This Environmentalist Says Only Nuclear Power Can Save Us Now

Рет қаралды 346,796

5 жыл бұрын

Michael Shellenberger believes The Green New Deal’s focus on wind and solar is a waste of time and money.
---------
Subscribe to our KZfaq channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
---------
Calling climate change an existential threat to humanity, congressional Democrats introduced a policy proposal in February called the Green New Deal, which would mandate that 100 percent of U.S. energy production come from "clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources" like wind and solar by the year 2050.
But some environmentalists say Green New Dealers are neglecting one obvious source of abundant clean energy already available: Nuclear power, which an accompanying Green New Deal FAQ explicitly states should be phased out alongside fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal.
"If you want to save the natural environment, you just use nuclear. You grow more food on less land, and people live in cities. It's not rocket science," says Shellenberger. "The idea that people need to stay poor… that's just a reactionary social philosophy that they then dress up as a kind of environmentalism."
Watch the above video to learn more about the history of nuclear energy and to hear more from Shellenberger about his case for nuclear, as well as his response to concerns about radiation, nuclear weapons, and the economic viability of nuclear energy. The video also features solar energy advocate Ed Smeloff, who served on the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District board during the shutdown of California's Rancho Seco nuclear plant and who makes the argument that nuclear power simply can't compete in the marketplace.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Alexis Garcia and Weissmueller.
This video falls under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
"Granular Orchestra" by VP Productions is licensed under a Standard License through Artisound.io.
"Intro" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
"Revenge" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License.
"Neon Riding" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
"The Night Heat" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
"Inner City Lights" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International License.
"Ana" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
"Moon" by Herr Doktor is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.
German environmentalists photo credit: Stefan Boness/Ipon/SIPA/Newscom
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez photo credit: Alex Edelman/Zuma Press/Newscom
Elon Musk photo credit: Yang Lei Xinhua News Agency/Newscom
Michael Shellenberger photo credit: James Arthur Photography/James Arthur/Newscom ID 113779354 © Vaclav Volrab | Dreamstime.com
Smokestacks photo credit: Shaun Van Steyn Stock Connection Worldwide/Newscom

Пікірлер: 5 900

@spencerftn1 5 жыл бұрын

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

@Florent-R 5 жыл бұрын

Never heard of wastes? 😅

@spencerftn1 5 жыл бұрын

@@Florent-R you mean the waste that is safely stored? The waste that would all fit in a single football field, stacked 50 feet? The waste that has never harmed anyone? That waste?

@Florent-R 5 жыл бұрын

Well try and look about Germany nuclear wastes ^^

@JohnnosaurusREX 5 жыл бұрын

@@Florent-R The waste that would be used as a fuel for newer types of nuclear reactors and therefore significantly reducing said waste? No, no new nuclear power plants are being build, however what is build, are coal power plants. But wait... those release WAY more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants (yes really, look it up). So let's take our beloved solar panels... where obviously every single panel gets nicely recycled... but wait... that would be in a dream world and because it is way cheaper to import new material we dumb a good chunk of them containing toxic materials (not for MiLLiOnS oF YeArs but toxic for the rest of eternity) in some random 3rd world country where they get scavenged by poor people with zero protection?! Let's not forget we also need to properly store A LOT of that power and the amount of toxic waste that is going to produce if you want to "go green". We can go on but the matter of fact is, the greenest, safest source of power, producing orders of magnitude less waste is nuclear. (Especially if we would be willing to build WAY more efficient and safer modern power plants)

@Florent-R 5 жыл бұрын

I'm not against nuclear power as I'm French and we have 70% from nuclear I'm just saying that we're producing wastes that will still be dangerous even thousands of generations later..

@59jm24 5 жыл бұрын

Opposition to nuclear power is a political problem, not a technical problem.

@V8_Diva 5 жыл бұрын

It's also a public view problem. People see situations like Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc. And fear that they may be the next victims of such a major nuclear disaster. It's not too crazy to think that public speculation and distrust of Nuclear energy is a big reason why they don't want it.

@vedritmathias9193 5 жыл бұрын

There's a bit of a technical problem. Cleaner and more efficient nuclear reactors, such as LFTR, have their own challenges that are show-stoppers. For example, in LFTR the molten salts are highly corrosive and will eat through most pipes. Can't very well make a reactor if you can't stop it from eating itself

@chrisfowler623 5 жыл бұрын

@@V8_Diva Exactly. If you review the actual reactor built Chernobyl, review the reactors in Fukushima and reactors that we have today that are also a little dated. You'll find that science and technology have improved over the years. Go look at M.I.T University reactor. Yes, there's always room for catastrophic disaster within a nuclear power plant. But what people fail to understand as they did during the Cold War, it's not going to be like a atomic bomb going off. Nowadays the Federal nuclear committee reviews worst-case scenarios to better prepare for recovery process if that happens. With trying to factor in no human life being lost or leaking out into the environment around them.

@harrisc8101 5 жыл бұрын

In my nuclear maintenance training I learned of the 10,000 gallon tanks of neutron absorbing molten Sodium Pentaborate. An explosive charge detonated a valve flooding the reactors and stopping fission. Not once have they been used. Instead the world has been left with radiation leaks into the environment endlessly. Things are designed this way to kill all of you, me and everyone else on the surface. No debate is important beyond what to do about it. At the end of the day nothi g else matters because a dead foodchain produces dead people.

@harrisc8101 5 жыл бұрын

I think I would call a nuclear meltdown a technical problem.

@Opinionteer 3 жыл бұрын

I worked at a nuclear power plant for 30 years. I was in construction building it and then went in house working at it. Best career ever with opportunity around every corner. Is it exacting? Yes. Is it safe? Yes. Does it pay good? Yes. We are crazy not to build more.

@infinitsai 3 жыл бұрын

Can you talk more about it?

@Opinionteer 3 жыл бұрын

@@infinitsai What would you like to know?

@infinitsai 3 жыл бұрын

@@Opinionteer what the in house job consists and what kind of opportunities around?

@loganjett3474 3 жыл бұрын

Another point of sheer possibility that nuclear reactors have

@newguy3588 3 жыл бұрын

The expenses due to government regulation is insane. Reducing research because of a stupid movie after 3 mile island is insane. Same problems we have today. MSM telling dumb people how to think. Fukushima had 0 direct deaths due to a tsunami exposure. Most of it was due to poor (and unnecessary) execution of an evacuation. Not to mention there are other, safer, reactors that have been developed.

@simonbroddle754 4 жыл бұрын

"The urge to save the planet is almost always a false front for the urge to rule". Not sure who wrote this but they got it about right.

@frederickarchibaldchumly-w2163 4 жыл бұрын

Agenda 21 again.

@comment6864 3 жыл бұрын

To think the commie revolution in Russia in 1917 had it as their goal to literally rule the world. They were not interested in the least bit in the country itself, it was just a platform off of which they were to launch the world commie revolution and turn the whole world into one big commune, with them in power of course. Now, a century later, certain idiots on the opposite side of the globe call this 'progressive', instead of laughing at it. LOL

@langhamp8912 3 жыл бұрын

The US was wise to export industrial jobs to third world countries, who can then pollute to their hearts content without effecting us.

@yidiandianpang 3 жыл бұрын

Seeking for meaning while not being qualified to actually solve things

@MDAdams72668 3 жыл бұрын

@@langhamp8912 LOL that was funny you think pollution there is better than here NIMBY no matter where the pollution is created it still on earth(the one and only planet we can currently live on

@taddawesome 5 жыл бұрын

those are not exhaust towers, they are cooling towers. only water comes out of there

@kolelokaram8541 5 жыл бұрын

Well, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. (I am kidding. That point is rather silly.)

@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi 5 жыл бұрын

@@kolelokaram8541 we should ban oceans then

@njineermike 5 жыл бұрын

@@johnperic6860 Dont give them any ideas

@volka2199 5 жыл бұрын

@@njineermike Too late if the government hears they can tax something they will keep trying to until they succeed.

@njineermike 5 жыл бұрын

@@volka2199 True

@Medulan45 5 жыл бұрын

"It's not rocket science." No duh. It's nuclear physics. :P

@leerman22 5 жыл бұрын

It's much harder than rocket science. There really needs to be a Kerbal Space Program of nuclear reactor design where you can do some stupid nuclear shit like throwing together a critical pile just to see what happens, or actually build an extremely safe and efficient powerplant. Children of a dead earth has rudimentary nuclear reactor design system for your space warships, weapons, and engines. You have to adjust sliders to build the powerplant, radiators, and make sure the control rods can make the reactor above and below criticality.

@AvNotasian 3 жыл бұрын

@@leerman22 Man that sounds like a fun little game. An issue with reactor layout is depending on how you lay it out you get incomplete fission of the fuel cell and then all that energy you could have used is wasted until its reprocessed.

@leerman22 3 жыл бұрын

@@AvNotasian Solid fuel reactors have a portion of their fuel shuffled, a portion removed, and a portion new, to minimize waste every refueling. I think each fuel assembly is also purpose-built for its place in the reactor.

@AvNotasian 3 жыл бұрын

@@leerman22 I know that the french have worked out they can use freshly fuelled reactors for load following but as the fuel gets used up they become inflexible in their power output. I never thought that the assemblies could be altered though I just assumed it was fuel rods, control rods and the fixed components. Did you learn all this from that game?

@leerman22 3 жыл бұрын

@@AvNotasian There is no game with that amount of detail that I know of. IRL assemblies have the enrichment level tailored for their future placements. A cubic centimeter voxel simulation may be possible with GPU acceleration to run a simulation game like this. There's this voxel engine kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l6eXibaF19eyf5c.html and I would think some pseudo neutron physics can be implied, I'd imagine just "zones" of neutron flux caused by certain material's cross-section (assuming large enough) creating "heat" that must be removed.

@ozzyfromspace 4 жыл бұрын

The amount of uranium in a coca-cola can could provide you with enough energy to live your whole life. Wow, I had no idea it was that much, I'm shook.

@MattG-wl2zj 3 жыл бұрын

Quite shooketh myself too

@lucyditee 3 жыл бұрын

So if I drink a lot of Coca-Cola I can ain superpowers?!?!?! - - - - - - - Don't worry it's a joke

@loganjett3474 3 жыл бұрын

It's actually even less if you were to use thorium in a LFTR'S reactor since thorium is far more energy efficient than uranium

@Robertx19 2 жыл бұрын

1 small pellet about the size of a lego could power a neighborhood for roughly a week

@teenagestacker6063 3 жыл бұрын

I agree, I was called a nature hater in my science class because I think that Nuclear Power is the way to go. 🌲 🌳 🇨🇦

@zeehero7280 2 жыл бұрын

You are more of a nature lover than anyone else in that class. Nuclear is way more environmentally friendly than any actually viable method of making power (Protip wind and solar arent part of that in most of the world)

@larrydugan1441 Жыл бұрын

Sounds like a Canadian education.

@bex-- 5 жыл бұрын

We are sitting on practically infinite energy and because of fear mongering we're too scared to use it.

@damondziewiontkowski5623 5 жыл бұрын

It really amazes me. Nuclear energy was ruined by lazy and stupid governments, and was the only real threat to oil companies. Oil companies lobby the shady governments that ruined nuclear and funded environmental groups to remove logic from the conversation. Now, governments charge thier populations a carbon tax for existing, and environmental groups are actually surpressing thier stated goals and actually making things much worse. We truly live in the upside down.

@damondziewiontkowski5623 5 жыл бұрын

@@wyattb.5085 you are completely missing the point. Those accidents were cause by being cheap and lazy. The Chernobyl disaster was a lesson on how to cause a meltdown, nothing else. If climate change is a real issue as everyone believes, getting nuclear energy right is not an option. Until fusion hits power positive, we are doomed without it.

@cathymccarthy8258 5 жыл бұрын

@@wyattb.5085 most nuclear plants have went through how many hurricanes on the east coast... lmao fear mongering

@Timurkani 5 жыл бұрын

@@wyattb.5085 did u even watch the video?

@DM-it2jp 5 жыл бұрын

@@wyattb.5085 coal emmits more radiation than nuclear energy ever has buddy. Besides the largest nuclear meltdown we had in the u.s., Three mile island, gave off only a few milirems of radiation. That's the size of a chest x-ray. Chernobyl happened because the reactors were flawed and the USSR was cheap. Fukushima was built on the coast for some reason even though Japan always has tsunamis. Most nuclear accidents are caused by human error and laziness.

@itshappeningmaybe 5 жыл бұрын

@ReasonTV It's really not proper to call them "exhaust towers". They're cooling towers.

@attaque71 5 жыл бұрын

itshappeningmaybe that'll show you how much regular people know about nuclear

@47Yeoman 5 жыл бұрын

Exactly - they emit water vapor.

@foxbodyblues6709 5 жыл бұрын

Plenty of other mistakes in this video...”meltdowns”???? I don’t think so

@njineermike 5 жыл бұрын

@@47Yeoman I love ot when morons call it air pollution. It's just a cloud.

@jameshumphrey9939 5 жыл бұрын

or killer towers would be a good name for them

@arnabmitra923 3 жыл бұрын

I do not understand the widespread misinformation about high half life nuclear waste. High half lives are GOOD, because they release their energy over a very long period of time and do not cause severe effects on anyone. Its the low half life stuff that causes nasty stuff like radiation poisoning because they release their energy in a short period of time. Moreover, the spent nuclear fuel people are so skeptic of can be used in next generation reactors and be eliminated as well.

@jackfanning7952 3 жыл бұрын

Oh, plutonium is not dangerous , eh? Snicker, snort! What did Glen Seaborg have to say about that?

@willerwin3201 3 жыл бұрын

@@jackfanning7952 Plutonium is chemically nasty, and its radioactive hazard depends on the isotope. Getting to the OP's question though, the tricky thing about nuclear waste isn't the stuff with high half lives, like U-239. It's stuff with half-lives measured in years, decades, or centuries. That intermediate range is short enough to make it a radioactive hazard, and long enough that it doesn't go away quickly. These are the isotopes that require a long-term storage plan, and they are typically high actinides. You are correct that some types of reactors (especially fast reactors) can burn this high-actinide waste.

@benadams5557 3 жыл бұрын

Or we could just load it onto a falcon heavy and yet it into space

@jackfanning7952 3 жыл бұрын

@@benadams5557 Have you always had such brilliant ideas or just since you came down with Alzheimers? What type of containment will you use on the space capsule for this highly radioactive material? Will it be lead or 12" of steel and ten feet of concrete like reactors? We have 700,000 tons of spent fuel in the U.S, more elsewhere. How many spacecraft launches should we plan for? What about the 300,000,000 tons of radioactive tailings? What happens if a space ship blows up on the launch pad or 5 miles above Miami? Oopsie daisy.

@gunnarkaestle 3 жыл бұрын

@@willerwin3201 Good point about the mid-range (not hours and days, but also not millions and billions of years), that was also the danger of the cobalt bombs: as gamma emitter highly penetrating, so you need to bunker if it is around in high quantities, and it does not go away in a few months.

@mantasr 3 жыл бұрын

The "ewok life" trope is something I've been telling people - you think energy saving lights or switching to a bike will save the world - NO. They want you to live the life of a peasant, while they live in luxury.

@latentpotential4520 3 жыл бұрын

Yeah! Because we peasants hate bikes, and paying less for electricity!

@Andrew-ep4kw 5 жыл бұрын

so AOC said flooded farms will never come back again? This shows she knows nothing about floods.

@TheInevercomment 5 жыл бұрын

Salt water flooding is what she means

@mikeg4972 4 жыл бұрын

She knows nothing about anything.

@hardworker5588 4 жыл бұрын

remove the words "about floods" . . . and then we've refined it down to the ultimate accurate description of the bug-eyed creature from PLANET DYSTOPIA

@MisterTrotts 4 жыл бұрын

salt contamination goes away?

@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 4 жыл бұрын

or farms.....or anything really. I'm amazed she knows how to breathe without a recording telling her to.

@joelhjd 5 жыл бұрын

There should be a trigger warning for the opening scene. The last thing I expected when I opened this was AOCs shrill voice echoing through my surround sound speaker system.

@charris5700 5 жыл бұрын

Seriously...should be required to put the warning in the title.

@sawderf741 3 жыл бұрын

The environmentalists that try to stop nuclear are like drowning victims who pull the rescuer underwater.

@protorhinocerator142 3 жыл бұрын

@Air Conditioner Exactly. And sometimes the only way to save them is to knock them unconscious so they don't kill themselves and you.

@loganjett3474 3 жыл бұрын

@@protorhinocerator142 sometimes you just have to drag them along with you to show them you only mean to help

@coreyham3753 3 жыл бұрын

Great video .... hope he is successful.

@zeehero7280 2 жыл бұрын

Worse. a drowning victim who tries to pull the rescuer underwater does it because of blind panic. these activists do it becuase they arent pro environment at all, they are anti human progress.

@todo9633 4 жыл бұрын

With the money invested in renewable energy we could have replaced all of our nuclear reactors with Gen 4 reactors and cracked fusion.

@snakeinabox7220 3 жыл бұрын

They did crack fusion. A fusion reactor is in the proses of beaing made rn.... It is supesed to be done by 2025

@joekng9924 3 жыл бұрын

@@snakeinabox7220 If you speak the same way that you spell, you would be in a special education class.

@snakeinabox7220 3 жыл бұрын

@@joekng9924 I.... It was 5 am and I'm sorry IL fix it

@gunnarkaestle 3 жыл бұрын

With the money invested in nuclear power, I wonder why Gen 4 reactors are not market ready yet.

@snakeinabox7220 3 жыл бұрын

@@gunnarkaestle cuss they are sacred of nuclear , the polatiotions have no idea what they are dealing with so they fear the monsters from decades ago , Chernobyl was a mistake but modern reactors are so much safer and Look at france it makes 70ish% of its power via nuclear

@SociallyTriggered 5 жыл бұрын

I was a physics major in university and worked at a nuclear lab. The industry has been given a bad name unjustly. Nuclear is the cleanest and safest form of energy we have today. The problem is there is no political will to develop it.

@jackfanning7952 3 жыл бұрын

The industry has given itself a bad name. It is its own worst enemy. We don't have to show what a monumental failure it has been. The nuclear industry has been a shit show from the beginning. And the shit will keep killing for longer than mankind has been in existence. Why don't you do something useful, like clean out pig pens for a living.

@SociallyTriggered 3 жыл бұрын

@@jackfanning7952 You really need to look into the science. Nuclear remains the safest and cleanest form of energy we have.

@jackfanning7952 3 жыл бұрын

@@SociallyTriggered I looked into to it during my entire career as an industrial hygienist. I provided consulting work for the Savannah River plant. I have read extensively about it, and listened to many conferences and seminars dealing with nuclear energy. I find the claims of the nuclear industry to be dishonest and their tactics to try to silence dissent criminal. The best evidence against nuclear energy is its track record. and waste legacy. Some might say its is an economic disaster, and I agree but that is going to get worse when we have to deal finally with the burgeoning waste issue or die.

@SociallyTriggered 3 жыл бұрын

@@jackfanning7952 You should look into the French nuclear power program. Their reactors are 100% safe and are much more efficient then the old reactors used in the US. They even can use the waste products from US reactors as fuel. The waste from reactors is what we use to fight cancer. There will always be some unusable waste though but the quantities are much smaller (I mean way less) then other forms of energy. As well, storing the waste isn't as big of problem as people make it sound. Remember other forms of energy also produce toxic waste. Solar being the worst polluter.

@jackfanning7952 3 жыл бұрын

@@SociallyTriggered I have looked at the French nuclear program, including La Hague, which no longer has any international customers for its reclaimed plutonium, and ITER, which says it can solve the fusion reactor problems by 2035 if we just keep the loot from the $65 billion budget rolling in. However, they haven't funded any research to solve the problem of neutron bombardment destroying the vessel fusion is contained in. The fusion reaction isn't an issue, since we have the sun 95,000,000 miles away and the WWII bomb. It is trying not to destroy everything in close proximity with it. I also know that the majority of the French people want their government to move away from nuclear and the French government has agreed to reduce its reliance on nuclear (which may be a lie). All nukies lie every time they open their mouths. I also know that recent research has discovered that the vitrification of radioactive waste breaks down within 100 years. That tricky waste problem keeps rearing its ugly head, doesn't it? BTW. They don't have enough solar panels to recycle because they are good for about 80 years. But once they need to, it ain't hard. The cadmium, lead, gallium, arsenide, diselinide, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, acetone, sulfuric and nitric acid used in production is recycled in the U.S. In China and the Philippines it is not dealt with responsibly, just like nuclear waste in those countries. Storing spent nuclear fuel that will be radioactive for longer than mankind has been in existence in open pools and casks that, accordinguseful to the manufacturer have a life span of 10-30 years is a problem. About another problem: did you know that it takes 1,000,000 pounds of 0.1% uranium ore to produce 7 lbs. of U-235. The tailings are acidic andstill contain most of the radioactivity. None of these tailings from mining and milling waste has been safely stored since commercial nuclear production began. Nuclear reactors become brittle after 40 years. That is why they should be decommissioned. It cost about $500,000 to decommission the average reactor. Reactors with leaks (and they all leak) will cost a lot more and be much more radioactive - $$$$$$$$. Maybe that is why they are not decommissioning them. When they get so brittle and broken-down that they are too expensive to operate, they are just lock the gate and abandon them. Sizzle, sizzle, boil and fissile. By the way, there is no "100% safe and much more efficient" new reactors.

@morescodesup2087 5 жыл бұрын

“It’s not rocket science” I hope that was on purpose

@ThePbZepplin 5 жыл бұрын

Well it's definitely not brain surgery.

@elinope4745 5 жыл бұрын

There are some countries that are more equal than other, and deserve to be cut down with rockets.

@bluesader8 4 жыл бұрын

*Grabs a bag of popcorn while reading comments* -Nuclear Engineer/Reactor Operator

@Hashishin13 3 жыл бұрын

Stop eating popcorn and make us some damn reactors!

@Jemalacane0 3 жыл бұрын

You're an unsung hero of energy.

@mrg8317 3 жыл бұрын

And its beautiful to see

@calvinroyals6463 3 жыл бұрын

Nuclear Mechanical Systems Inspector for the DOD/DON. I hear ya.

@bluesader8 3 жыл бұрын

@Elizabeth Allen So, only those who aren’t invested and know nothing about nuclear should speak on it? You don’t exactly become an expert on something without being invested in it.

@TheAurgelmir 3 жыл бұрын

It's Watermelon Environmentalism: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

@Merecir 3 жыл бұрын

With small brown seeds.

@Tangent360 5 жыл бұрын

"If you were to take ALL of the batteries in California, including all the batteries in our cars, and you were to use them to back up our electricity, you would still have less than 30 minutes of electricity backed up." That's a pretty significant statistic many hard-core supporters of solar might not know about. Not to mention that area on the map that Elon Musk shows takes advantage of people not being good at judging scales on maps. It would take roughly 21,250 square miles of solar panels to meet the electricity requirements of the US. As a comparison, the total square mile area of the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Washington DC, Miami, London, Tokyo, Berlin, Paris, Moscow, Mumbai, and Manila *combined* is barely over 4,000 square miles...

@hudsonb631 5 жыл бұрын

Okay.. and the area of the US is 3,800,000 Square Miles. so 21250 square miles divided by 3.8 million square miles is less then 1% of the area of the US. Makes sense to me.

@-morrow 5 жыл бұрын

That quote describes a metric, not a statistic.

@langhamp8912 5 жыл бұрын

The article you quoted without giving the source is www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/ which is on the high end, but 10,000 is the lower end, which can be met by putting solar just on the roofs of houses. In comparison, 1/3 to 40% of city land is devoted just to automobile parking. www.fastcompany.com/90202222/heres-how-much-space-u-s-cities-waste-on-parking These parking spaces aren't used 90% of the time (see above); we could simply lay down slightly thicker solar panels that you can park on without breaking them, and then meet all your energy needs. Those parking spaces aren't doing anything right now.

@XPortersraygunX 5 жыл бұрын

@@langhamp8912 building a roof over the spaces would likely be easier as you then could use sun tracking panels. also no car resistant panel development would be needed. No need to worry about the considerable loss of energy due to the cars parked on the panels either.

@langhamp8912 5 жыл бұрын

@@XPortersraygunX The reason I wouldn't bother putting a roof over the parking lot is because parking lots spaces are unused 80% of the time. I'm just trying to say that since parking lots go unused most of the time, and they usually aren't tolled, then let's use that space for something that's productive. The extra strength required might be a problem.

@thoughtcriminal3843 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium/LFTR seems like the best energy solution to me, safe, cheap and abundant energy. India and China are building thorium reactors for their domestic energy markets.

@rutilans4246 5 жыл бұрын

@ Im all in for Thorium LFTR. And we need nuclear power because we cant use only renewables like you said. But some countries dont want Thorium reactors beacuse it will cost. OF COURSE it will cost, but at the long run it will be great if the population on earth will increase. The globalwarming. More power will be drawn from AC, fans etc so you can have a lower temp house than 30 °C ( 86°F)

@philipp8803 5 жыл бұрын

@ doesnt thorium / liquid salt have big operational problems? an economic thorium reactor is at the moment only a theory. hopefully it works out though. nuclear power FTW!

@gibster9624 5 жыл бұрын

Only thing is they aren't building anything. They are having to still learn to unleash the potential thorium salt nuclear reactors could have.

@Jawshuah 5 жыл бұрын

Im down for all Nuclear energy not just Thorium. We should build nuclear power plants while waiting for a functional thorium reactor to come online.

@Merecir 3 жыл бұрын

@Pilau BEAN Flicker It is a material issue then, and the solution for that is called research.

@MeanBeanComedy 4 жыл бұрын

When he says no one is stopping you from going off the grid, that's not exactly right. Some municipalities will fine you for going off the grid. Especially if you're self-sufficient. They start to get hungry for all that living you're doing without them getting their "cut."

@jamesjacob9632 4 жыл бұрын

First fitness, now here. Where will I see you next???

@MeanBeanComedy 4 жыл бұрын

@@jamesjacob9632 Literally anywhere--I spend way too much time here and comment on everything I watch. Trying to become the next "Justin Y!" So, idk, maybe music tutorials or Nerdwriter Video Essays?

@jtc1947 4 жыл бұрын

@@jamesjacob9632 From what I have seen and read, MEAN BEAN is correct. If You are not connected to "convenient" electrical service, You might be fined or have to pay FEES no matter what. I read a story ( credible source) where a guy in CA was qualified to install SOLAR PANELS on his house. NO JOY! He had to pay an outside contractor to do the job? THAT should be a warning for PEOPLE trying DIY. I seem to remember that in FL, that You must be connected to municipal power and SOLAR need NOT apply.

@latentpotential4520 3 жыл бұрын

@@jtc1947 This is the problem with an anecdote like this, there are a lot of questions. If he qualified for Solar, that would mean he consulted with a contractor, so logically he would use them, no? If you are applying for some kind of Government subsidy or tax credit, yeah, you are subject to all the fine print when you install your panels, not sure why that is a big shocker/deal. If you don't want the red tape, then just install them yourself, forego the credits, and quit complaining. If you want to sell your house, don't be surprised when it is inspected and they find out you did not get any of your permits. Electricity is dangerous, and more so in a region like CA where fires are a massive problem. If Johnny Dumbass does it incorrectly, he could start a fire that causes far more damage than just burning down his own house.

@timsuniverse9364 3 жыл бұрын

@@jtc1947 you got to change the local laws, there are too many nimbys.

@matthewconnor5483 4 жыл бұрын

People forget just how good the Navy's record is when it comes to nuclear energy. It would be great to see the reactor tech in ships get converted into modular reactor system for use in power plants. Something I never hear people talk about is nuclear pulse power. After WWII there was all kinds of research being done like Project Orion and other programs to use nuclear energy in peaceful applications like space travel. I remember reading about one proposal to detonate nuclear devices in underground salt caverns filled with water and then using the steam produced from the heat to run turbines to turn generators. Every few days you'd chuck a bomb down the well to keep the temps up. As warheads scale up they tend to get more efficient and produce less fall out, so ironic the bomb could actually be the cleanest source of nuclear power.

@thescottsman1996 3 жыл бұрын

I remember reading about the Orion Drive in Sci-fi. you put a big plate behind your spaceship, and chuck a bomb out the back and ride the wave.

@matthewconnor5483 3 жыл бұрын

@@thescottsman1996 the Orion Drive is one of the few technologies that would let us reach a fraction of the speed of light.

@SpikeyKactus 3 жыл бұрын

It's already being developed for SMRs !

@emperorcorning8329 5 жыл бұрын

They're certainly not a permanent solution, but it kills me to see environmentalists shoot down some of our best options at survival because "wHaT aBOuT cHeRnoByL??!!1"

@OompaL0ompa 5 жыл бұрын

Not chernobyl is the problem because chernobyl is a man made desaster.fukushima is the problem. Nature can kill us with those stupid power plants as her weapons

@samuel-xz8ry 5 жыл бұрын

@@OompaL0ompa buuu another "whAt aBouT fuKuShima!??" Person

@OompaL0ompa 5 жыл бұрын

@tork'n Buuu another stupid ass person who doesnt think more than two steps ahead.take your parents and drawn them in one of those nuclear waste water tanks in fukushima

@westelaudio943 4 жыл бұрын

@@OompaL0ompa Chernobyl was a very crappy Soviet design and Fukushima was built in an eathquake zone... This doesn't apply to all nuclear reactors at all...

@OompaL0ompa 4 жыл бұрын

@westel audio what about floods, hurricanes,tornadoes. What about a virus starts to kill humans, do we have enough nuclear power defenders who have the knowledge to turn them off before they go critic? If you like chess and think more than one step ahead, you realize that nuclear is nothing but cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. $ $ $

@keithbarnett3055 5 жыл бұрын

Damn it, Reason! Twenty-one minute video and not a single mention of Gen 3 or Gen 4 nuclear. Really?!

@gnomechomsky2524 5 жыл бұрын

Can you sum up for me what those mean?

@toasterbathboi6298 5 жыл бұрын

Inferior K basically cleaner and more efficient. I believe some of the newer gens can also run on the spent fuel from older reactors, but I’m not sure.

@keithbarnett3055 5 жыл бұрын

@@gnomechomsky2524 For more complete info, google the key words "Generation 4 nuclear". How Gen 3 and Gen 4 nuclear relate to this video and why it's a shame Reason didn't include at least some of the info, deals directly with the potential safety issues with nuclear. The reason "pun intended" why there is still a meltdown safety risk is because regulations in the U.S. have frozen the technology in the 1960s! It's been 50+ years since the first reactors and there have been many advances in safety and efficiency since then, but we can't implement any of them. Other countries have had the chance to iterate the technology to make it safer, bringing other countries to much safer Generation 3 tech and research into even safer Gen 4 is showing real promise. Some of the Gen 4 designs have the additional benefit of *using* the nuclear waste from older models.

@0MVR_0 5 жыл бұрын

Yes really because they are not widely constructed across the globe and the traditional reactors still dominate the industry.

@SpiraSpiraSpira 5 жыл бұрын

Inferior K many generation 4 reactors are passively safe, or fail safe in engineering terms. Molten salt reactors work by having the fuel be a liquid instead of a rod - if the reactor begins to melt down it will melt a safety plug made of ice at the bottom of the reactor which drains the fuel into a storage area whose geometry makes it impossible for continuing fission events to occur at any dangerous levels. Currently used reactors rely on active water cooling to ensure safety, so if all pumps fail or you run out of power/backups to operate them you get what happened in Fukushima. If Fukushima had been a MSR it would have failed safely.

@MarinelliBrosPodcast 3 жыл бұрын

In the words of Homer Simpson: Thank you lord for Nuclear power, the cleanest, safest electricity apart from solar which is just a pipe dream.

@gunnarkaestle 3 жыл бұрын

Actually it is like fusion power where you only have to build the blanket that captures the energy from the fission reaction. I would say that this is much cheaper while using a working reactor in a safe distance even if the power density is lower.

@lhaviland8602 4 жыл бұрын

Musk is an absolute clown. That square is the size of New Jersey! I laughed so hard when GM blew him out of the water last week.

@anandsuralkar2947 3 жыл бұрын

What lol... Tesla's gonna rule with trillion $in next 8-9years just watch

@aaronbirook4367 3 жыл бұрын

@@anandsuralkar2947 Enron

@drano551 5 жыл бұрын

Clicks on recommendation *AOC yelling* Me: Throws phone

@Alex-mn5rs 5 жыл бұрын

Drano Clicks on recommendation AOC yelling Me: drinks drano

@bogdanungureanu8655 4 жыл бұрын

thank you for this comment

@NunYa953 4 жыл бұрын

😂

@ecaesar614 4 жыл бұрын

You are doing one for the team, man. The true MVP

@mexicoshanty 4 жыл бұрын

I don't understand the hate for AOC. She's passionate but she isn't stupid; at least not compared to her peers. We don't have renowned scientists as politicians...

@tedarcher9120 5 жыл бұрын

Oh no, somebody noticed obvious solution!

@JamesThomas-pj2lx 5 жыл бұрын

right....... a doi..........so obvious, its so silly we ignore the clear solution.

@tedarcher9120 5 жыл бұрын

@@LuggageStardate LoL. That's why the cost of nuclear energy is lowest i guess. And 200 deaths in last 50 years is aweful, compared to 20% increase in death rate because of coal mining and hundreds of people dying each year in coal mines explosions

@CallsignVega 5 жыл бұрын

@@LuggageStardate lol the amount of energy used to extract uranium ore is like an infinitesimal fraction of the power releasable by nuclear reactors. I think you need to go back to 7th grade science class.

@phamnuwen9442 5 жыл бұрын

@@LuggageStardate you are fake news.

@mosel2580 5 жыл бұрын

@@LuggageStardate looking google maps I can see that neither Fukushima or any town near the Fukushima nuclear power plant is abandoned

@LovingPrinceTamayuki 4 жыл бұрын

In the process of trying to fix something we end up making it worse. Moral of the story: don't use government to fix things, use government to ruin things.

@atlas2296 3 жыл бұрын

Im confused on what this comment is about, are you for Nuclear or against it?

@Kurtlane 3 жыл бұрын

The whole argument about different sources of energy reminds me of the old joke: -- You have an illness? Eat that herb. -- That herb is idolatry. Say a prayer. -- Prayer is superstition. Have some bloodletting. -- Bloodletting is imbecility. Take a pill. -- That pill doesn't work any more. Eat that herb.

@CerebrumMortum 5 жыл бұрын

It is KNOWN for YEARS that Nuclear power is the best environmental solution

@shanerooney7288 5 жыл бұрын

xkcd.com/1162/

@shanerooney7288 5 жыл бұрын

@Jack Rabbit . Do you want him to do the same thing for every other fuel source as well, or just Uranium? But really who cares. So long as Uranium doesn't use up 99.9999993948% of its energy via turning it into more energy, Uranimum STILL is the better option than all of those other listed fuel sources. Even without giving them the same treatment as Uranium. Oh, and 99.9999993948% wasn't just an arbitrary number. I calculated the difference between Uranium and its next closest rival (gasoline).

@leerman22 5 жыл бұрын

@Jack Rabbit The energy returned on energy invested is about 80 for traditional nuclear plants that don't recycle their waste, on par with the EROEI of coal. Centrifugal enrichment isn't really that bad. If you had a molten salt breeder reactor (or any breeder) you don't need any enrichment after the initial fissile inventory is satisfied; they turn fertile material into fissile material for fuel using spare neutrons. The EROEI approaches 2000!

@CerebrumMortum 5 жыл бұрын

@Kytsche Everyone with even a Bachelor training in the Energy field.

@jameshumphrey9939 5 жыл бұрын

no, it is known for years that alternative energies are the best solution it's just that since Reagan we went in the wrong direction to ignoring the downsides of environmental impacts to cheap fossil, fule energy this is a very poor solution to the future generations for cleaner alternative energies in a sustainable society nuclear is not sustainable

@92bagder 5 жыл бұрын

should have thrown in The Simpsons for more examples of anti nuclear propaganda

@jameshumphrey9939 5 жыл бұрын

only a human could think a toxic material produced is good for the environment or people

@joelhjd 5 жыл бұрын

James Humphrey Only a human could think anything about nuclear technology. And only a human could care either way.

@Arcayenneist 5 жыл бұрын

@@jameshumphrey9939 You mean like the locations where all the rare-earth minerals for wind turbines and solar panels are mined in China that have forced evacuations and health-problems for Chinese people, killing numerous lakes and creating dark-gray wastelands?

@BradleyZS 3 жыл бұрын

I feel like wind and solar should be for personal use: off the grid charging / when there's an outage for emergency. Then the bulk of power coming from nuclear, with a couple other types to start things back up if they go down. (stuff like dams if it makes them cheaper to maintain via offsetting it with hydro power production)

@atlas2296 3 жыл бұрын

Nuclear power is more of a temporary solution until Solar, Wind, and Hydro can cover the complete energy demand, because there is only a limited amount of Uranium, and Thorium, and other Nuclear material in the crust, but its enough until either Fusion is way way better or for the rest to cover the demand. Keep in mind im not against Nuclear Power, i'm all for it, but i'm just stating the facts as I see them

@BradleyZS 3 жыл бұрын

@@atlas2296 solar and wind are more unreliable. If they can make nuclear reactors that are in essence a mini suns (nuclear fusion) it's a more direct usage of 'solar power'. I doubt solar and wind are truly the final goal since there will still be things like submarines and other large ships that aren't able to rely on massive batteries or waiting until the sun rises. Then there is also things like space travel, sure they can use solar while in our solar system, but since we as humans will likely at some point want to go beyond (or even at the edges where the sun is less potent) we would be needing something like nuclear power. So I can't really see those forms of power as an end result; perhaps for the citizens having panels on their roof and a battery to go through the night that will be their end of power, but for pushing the boundaries of our world and beyond they will obviously need something that can perform. There's also there the factor of the mental needed for making new panels and wind turbines, that is also not an infinite resource so if we start running low on such things, or it just gets harder to attain them, a long lasting, high efficiency power like nuclear (fusion) would be the more cost effective in the end.

@atlas2296 3 жыл бұрын

@@BradleyZS I think overall Fusion, Solar, Wind, or Hydro is our final goal and Space Travel can be fusion powered, but Nuclear isn't able to last forever so its only temporary

@BradleyZS 3 жыл бұрын

@@atlas2296 they are fine for this planet, but renewables are still 'fuel' in the sense they will run out eventually. Which is what I mean when they won't be the final result, even if they perfect solar, wind, and hydro there will still likely be inovations in other forms especially as we start running out of the means to store that power.

@moparty4409 3 жыл бұрын

I lived in Georgia. The most the power plant ever did was make the water warmer.

@k3th.b.w122 3 жыл бұрын

Probably a good thing 🤔

@timsuniverse9364 3 жыл бұрын

If the power plants are not making the water hotter then you ain't making steam that is needed to turn the generators to make the electricity.

@THATMOFODIRT 5 жыл бұрын

People have invested a lot of money into “green” energy. That’s why they’re pushing for it. Follow the money.

@atlas2296 3 жыл бұрын

But also because Nuclear energy is among the safest forms of energy and has 0 carbon emissions but sure, its all about the money

@cassidychambers8816 5 жыл бұрын

I live in a county with a nuclear reactor not only is our electricity cheap but the plant itself produced a lot of high paying jobs for my county.

@FerdinandMadsen 5 жыл бұрын

Cassidy Chambers Jobs > Earth

@jyoung5256 5 жыл бұрын

France?

@MisterCOM 5 жыл бұрын

@@FerdinandMadsen earth? The earth has radiation all around it and in t

@Aaron16211 5 жыл бұрын

Good. But if we were to build the next generation of nuclear plant it would be completely uneconomic. Which is why no utilities are building new nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Warren Buffet is investing more in wind, solar PV and grid batteries. The average cost now is $30 - $36 US/MWhr.

@Itsatz0 5 жыл бұрын

Cheap? Your children will have to monitor your waste for 500,000 years. You fuckin idiot.

@ragnarok7976 3 жыл бұрын

It's the same issue with those water condensers. The places that have a bunch of free water hanging around in the air usually aren't hard up for water.

@trenchtierstudios554 3 жыл бұрын

If we actually work on developing thorium reactors; then we'll have safe clean power with safe clean waste.

@gondalfthewizard 3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but then there wouldn't be safe clean elections for politicians lying about wanting to solve the problem

@Player_Review 5 жыл бұрын

Nuclear power is very clean. My father was the technical director for OSHA for decades and told me he would very willingly live next door to a nuclear reactor.

@rkb6783 5 жыл бұрын

Then why didn't he ?

@jimmyjohn8008 5 жыл бұрын

I would be more willing to live next to a nuclear plant rather then a coal plant. Coal plants emit more radiation then anything else we could experience a regular basis other then really long airplane trips because the atmosphere is so thin it can't protect us from the radiation from space.

@NoedigJK471 5 жыл бұрын

@@rkb6783 Because he would, which doesn't mean he could, jackass.

@MilwaukeeF40C 5 жыл бұрын

@@jimmyjohn8008 My decorating style would better complement a view of a coal plant than a nuclear plant. I love industrial shit.

@liesdamnlies3372 5 жыл бұрын

I’ve found it kinda amusing that the levels of radiation released into the environment from reactors is typically at undetectable levels, so engineers need to infer how much is released from other data to satisfy regulations. Meanwhile, coal power exists.

@TheFoxSaid 5 жыл бұрын

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors (LFTR) Problem solved

@hypergraphic 5 жыл бұрын

TheFoxSaid Absolutely! It’s a real tragedy that the work on liquid fuel reactors was stopped. If even a portion those billions invested in renewables had been invested in nuclear research, we would be on our way to real solutions.

@TheFoxSaid 5 жыл бұрын

@@hypergraphic Agree. Though it looks like the US gov is finally starting to take a look. I believe 20 million was awarded to companies like FLIBE energy for R&D into LFTR.

@hzuiel 5 жыл бұрын

@@TheFoxSaid Oh boy, 20 million. That is peanut money and about 65 years too late. Some people need a good swift kick in the ass but of course the people really resonsible are long dead so too late to kick.

@robinhood5627 5 жыл бұрын

@@hzuiel A bit of research into what countries are doing to "RnD" this technology shows any possibly prototyping stages will be done in......40 years!......Oh wow yeah this is really going to be a game changing world saving technology right? just in 40 years+ when it's already far far too late today... lol pipe dream.

@hzuiel 5 жыл бұрын

@@robinhood5627 What the hell are you talking about?

@lhaviland8602 4 жыл бұрын

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Pepperidge farm remembers.

@colinsmith1495 3 жыл бұрын

Funny, wasn't that over Antarctica? I always wondered how all those CFCs crossed the equator, and why they all concentrated over the poles. Curious that there's also an actual funneling effect of the geomagnetic field in the same place.

@DC-ct8tv 3 жыл бұрын

It fixed itself after we stopped using cfc

@colinsmith1495 3 жыл бұрын

@@DC-ct8tv Except that it's STILL there, it's just reduced. It was never really a 'hole' to begin with, just a thinning, and studies now show it is seasonal.

@DC-ct8tv 3 жыл бұрын

@@colinsmith1495 not quite, but good try

@fnulnu4972 2 жыл бұрын

6th grade science. The earth is a giant magnet. Ozone is a charged molecule. It is attracted to the north magnetic pole and repelled by the south magnetic pole. The ozone is so thick that commercial trans artic flights bring air for the cabins for with them. Normally it is just scooped from the outside. The "hole" in the ozone in Antarctica was always there. It was always fake science.

@John-tq4bf 3 жыл бұрын

I listened closely and never heard mention of molten salts reactors which are totally reliable and 100% safe due to their design and also have a very small footprint compared to traditional nuclear reactors. For this reason alone they can be decentralized and thus require only the grid we now have. They are very modular by design and can fit almost anywhere inside a town or city.

@erikkovacs3097 5 жыл бұрын

A data center I worked at had a footprint of 1.25 acres and consumes about 35 megawatts. It would require 1000's of acres of solar panels and batteries. It's just not practical.

@Tuber360904 5 жыл бұрын

yes a nuclear solution will power that. But hopefully tech can get more efficient as well. Space heating need to be better also. All possible solutions need to be considered. Like solar water heaters and homes that are better insulated ect ect.

@erikkovacs3097 5 жыл бұрын

@@Tuber360904 "Hopefully" you say. It wont happen. They are going up everywhere all over the country fed by our insatiable appetite for tech. Throughout history our per capita energy consumption has gone up with no end it sight.

@Tuber360904 5 жыл бұрын

Erik Kovacs you’re not wrong. I’d still suggest people should try to slow down the increase of energy consumption where practical. Less wasted energy is never a bad thing if it is inexpensive and practical to save. In my home, better insulated walls would have paid for themselves a couple times over. There are more efficient cars, central heating units, water heaters, ovens, microwaves, a/c units, fans, washers and dryers, TVs, PCs, dishwashers, lights ect. All have made a huge difference, i don’t know why that focus on efficiency would just stop or not apply to data centers. i’m just saying maybe there could be a bit more focus on efficiency in industries where it is being disregarded as unimportant.

@FaceTubeU 5 жыл бұрын

230 acres of solar panels, not thousands. A 15 MWh battery would cover the duck curve, about 60 refrigerator sized Tesla power packs that would fit in the basement of your data center. I agree solar does take up room but exaggeration does nothing but muddy this argument.

@erikkovacs3097 5 жыл бұрын

@@FaceTubeU Hold on there Tex! How about some math. The data center in question needs enough power to run all winter so the energy usage needs to be normalized for the entire year. So maybe you only need 230 acres in the summer but that number balloons up to 2500 acres in the winter. I'm not exaggerating anything. Thid was calculated for the location of one building of a data center. The whole 100 acres of the city has dozens of these data centers. Even your 230 acre calculation would be a data center to solar panel ratio of 230:1. Most of the land area will be solar panels for sure and it will be in the thousands not hundreds.

@DeeBee2013 5 жыл бұрын

1 ton of #Thorium produces more energy than 3 million tonnes of coal

@wallaroo1295 5 жыл бұрын

#Thorium Hooah! I'm so happy to see #Thorium and #ThoriumPower showing up more frequently now!

@phamnuwen9442 5 жыл бұрын

That's great, but uranium works just as well, and there's plenty of it around. No point in waiting for thorium reactors, though those are coming as well. Thorconpower.com is one of many startups in the molten salt arena.

@DeeBee2013 5 жыл бұрын

China is already building Thorium reactors what do you want to wait for? As for just as well, Thorium is far more plentiful then Uranium and about 200 times more efficient

@patrickm5217 5 жыл бұрын

1 ounce of imagination is more powerful that 2.5 million kilos of thorium. #imagination #dreamsDOcumtrue #THOTSnprayers

@shanerooney7288 5 жыл бұрын

xkcd.com/1162/

@halasimov1362 4 жыл бұрын

"About Controlling Society"

@hvrtguys Жыл бұрын

Why do they call them renewable? When a solar panel wears out it cannot be renewed. When a windmill wears out it cannot be renewed either.

@leecobb3424 5 жыл бұрын

As someone studying electrical engineering, I can tell you nuclear energy is the way to go

@zombiedude347 5 жыл бұрын

As another person who studied electrical engineering, I agree.

@junoquat582 5 жыл бұрын

As a person currently studying aerospace engineering, I concur.

@leecobb3424 5 жыл бұрын

@@zombiedude347 hydro electric seems good too. Intermittent power is what's scary due to lack of ability to store the power produced for later consumption. I wish they'd get that. Wind and solar isn't gonna cut it

@leecobb3424 5 жыл бұрын

@@junoquat582 I'd be very interested in all the math you have to use and what it's for. There's something about college that tells you more than you can research online. It leaves a void, not being able to find info you search for. I have theories about colonizing Mars

@philtimmons722 5 жыл бұрын

As someone who actually is a Grid Level EE. I can tell you the Money Math and application of wide use of Nukes does not pencil out. Even France is backing away from Nukes.

@unpotatoedsalmon 5 жыл бұрын

Does anyone know the status of thorium reactors

@devonmarr9872 5 жыл бұрын

Trevor O'Donnell I too wanna know. Cool tech

@averagejoe112 5 жыл бұрын

Several generations away. Gen 4 reactors are coming out soon, as well as Small Modular Reactors. The next generation of reactors will probably be Liquid Sodium, like GE-Hs PRISM reactor, which can use old spent fuel. Thorium reactors would require proof of concepts, then a prototype, and then establishment of regulation for the Molten Salt Reactors, which most countries don't have experience running. My guess is MSRs are 25 years out.

@kelborhal2576 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium breeder reactors don't produce power. They breed other fissile material for normal nuclear plants. It's not that cost effective at the moment for the US, who would need to import most Thorium. But India, who sits on literal mountains of it, is pursuing the technology with interest. The thorium fuel cycle is best for nations and regions that are poor in traditional nuclear fuels like plutonium and uranium.

@averagejoe112 5 жыл бұрын

Molten salt reactors produce power. Also thorium is pretty cheap. Currently we don't use thorium for anything, so if there's demand and production pumps up, the costs drop dramatically.

@jimlovesgina 5 жыл бұрын

@@averagejoe112 We had a thorium reactor running for many years. We already know they work.

@cghoselle 4 жыл бұрын

I was rolling on autoplay while I worked and I was like "this is an interesting documentary" and I alt tabbed expecting some small youtuber but it was reason tv.

@marialick1586 3 жыл бұрын

Hi. Do you think reasontv is bad?

@cghoselle 3 жыл бұрын

@@marialick1586 No.

@marialick1586 3 жыл бұрын

@@cghoselle Ok.

@trumanhw 3 жыл бұрын

*PS -- Those incidents of Thyroid cancer are a byproduct of NOT BEING GIVEN IODINE !!!*

@spacejunky4380 5 жыл бұрын

I like how you have both sides on nuclear talk about the topic. It leaves the audiance up to make a decision on the information. I respect this type journalism.

@mememachine5244 5 жыл бұрын

It is asif a certain group of people have been saying this for years. *pats self on back"

@jameshumphrey9939 5 жыл бұрын

what nuclear power sucks - that's obvious

@ZacMoroney 2 жыл бұрын

@@jameshumphrey9939 haha yes! Finally!

@heinrikgoettsche1595 3 жыл бұрын

I really wish he brought up waste reprocessing to address long term waste storage. We have long known how to reprocess our nuclear waste into usable fuel again. The actual storage time needed is 300 years for things that couldn't be recycled. We just don't do it because our current non-proliferation treaties ban this action.

@patraic5241 3 жыл бұрын

Fukushima showed me how robust a nuclear facility can be. That plant got hit by a major earthquake and then TWO tsunamis. While the plant was heavily damaged, and did release some radiation, it didn't catastrophically fail.

@patraic5241 3 жыл бұрын

@IamtheFleecer and if they had built the facility just a kilometer futher inland on higher ground instead of on the coastal flood plain the tsunami would never have reached it. Hind sight being 20/20.

@schreckpmc 5 жыл бұрын

In the army, in 1979, I put a poster on my locker that read "we need nukes."

@ZacMoroney 2 жыл бұрын

lol my dad was born that year, funny coincidence

@luckyjinxer 5 жыл бұрын

This! This is how you get conservatives (non liberals, really) on board; propose actual solutions that work in the real world.

@jessejive117 5 жыл бұрын

luckyjinxer Yeah conservatives no burning fossil fuels releases carbon and that contributes to climate change is just Saul the insane fear mongering and saying the world will be in habitable and 12 years and they’re all scientist believe that and if you don’t believe that because Scientist say so you are a climate denier. And all the clean energy exists and it’s cheap but big oil is paying Ted Cruz to suppress it lol

@fish8622 5 жыл бұрын

From a conservative, if we want to do this, we need to start by removing coal and oil plants and replacing them with natural gas plants, which release far fewer emissions. Then at the same time, we switch over to nuclear and thorium plants. This will take time. We can't just rush this change. Not everyone has the money and not everyone is on board either, because it seems suspicious to a large chunk of America that for the last forty or fifty years, we only have ten more years.

@shanerooney7288 5 жыл бұрын

"liberals" is a very broad term. And quite a few of them (myself included) would be onboard with nuclear power.

@christopherandrade3984 5 жыл бұрын

It is definitely not the conservatives you need to convince but the liberals/ socialists such as AOC and the people who have previously shut down nuclear plants.

@custos3249 5 жыл бұрын

True, because conservatives are well-known for changing their position when shown real world solutions that work.......

@steevorific 4 жыл бұрын

Wow, France actually got something right by sticking with Nukes.

@gregoiresauvage6363 3 жыл бұрын

Actually French politicans are not pro nuclear, because of greenpeace and co lobbying

@mlittlitt 4 жыл бұрын

This is a fantastic channel- glad I found it.

@OceanAce 5 жыл бұрын

You know nMRI machines have the "n" dropped because of it stands for nuclear?

@arctic3032 5 жыл бұрын

Yep! They inject you with a solution which makes images based on the radioactive isotopes reflecting off this fluid 👌

@halasimov1362 5 жыл бұрын

Don't tell AOC she will go after nMRI next!

@captainpocky 5 жыл бұрын

You sir have spooked me. #SayNoToMRIs #NotMyChildren

@vp4744 5 жыл бұрын

@@halasimov1362 are you a fcuking idiot? We can't afford to piss of more people. As it is after each nuclear accident we have to start from scratch.

@DIsmayedConfuse 5 жыл бұрын

You know diddly squat about nmr. It reads the resonances of nucleuses. There is zero high-energy radiation involve.

@billmcillwraith6155 5 жыл бұрын

Molten salt reactors are the answer , burns 98% of the fuel !

@robinhood5627 5 жыл бұрын

Yeah pity they don't exist, only on paper, none to be built for another 40 years at best.

@vedritmathias9193 5 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, LFTR has some problems that have to be solved before it can be the primary source of energy.

@toasterbathboi6298 5 жыл бұрын

robin hood yeah, they don’t exist because people are scared of them and don’t even want to try them.

@robinhood5627 5 жыл бұрын

@@toasterbathboi6298 I don't think that's it at all. Originally proposed in the 1940s / early 50s they were quickly quashed in favor of Uranium because they needed to bomb making material. All of today's reactors which use Uranium as fuel are capable of producing bomb material, this is by design. That is the original purpose of a reactor. The fact you can boil water and get steam and then onto electricity is just a convenient extra. Helps to sell nuclear weapons to the public. Now today the US is moving into tactical nuclear weapons and thus needs Uranium reactors, the UK is renewing trident and thus is trying to build Hinkley Point C reactor to supply material for that. And Russia are building poseidon super torpedos and Avangard warheads. The Reactors we have are not entirely for power, We have yet to let go of the mindset of MAD and so these reactors still have a huge part to play. Nobody fears LFTR, Gen 4, Salt, whatever you wish to call them. Just that they are not useful for blowing up a planet.

@leerman22 4 жыл бұрын

Breeder reactors do that. A MSR can be a simple burner like IMSR, LFTR and MCFR are breeders.

@bearcubdaycare 3 жыл бұрын

I appreciate the balance in the video, and looking at the topic from multiple angles.

@alexjensen5993 3 жыл бұрын

Every time I hear AOC speak my blood pressure rises and I can feel a scowl forming

@missano3856 6 ай бұрын

She has actually wound up being at least vaguely pro nuke.

@Citizen-of-theworld 5 жыл бұрын

There is great potential in nuclear when you start considering reactor types that are inherently safer. For example using ambient pressure molten salts as a heat transfer fluid and radiation attenuator, means you no longer need pwr (pressurised (heavy) water reactor) - which is what caused the melt downs. Fukushima & Chernobyl- The steam overheated and burst out of the reactor so no cooling causing the nuclear fuel to overheat and meltdown. Molten salts do not boil and actually cool and solidify to form a protective seal if they ever leaked.

@joedarkness808 5 жыл бұрын

Yeah but the reason why it's not popular is that you can't make bombs from them

@SgtUberGrunt 5 жыл бұрын

Fukishima used regular water not heavy water. CANDU reactors use heavy water and have never had a meltdown or serious problem. Chernobyl used a Russian designed RBMK reactor that used graphite moderator.

@benjamin7114 5 жыл бұрын

Nuclear waste is the biggest problem - humanity has not until now , been able to deal with any kind of waste effectively . Nothing about nuclear is 'safe' , we are just 'careful' , people confuse and equate the two . I'm not against Nuclear , very for it but there's just too much carelessness and lack of accountability to see it ending well . Unlike Carbon dioxide emissions , nuclear problems have much serious adverse effects that no one is prepared for .

@SgtUberGrunt 5 жыл бұрын

Tho as we generate more nuclear waste the incentive would be there to create new ways of handling it and maybe even render it inert while extracting more energy from jt.

@justinmallaiz4549 5 жыл бұрын

@@benjamin7114 I disagree... How are you defining what is dangerous waste? How many deaths and injuries have been caused by nuclear waste compared to air and water pollution... I don't think the billions of people suffering and dead from pollution would claim they were prepared ...Deposing waste as pollution is just a lack of taking responsibility...I'll take careful over that any day

@jyoung5256 5 жыл бұрын

France is mostly nuclear energy now and things are pretty decent there. The main problem they have is that the state owns large percentages of the corporation producing it.

@boukhadc 5 жыл бұрын

Josh Young first : why the state having it is a problem ? It means taxes fund the power plants and it’s actually the best model of economy for nuclear. Imagine being short on money in nuclear energy !!! You will save money on this, on this, on that and then when enough lies have been thrown and security is shit : boom. For me the main problem is that all French nuclear plants are becoming old and about 40/60 plants are on sismic areas and are not protected, so à Fukushima like incident could happen in France if there is a seism. EDIT : and this is not from me, it’s the chief of ASN (official nuclear security in France which takes decisions) who said that after Fukushima

@yikesmcgee1283 5 жыл бұрын

I agree with Laurent boukhadcha public ownership of nuclear power just makes sense. Not to mention they probably wouldn’t have been built if not for government funds

@itzbebop 3 жыл бұрын

But but but.....chernobyl.... Every anti nuke person I've ever met.

@johnnychcr Жыл бұрын

Nuclear power is one of the cleanest power sources right now, but it has a bad rep mostly because of movies and TV.

@HighDefinitionVideo 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium SMR will burn the “waste” so.... there is a near total solution

@mwnciboo 5 жыл бұрын

Nope...Muon Catalysed Fusion will deal with waste.

@JvH-cn4mo 5 жыл бұрын

Watching this video, coming from germany and losing hope for german environment.

@lukealiciouss 5 жыл бұрын

Still way ahead of the US. Heck you guys have bridges for animals to cross your roads.

@JvH-cn4mo 5 жыл бұрын

Luke Suchy in those aspects yes. I just am not a supporter of how certain things are done in Germany. I have been a fan of nuclear energy. Especially now with the new technologies. But I am one of the few in Germany who thinks the same. Now we will not have nuclear energy. Maybe never again. And still a massive coal production, which places us very low with our environmental goals for the EU. I also think that wind and solar alone will never be able to support our society. But that is another topic....

@ThekiBoran 5 жыл бұрын

@@JvH-cn4mo This is off topic but is it true that if you attempt to educate your children at home you'll be sent to prison?

@JvH-cn4mo 5 жыл бұрын

Kroban3 as of my knowledge no. I did some quick research and also think that it is possible to do home teaching but the parents have to do quiet some things do be allowed to do it. In general in Germany you have a School obligation till you are 16 or 18. Not 100% sure. After that you can decide for yourself if you want to stay in school or not. Then by the years you have finished you will have the according school degree. (9 “Hauptschule”, 10 Realschule, 12 fachoberachulreife, and if you finish the 13 then you have Abitur. This can of course take longer for persons who have to redo a year or climb up from lower schools. For me my Abitur was 15 school years

@lhaviland8602 4 жыл бұрын

@@lukealiciouss We actually have those bridges here too!

@longplaylegends 3 жыл бұрын

Nuclear energy, despite some drawbacks, is like, the closest thing to unlimited energy handed to us directly by the gods. And yet we almost completely neglect it..?

@PeTroL420 4 жыл бұрын

I'm no environmentalist but the problem with nuclear power are the waste rods. There are already tons of radioactive rods that are in storage on-site at the nuclear power plant all over the country. The US has tried to find a place to store all the waste but no state wants them.

@shinigamilee5915 5 жыл бұрын

A Thorium reactor would solve all these issues. It would use up the previous reactor waist and would be 90% (or more) more efficient.

@Les_S537 5 жыл бұрын

If only Fukushima had been an LFTR plant!

@abrahemsamander3967 5 жыл бұрын

I’ve just recently been researching nuclear power and it’s benefits. Glad you guys made this video. It such a shame Hollywood logic and simplistic fear mongering has halted good progress. Yes, Chernobyl was tragic, so was Christa McAuliffe’s death on the challenger, that doesn’t mean we stop all space travel, just make it safer.

@TBFSJjunior 5 жыл бұрын

The issue is that nuclear is very expensive and almost impossible to finance without massive government subsidies. In the video they showed the comparison of electricity prices in Germany and France, which is a lie or at least very misleading. They didn't compare production cost, but consumer cost. Nuclear power in France is mostly run by the government and they are selling it cheaper than they can produce it and still france is importing massive amounts of electricity from Germany cause it is cheaper. In Germany the consumer cost includes extra taxes for the subsidies of renewables (which big businesses are exempt of). In France the nuclear power plants are 70 billion in debt, produce with a loss and have no savings for the decommissioning. All those costs aren't included in the consumer price, but paid by the government. He is to smart to use those numbers while not knowing that it is comparing apples with oranges.

@abrahemsamander3967 5 жыл бұрын

I get what your saying. Tanks for replying, that’s very important to know. Do you thinks a free market approach without government subsidies leading to big business could help us get clean nuclear energy? Also I thought France relying on foreign energy was because macron is trying become “energy independent” is that wrong? You’re right though, nuclear shouldn’t be given federal subsidies.

@abrahemsamander3967 5 жыл бұрын

Edit: Thanks not tanks, sorry about that we’re talking about nukes not tanks, ha ha.

@TBFSJjunior 5 жыл бұрын

@@abrahemsamander3967 "Free market approach without government subsidies...help us get ..nuclear" No. Without government suppoert we wouldn't have any nuclear power plants and future power plants would be dead aswell. I understand why you might put subsidies into a new technology to jump start it, but nuclear technology is over 50 years old. You will hear a lot about Throium reactors, but that is also 50 years old. The thing with nuclear (similar to renewables) is, that it is very cheap to run but most cost is the investment of building the facility. So if you do it with a free market, you have to find investors and there noone in their right mind would invest into nuclear instead of solar or wind. Cost for a project: Way over a billion for nuclear, while renewables can be scaled from tiny to huge. So nuclear is a bigger risk. (If you have many small investments and one fails you are ok, if you have one huge one and it fails you are fucked) Build time: Nuclear 5 to 10 years. Renewables 1-3 years. So you would have to invest and then wait up to 10 years before you see anything with nuclear, while with renewables it starts almost right away. Runtime: Nuclear: 40-60 years renewables: 20-30 years For Nuclear you have to think long term. Look at the world 50 years ago and what has changed since then. Now imagine you have to invest over a billion in a project 50 years ago. Imagine what technologies could be invented in the next 50 years, that would make your investment obsolete. Having a project with a runtime of 20 years is much easier to finance than one that runs 40+ years. I don't have a fear of nuclear, but when you look at renewables and storage solutions, where the prices are dropping rapidly, I think nuclear is dead out of financial reasons.

@TBFSJjunior 5 жыл бұрын

@@abrahemsamander3967 "Also I thought France relying on foreign energy was because macron is trying become “energy independent” is that wrong?" Sorry what do you mean? That statement doesn't make any sense. How should importing energy make a country energy independent? France has a very centralized government and they pushed nuclear in the past as a single strategy and now they are kind of stuck in it.

@galileykwong7017 3 жыл бұрын

The problem with nuclear is that nobody want it in their backyard.

@DadsCigaretteRun 3 жыл бұрын

If the government would let me I would built one in my backyard

@galileykwong7017 3 жыл бұрын

@@DadsCigaretteRun Where do you live? If your neighbors don't mind, you could actually can. First you need land to dispose the nuclear waste.

@Blakelysworld358 4 жыл бұрын

Nothing worse for the environment then an environmentalist.

@katekatekate518 5 жыл бұрын

Just make sure you use thorium because THORIUM ROCKS!

@WadcaWymiaru 5 жыл бұрын

Yes, it rocks XD, see: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oNB9bKhnyZqWXYE.html

@tomroberts1105 5 жыл бұрын

Uhhh, actually you should probably use as pure a Thorium as you can get. Using Thorium contaminated by many varieties of silicoid would badly affect your production. It would be a terrible business model.

@katekatekate518 5 жыл бұрын

Tom Roberts oh yes of course. Although the safety it brings to the plant is an amazing business model as well.

@tomroberts1105 5 жыл бұрын

@@katekatekate518 Yes, I'm even given to understand there was a Low-Key plan to, in the event they couldn't save the planet, they'd sure as hell avenge it.

@WadcaWymiaru 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium isn't used pure but as oxide (thoria)or fluoride :\ Density similar to uranium in that same state.

@ForTehNguyen 5 жыл бұрын

The nuclear weapon should win the nobel peace prize

@valeskavictoria1278 3 жыл бұрын

For some reason almost every form of entertainment that includes nuclear anything, weapons, power, etc, always portrays it in an extremely unrealistic way. One recent example is the show The 100. They portray radiation like some kind of evil demon. It's ridiculous and only further reinforces that nuclear is bad.

@thomgt4 3 жыл бұрын

Part of the message from The 100 I can stand by is that nuclear bombs are not nice and that we'd screw ourself pretty significantly if we throw a significant amount of them at ourselves. But then again, if that was the case the actual scenario would be very different with a cold, ash covered Earth

@Hogger280 2 жыл бұрын

Most plants operating today are second gen plants requiring active cool down systems for emergency shut down. Fourth gen plants are now ready to be built and they have passive cool down on emergency shutdown and many other safety and efficiency improvements.

@NOSE-em2xb 5 жыл бұрын

I support nuclear power as wind and solar are not enough.

@quinnmoore5985 5 жыл бұрын

Personally I think nuclear is the future of energy. It's not perfect, but better than fossil fuels which is a start.

@fnulnu4972 3 жыл бұрын

Why is it better? Costs more, dangerous short and long term. There never has been a way to handle the waste. Can't clean up hanford, which killed 10 of thousands, after 75 years. Can't cleanup or even get fukaskima diachi under control.

@polyhistorphilomath 3 жыл бұрын

@@fnulnu4972 you mean the people in Washington? They’re not dead.

@fnulnu4972 3 жыл бұрын

@@polyhistorphilomath we were Lucky in Washington, wind pattern made our state get far less than LA but parts of our state get some. Any radionuclide ingested is bad. Outside radiation passes through your body, bad but temporairy. Ingesting a radionuclide puts it in your body, a cancer seed, radiating over and over again in the same area. That is why radioactive iodine predominantly causes cancers in the thyroid. Radioactive cessium lodges in soft tissue, so causes cancers everywhere. Radioactive strontium, predominantly imbeds into bones, causing bone cancer and luekemia. On it goes. In Washington and oregon has a history of deaths and illness from iodine and cessium from hanford leaks. So how can you say no one has died. Some make false claim that chernobyl, fukaskima diachi, and the fermi nuke plant hardly killed anyone. No one would drink in a glass full radionuclides.

@vitsadelhole 3 жыл бұрын

@@fnulnu4972 except its not dangerous especially these days

@fnulnu4972 3 жыл бұрын

@@vitsadelhole fort Calhoun nuclear plant condition red, trojan had major flaws in cooling system and have to be shut down. What do you do with the waste, working plan yet, just hopes.

@Freekniggers 3 жыл бұрын

Didn't know a can of coke had that much uranium in it. 🤔

@larryzach7880 Жыл бұрын

Three Mile Island, proved that our safeguards work.

@Oi-mj6dv 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium. Not uranium is the ideal fuel for energy

@vedritmathias9193 5 жыл бұрын

Well, I mean...technically thorium gets bred to a uranium isotope before fission to plutonium and other stuff.

@shatteredstar2149 5 жыл бұрын

I think you meant to say fusion

@Uckertay 5 жыл бұрын

James Conca writes in Forbes: "So there's about 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean at any one time. However, seawater concentrations of uranium are controlled by steady-state, or pseudo-equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks on the Earth, both in the ocean and on land. And those rocks contain 100 trillion tons of uranium."

@Marmocet 5 жыл бұрын

@Kytsche Pseudo-equillibrium in this case just means that the concentration of uranium in sea water is approximately constant over time, as opposed to exactly constant over time.

@thepoliticalstartrek 4 жыл бұрын

So what can be done. 1.Create a regular Nuclear power plant. Use the fuel up. 2. Move that fuel to a heavy water reactor (CANDU), and use it up. Heavy water reactors can run on depleted Uranium. We also need to sink money into direct heat to power conversion. We are current stuck in application to 7% efficiency(10% in lab). We need to get that up to 40%

@jeffstewart3978 3 жыл бұрын

Molten Salt Reactors are an amazing technology that should be built into a commercial plant. Look it up, extremely safe, can't make bombs out of it, and can burn off and use up all existing nuclear waste too.

@mike95826 5 жыл бұрын

Well, Irony of it is that after Rancho Seco the nuclear plant featured in this documentary was shutdown, it has been replaced with a MUCH SMALLER powerplant that uses natural gas. A pipeline 50 miles long had to be built to get to a source reliable enough to power it at even the reduced output. I used to work for the utility that ran the plant (I am now retired). The thing to remember is that this plant and many others were built in the early 1970's using 1960's technology. They were essentially GEN 1, that was before engineers really knew all of the ramifications of up-sizing the physics to nearly gigawatt capabilities. Most of the breakdowns were not due to the fact that the plant used nuclear fission to produce the steam but just to the fact that to produce the megawatt outputs, the pipes and valves and such had to handle very high temperatures and pressures. Building multiple smaller plants on one site would both mean that lower temperatures and pressures would be required to produce that desired output and also insure that, except in rare cases, that at least one plant would be operating to keep up the load. The Japanese were doing just that but for lack of just a slightly higher seawall it would still be running.

@petersouthernboy6327 5 жыл бұрын

It's too bad that the Japanese Regulatory Agency did not have the robust modeling that the USNRC and the European Regulators have for seismic events. Those backup diesel generators should NEVER have been built at sea level proximity. And, of course, Fukashima should never have been built in a geographic zone very well known to be prone to high levels of seismic activity.

@defencebangladesh4068 5 жыл бұрын

We are building our first hopefully not the last Nuclear power plant. it will provide electricity more than 10 million people. Russia is building this one. Next one will be French.

@captainremington5109 3 жыл бұрын

Germany purchases energy from France after Germany switched to renewable energy. Hmm.

@kolinmartz 4 жыл бұрын

What if we paint the cooling towers with rainbows and shit?

@xw591 4 жыл бұрын

Fuck yeah

@cormacheffernan5861 5 жыл бұрын

A simple breakdown of how the grid should. Run 70% Nuclear 15-20% Hydroelectric 5-7.5% Wind and Solar and then have back up sources in tidal. That is the only way to keep consistent power and not be fearful of the wind not blowing and sun not shining. It’s also the most beneficial to the environment

@vamvra5498 5 жыл бұрын

Well it may not be the only way; but I agree mainly Nucleair and Always on is super important.

@lukealiciouss 5 жыл бұрын

@John Dillinger I thought solar was so good until I watched a video recently, I believe by real engineering about how in order to have the same solar output in the winter you would need to make a plant 4x the size of what's needed in the summer.

@leerman22 5 жыл бұрын

We could have 100% nuclear in areas where process heat can be sold instead of electricity when it's not in demand. Distilling seawater during droughts or district heating during winter is more efficient than throwing away 2 thirds of the thermal energy to make electric energy equivalent. High temperature reactors can even make industrial processes less carbon intensive. Since nuclear fuel is only a small part of the operating costs energy prices would be very stable even if fuel prices doubled.

@wade2bosh 5 жыл бұрын

nuclear still cleaner and safer and less waste than renewables mate

@Clean97gti 4 жыл бұрын

@@lukealiciouss and what happens in 30 years when those panels start wearing out? Now you have to replace the ones that fail at a rate fast enough to keep the lights on. FOREVER. Can you imagine the industrial waste that would generate?

@rostyloco1 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium reactors, liquid salt.

@robinhood5627 5 жыл бұрын

Don't exist.

@rostyloco1 5 жыл бұрын

@@robinhood5627 research, the US government had a working prototype in the 1960s ish if memory serves, they choose to go the other route because of the need for bi-product to make nuclear weapons. The reason there is no new research into it on US grounds is because of laws that limit or prevent nuclear power plants over a certain size from being build. or something like that.

@robinhood5627 5 жыл бұрын

@@rostyloco1 1960, correct! Nuclear weapons, correct. they don't currently exist like I said, correct. As for research, this shows that a few governments around the world, less than 10, are doing token research into this field, with prototype reactors being proposed as far away as 40 years from now. So.... they don't exist and won't for 4 decades at least.

@JoeMACofNAC 4 жыл бұрын

Ruston Young show me some research where spent fuel from a nuclear reactor was used to make Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239. Nuclear fuel is much more Uranium 238 than anything. That’s why it’s a controlled reaction. www.pbs.org/newshour/science/what-is-the-difference-between-the-nuclear-material-in-a-bomb-versus-a-reactor

@seanplace8192 3 жыл бұрын

Air travel used to be rather dangerous in the early days of flight. But through trial and error, humans have made air travel one of the safest ways to travel. The same is true for nuclear reactors. A modern nuclear reactor is inherently stable. All of the operators could leave the control room and the reactor would never meltdown. Solar and wind are great, and we should definitely be building them; But we still need a way to generate base load power. And the only option we have that produces no CO2 is nuclear.

@mehdihatami3391 2 жыл бұрын

I'd give your comment two thumbs up I could. Comparing nuclear power to flying is a great comparison. Both are extremely safe, as a form of transportation and energy production but there are people who are afraid of both for some reason.

@nicholassetiawan319 3 жыл бұрын

I’m glad that there are conservatives out there that aren’t in denial of human-influenced climate change and discerning the scientific/objective between the politicized arguments from the left.

@hermitthefrog8951 5 жыл бұрын

Heavily suppressed but intrinsically safe molten-salt thorium reactor is the optimal power source... not to combat (fake) AGW / CC but to curb pollution (a real problem) and eliminate threat of extremely dangerous long-term catastrophic reactor failure (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc).

@couchgrouches7667 5 жыл бұрын

Anthropogenic climate change is definitely a reality, although it's far more nuanced than us using fossil fuels and will need multiple solutions addressing different problems.

@hermitthefrog8951 5 жыл бұрын

@@couchgrouches7667 - if it exists, it's within the measurement error (ie: statistically insignificant).

@couchgrouches7667 5 жыл бұрын

@@hermitthefrog8951 It's far from insignificant, especially when you factor in things such as the Permafrost and micro-organisms in the ocean. Speaking on the Permafrost, one of the solutions to mitigating climate change that seems woefully ignored is the concept of the restoring the Mammoth Steppe Ecosystem. By reintroducing large herbivores like bison, horses and possibly some sort of elephant-mammoth hybrid or Mammoth clone, tundra and low biodiverse taiga will gradually be transformed back into grasslands like what existed 10,000 years ago, reflecting more sunlight by virtue of the Albedo Effect. The animals' weight on the snow will also compact it, making it colder. All of this ultimately preventing serious Permafrost melting and a Clathrate Loaded Gun Scenario. I bring this up because it's a relatively cheap way to mitigate serious climate damage. Just releasing native animals and leaving them alone.

@Itsatz0 5 жыл бұрын

Bullshit, wind and solar are cheap and clean. The Chinese are going solar and expect to be fossil fuel free by 2040.

@Marmocet 5 жыл бұрын

Thorium isn't an important part of the equation. Molten salt reactors can run on uranium alone, which is far easier to do. Thorium is a great potential energy resource but we don't need to wait to learn how to develop it in order to get Gen IV nuclear reactors up and running.

@skodbolle 5 жыл бұрын

Why not have both? Solar and batteries on houses and Nuclear centrally

@docwells7 5 жыл бұрын

I believe that's what the guy in the video said. If you want wind/solar to power your property, go for it. It just shouldn't be subsidized.

@arvidlystnur4827 5 жыл бұрын

Erik Wells, Yes!

@carminedauria-gupta2561 3 жыл бұрын

@@docwells7 why not subsidized? Doesn’t hurt anyone. Nuclear will take decades to build. If everyone had solar panels And batteries would reduce the need for so many reactors

@docwells7 3 жыл бұрын

@@carminedauria-gupta2561 I disagree. Subsidies have to come from somewhere, so obviously they do hurt someone. Unreliables, by their nature, do not reduce the need for baseload power supply, because that power is needed when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing (see Germany). Is be happy if they're just stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear power plants for political reasons, but nuclear has to be a big part of the energy makeup if carbon elimination is the goal... Period.

@calvinroyals6463 3 жыл бұрын

Wait don't say that out loud it makes too much sense. Someone could be offended.

@vasteria446 4 жыл бұрын

wasn't expecting AOC to make an Appearance, could've given us a warning or something?

@jfangm 3 жыл бұрын

Point of fact: 3-Mile Island was not a reactor meltdown, nor was Fukushima. Also, at Fukushima, all three plants scrammed. The problem arose when one of the reactor buildings was damaged, causing water to drain from the cooling pond above the reactor, where spent fuel is stored.