRO, Cambiemos, Juntos x El Cambio, etc)

you should walk around your city and call everyone a dumbass for being afraid of something they don't bother to try to understand

@@UgandanAirForce In Argentina most people only care about t1t and 4ss

@@diegoiunou i mean i care about that too myself, but there's more to life than those things.

HELP

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, the only nuclear power plant was almost ready to be operational. However, due to the discovered fault line and the coincidental explosion of the Three Mile Island which then made the project into a halt. Not in a sense to ban Nuclear Energy in our Archipelago, but there should be a more safer location, considering that the Philippines is prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruption and engineering capabilities to make the plant seismic-proof(just like the Philippine Arena) with enough area to store its waste. You have a point that the advantages were beneficial since many hated high rate of electricity bills here and we're dependable on coal and our oil reserves.

In the new draft for a new constitution, I hope that law makers allow the existence of nuclear power plants in the archipelago.

My friend from the philipines actually is interested in nuclear energy because she doesnt know a lot about it. She moved to europe when she was 8. At what age do people start to fear nuclear energy?

@@jimseldiesel1362 There's no age actually. As soon as they were told by anyone or the media about the "dangers" of it, people starts to become scared of it. This happens without knowing all the facts.

@@SirKirkKino lucky she hasnt heard much about it. It was the first person i talked about nuclear energy that didnt have an opinion about it yet, blank paper. I hope I didnt turn her into a fanatic lol.

I watched a couple of those videos after this one, and came to a different conclusion. I'm currently paused at the pebble-bed reactor until I finished the entry from Wikipedia. Apparently it was a no-go in Germany and the two test models released radioactivity, one immediately after Chernobyl.

Why don't we use the money for nuclear energy to build more renewable engergy plants. Wouldn't it be convenient since solar and onshore wind are cheaper? We should keep the plants we have (and replace them when we close them), but the rest should just be renewable engergy.

@@letssaveourplanet5738 Offshore wind is the better renewable than ones you mentioned because it can provide steady power during the evening when peak demand hits as people turn on home appliances. We also need to reduce electrical and energy consumption - conservation and efficiency. Investing in renewables doesn't do much if it can't shut down a coal plant.

@@sandal_thong8631 I know offshore wind is more efficient. I was saying that it way more expensive than onshore. Of course we need to stop using fossil fuels and we need to decrease fossil fuels and energy consumption. But I don't see why we should use Nuclear energy if we can replace it with renewables. Also, some renewables like hydro electric, offshore wind and geothermal can produce during the evening. And we could also use lithium batteries to store energy and use it when we need it. Lithium batteries price is decreasing.

@@letssaveourplanet5738 We havent find a way to recycle lithium yet. And, besides, renewable energy is increasing slower than the global consumption. To keep up with global consumption, companies use fossil fuels, nuclear energy would be better insted of fossil fuels

A few thousand died of cancer, that’s still not a big number compared to the number of years it took, but you’re miseducated.

@@epiccollision still a few Thousand, is pretty big difference from 31

@@Coreyhals doesn't even matter tho. Even if 500k died it's still probably the safest.

And the area will be a superfund site for 1000s of years. It may not acutely or obviously kill people, but it will cause all sorts of insidious health issues for eons b

@@epiccollision not quite. A few thousand were diagnosed with cancer (they aren't DEAD, they have cancer - and since thyroid cancer is very treatable, they are STILL ALIVE). The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) www.unscear.org/ has the following: * 62 dead - 47 from radiation (~30 in first few months, ~20 later), 15 from thyroid cancer * 1800 diagnosed with thyroid cancer (but living, and will likely live fairly normal lifespans) ** data unclear on how many cases due to the accident, vs background * 4000-9000 will have shorter lifespans than otherwise www.iarc.fr/media-centre/media-centre-iarc-news-chernobyl-30years/ suggests slightly different numbers (but this could be for methodological differences): * 11,000 total thyroid cancer cases ** but does not state how many were due to the accident * incidence of eye cataracts in liquidators is slightly higher than background population

Very true they cherry picked information

That’s still one accident by human error which is avoidable with newer technology. Anti nuclear is just fear mongering nonsense

It's true, there are other estimates that give around 4,000 deaths from Chernobyl radiation exposure. But the thing is, even if you multiply those 51 deaths by 100,000 - you'd still be lower than the deaths air pollution from fossil fuels causes PER YEAR. This also didn't touch on other energy disaster like for example the Banqiao water dam failure that happend just a few years before Chernobyl. The death toll is estimated to be up to 240,000, yet no one seems to remember that as particularly tragic.

@@uhohhotdog because technology clearly never goes wrong.

@@sertaki there are redundancy systems in modern installations.

But Tommy you're not qualified to be telling anybody about nuclear energy.

One of the first thing this video says is that you've been lied to about nuclear energy. I don't think this was true on my first view. But I think it is true on my second viewing, because these guys are lying.

@@sandal_thong8631 How are they lying?

@@johnwright7916 I've posted in other threads, and am not interested in a point-by-point refutation, but will edit to add when passing by. >The first lie I challenge is they said that all those nuclear plants were cancelled after Three Mile Island. But if you pause, you see several were cancelled before that due to cost overruns, low electricity demand and so forth. >Pebble reactors are discredited. Both ones in Germany leaked radioactive elements (and dust!) and were shut down according to Wikipedia.

@@sandal_thong8631 >According to Wikipedia Lost credibility there.

I disagree

@UCtRcS-mB4cz7D6DofT7Yziw bruh it was an old not proparly working power plant

These replies give me the same vibe as the ones anti vaxxers give off

Lol they deleted their replies

I think it’s a bit weird, Germany removed most of their nuclear energy because the public thought it was bad, that energy was replaced by coal fuel. It’s like a middle step between coal and completely clean energies

Almost stopped watching the video at that point, isn’t it predicted to have given thousands of people cancer

Coal power kills more people every year than all nuclear power disasters combined.

Yes that is true it is a lie I would say about 10000-50000 people died but that is because the reactor used a positive void coefficient only found in rbmk reactors( basically communist reactors) and they had graphite on the top of the control rods speeding up reactivity plus it was pushed to limits already, now we use negative void coefficients with heavy water as the moderator which is much more safe and now a meltdown is impossible in todays world, the positive void coefficient meant as there was more steam , (the void )in the core the hotter it got creating more steam making it hotter until the core reaches its limit then once they were producing all this irregular amount of power due to the steam they finally pressed the control rods in all at same time since they had taken them out originally as they were producing a irregularly low amount of power at the start of their safety test and as they put all of the graphite tipped rods in the core exploded

@@Bruh50000y I still don’t Trust the Death Count at all But Cool Trivia

@@ComfortsSpecter yah I agree the death count way off atleast 10k

do you know how much waste a nuclear power plant actually generates?

...as it was before Chernobyl and at the time of Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Kyshtym, Tokamoura, Dounreay, Santa Susana, Hanford, etc. The list goes on. You are the victim of another kind of B.S.

@@themadchemist2805 Are we talking life-cycle waste or waste produced during operation?

@@huntercornwell760 it's always in operation

@@Glidewheels not necessarily. there is still the practical implications (waste) of building a plant

Chernobyl shows us the most real danger in the world: Incompetence

Well, problem is that because it is hard to detect the long term effects of a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl, (which in this case involved the downplaying of the severity by the Soviet Government), it is quite easy to underestimate the tota casualties of the disaster. For example with Chernobyl: we will never know how many people died from cancer that originated from the Chernobyl disaster. But claiming only 53 died is a real underestimate. Anyway, todays plants are a lot safer. But the backdraw is the total time and costs it takes to build a nuclear power plant and the costs of dismanteling it. For example, the dismanteling of the nuclear plant in Sellafield is going on for decades now and costs billions.

@@rinse-esnir4010 lets go with a higher estimate of a million deaths by chernobyl, its still way safer than coal and gas powerplants. Fossil fuels are the true enemy of renewables, not nuclear. The current issue is the balance between buildspeed (which for nuclear is longer than politics supports) cleanliness (where nuclear may be the cleanest, considering often omitted manufacturing and dismantling of renewables) ROI (where nuclear falls behind the dirty coal and gas early on) and danger (where nuclear has made big strides but increasingly expensive measures out of public/political fear). It just makes financial sense to build a gas plant over a nuclear plant... At least in the short term as it starts making money faster and has less risk of being terminated before actually making power. And that's a damn shame. Renewables are the future IMO but they just arent viable everywhere and rollout is too slow to keep up with power demand. So I think the solution is to use temporary nuclear getting us to carbon neutral and then steadily decommissioning (not replacing them) as renewables get built and better.

Let's remember a little thing not mentioned in this video (at least the first half), Chernobyl has still radiation so high that no one can live there without getting sick and it will continue to be like that for at least hundreds of years

@@alenasenie6928 yea I know but it doesn’t happen often enough to be that much of a concern

I agree with u on we need nuclear my dad and uncle both worked on nuclear power plants and my dad also on a nuclear sub however nuclear is not cheap at all and that’s a main reason we don’t build any there’s no return for profit so no private companies build it so who builds it then the public does the public would have to fund it most of the time which is a lot of money to much for polititions to try to get for it I wish they would make an effort for nuclear tho

This is the most advanced lowest cost design so far. How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it? Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

Whats the episode?

I mean they demonstrated it but to say they accurately described it...the dude with the nuclear generator was portrayed as shifty and creepy, he was arrested at the end, and the characters went away thinking that they were deceived and put in danger by a strange man. It didn't even go into detail explaining how nuclear energy worked. Which, it's a kid's comedy show so I'm not saying they have to, but it can't even really be considered satire of nuclear hysteria because the narrative never showed the people scared of nuclear power as unreasonable, it showed him as a fundamentally untrustworthy, possibly unhinged person.

@@Mrjonnyjonjon123 iGoNuclear

Nuclear is the way we need to go. It’s renewable and it’s reliable

I'll simplify: nuclear power is the future, everything else is idiotic

@@photoion1 it's not renewable. You burn U235, keep U238 underground with byproducts for later use in breeder reactors. It's where you make Pu239 out of U238. They don't do it for now, because it's expensive and uranium is cheap af. * Flies away *

@@bat0rgil Hol up, ur not a worthy sauce giver hero to fly away...

@@photoion1 bro it's not renewable, it just has 0 carbon emission

Mhm

That’s good to know

@@DyslexicMitochondria I was curious about your username, so clicked on your profile. Your channel is a hidden gem bro

What about thorium reactors?

I would suggest to do more research than just one video to change your viewpoint on.

My understanding is that per unit of electricity generated, nuclear, including the lifecycle of construction, mining, decommissioning, etc., and factoring in Chernobyl and Fukushima, is comparable to solar, wind, and hydro in terms of greenhouse gases and other emissions and in terms of deaths caused (safety), and a couple of orders of magnitude better than any fossil fuel on both counts. In fact nuclear may be a little cleaner and safer than hydro, and maybe than wind or solar too once you factor in battery storage. Initial construction costs for nuclear plants are more expensive for various reasons, including safety and environmental standards that fossil fuel plants don’t have to meet, but again factoring in battery storage it might not be any more expensive than wind and solar and maybe less in the long term.

They are compared to fossil because fossil is worse for the environment and is a baseload source, unlike renewables. Nuclear is a baseload source.

​@@matthewv789 Considerably cheaper. To fully replace 1000 MW of energy, you need one standard-size nuclear reactor, like a Westinghouse AP1000, that might all up cost US$15 billion (which is a high estimate, the same amount of money has delivered four-reactor nuclear power complexes in parts of the world that aren't the US), it will give clean energy for 18 months before needing to be shut down for a week to have its fuel assemblies rearranged in the core. To achieve the same with solar power and its associated battery system would need over US$280 billion in panels, infrastructure, and batteries. Batteries and solar panels aren't going to be getting any cheaper for a while thanks to economic disruption, supply shortages of Lithium, and the realisation that most solar panels have only gotten as cheap as they are on the backs of the absolutely filthy Chinese tech industry. fb.watch/bYB0GodLIo/

Gen III+ nuclear powerplants have to handle a magnitude 9 direct hit with no prior warning. For Japan, the P wave warning system have stopped the nuclear plants every time so far. Actally saving a lot more life due to the power being cut seconds prior to the earthquake hit.

@@matthewv789 Simply tell me, are you okay with Iran, Iraq and North Korea building as many nuclear power plants as they want? Or, do you believe only the United States is entitled to build nuclear power plants? Over 2,000 nuclear *BOMBS* have been detonated with thousands more stockpiled. The material to make all existing and detonated nuclear bombs came almost entirely from nuclear power plants built for 'peaceful' purposes.

Hundred perfect

People like you maybe, but modern nation don't do that

@@SUPERTOASTERGOD are you a tankie?

@@SUPERTOASTERGOD cause you are coming off as an incredibly emotionally stable

@@SUPERTOASTERGOD I hope you eventually forgive whoever gave you your emotional scars from whatever argument you got into.

That's the fascinating thing about modern reactor concepts: many of them use what many peoply call "nuclear waste" at the moment as their fuel. The nuclear "waste" has still more than 92% of its energy in it, modern reactor types can use most of that energy. There are calculations, that say that with the nuclear wase we have (including the waste from nuclear medicine and so on, which is much more than that from energy but nobody talks about it) we can keep humanity "energyzed" for between 50 and 150 years. And the waste that is left then will radiate for a maximum of about 500 years (compared to the millions that are now on the table) So: nuclear "waste" is not a problem, it is a oportunity!

Good thing it's kept in foot-thick concrete-and-steel casks then. You'll never be confronted with it.

I used to feel that way, but then someone who was involved in the Yucca Mountain issue came and talked to my college class. He described how difficult it would be for any kind of leak to occur, and any degree of contamination was extremely unlikely. I also studied nuclear energy and molten salt reactors, and it's insane how much waste we can recycle / use until there's not much (highly) radioactive material left.

@@gtgrandom Unlikely and not occurring are not the same thing. Until we can completely account for human error there will always be a danger and radioactive doesn’t have to be highly radioactive to cause damage.

@@Fordi but guess what isn't kept in foot-thick concrete and steel casks? Carbon dioxide and monoxide!