Firstly, I'll say that we should use the most appropriate energy source. Wind and Solar are generally the best, but not always available. Geothermal and Hydro are generally 2nd best options. Nuclear being the 3rd best option in my mind. Great for places like Korea, Japan and England which just don't have enough space and access to sunlight. But Nuclear is a finite fuel. Fossil Fuels are obviously the worst option... Yet until recently had been the default because of price. I think Nuclear power will be INCREDIBLY important when we start colonising other planets out beyond Mars. We just can't get enough sunlight very easily. Although my hope is that Nuclear Fusion will be online by then. Beyond the issue of Nuclear Fission being based on Uranium which is a finite fuel, my biggest worry is nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants going hand in hand, helping create the mining and refinement processes which can be used as part of the military industrial complex. At least, that's the major worry. Nuclear weapons are still a major existential threat to humanity. The fear of their use in Ukraine being an example of that. Radiation is also obviously an issue. The whole thing of people saying it's safe... Yet they had to remove the topsoil from a large area around Fukushima and displace a large number of people. If we replaced all Coal plants with Nuclear plants, and ended up having a Chernobyl like event every couple of years then the results would be disastrous. Next gen power plants are obviously a lot safer, but are still a while away. I'm grateful we seem to be somewhat leapfrogging newer fission designs for more fusion technology which has a lot more benefits (like no radiation if we have H3) and less downsides. The cleanup from nuclear weapons testing has been a massive job. Checkout the Nuclear weapons tests in rural Australia as an example. Living in Adelaide, South Australia we used to joke about the radiation having travelled across to us and made people a little different.

Thorium reactors Thorium reactors Thorium reactors please.

@@MichaelKubler-kublermdk”geothermal and hydro 2nd best” There is no new geothermal of any size. There is no new hydroelectric esp in Australia. Everybody in Australia knows that, so to reference it sounds like you want to pretend away the need for nuclear. “Not always” Solar hits full power average of 20% of the day over the year, less in winter. The rest of the time we all know it’s gas and coal at the present, again an apparent attempt to either pretend gas and coal use don’t matter, or to pretend away the need for nuclear. What are you on about?

Make your hyperlinks work or fire your producer.

And see Nuclear Now - well done!

It is still

Then Tchernobyl happened and everyone freaked out.

18.2% of energy in the US is nuclear.

We have two nuclear power plants in Georgia that power most of the state.

@@juppertanwhat American people don’t realize though is that that disaster happened because of incompetence and low regulations set up by the communist party. The USA still does have some corruption, yes, but we are much less corrupt than the USSR was when the disaster happened

Nuclear energy would be a great way to decarbonize our nations because it produces very little waste (including CO2). As you said, there was not so many incidents in 50 years, but yes it killed some people (and everytime there is an incident, we learn how to prevent those in other power plants, so it decreases the odds of incidents dramatically). I can assure you that the decarbonization of the society with nuclear energy will so many lives. Pollution kills so many people today or makes them ill, but people don't care, because it is hard to link pollution with a death (but scientists can). We also need to use less petrol and coal etc if we want to avoid many death and environmental disasters through climate change, and here again, nuclear is a non-carbon energy that could produce enough energy. Wind, water and the sun cannot provide enough energy alone and present other problems too. That's why nuclear might be interesting (if you believe in climate change and the rapid problems that are coming). Nuclear power kills less living beings (plants and animals included) than any other alternative for each kWh, even if we increase their quantity. We clearly tend to exaggerate the problems of nuclear, which exist, you are right, and greatly downplay the dangerousity and downsides of the alternatives that we work with. And it kills me, because I feel like we are shooting bullet in our own leg: it seems like the only option that rapidly decrease green gas effect, but we refuse to work with it because people saw on TV that's it's bad when you are too close to it

Part of the reason “people don’t think nuclear is safe” is the misleading story about it. For example, Fukushima, nobody died from radiation. Big mess but nobody died. TMI nobody died. If the std is that nobody dies from modern day reactors is not enough, and “safer” is the only answer, then nuclear can never win. Oil gas coal can keep killing people via accidents and emissions everyday, and that’s life, but nuclear? Not safe.

Crazy part was Fukushima took a effing tsunami to have any problems and even then, from what I read, it shut down using failsafe mechanisms the way it was supposed too, yet it is portrayed as this big disaster

Pretty sells!

@@harroldhenderson I don’t know, pretty may get more views but I find it hard to take anything coming from someone as pretty as she or physics girl seriously! 😂 It’s like never trust a skinny cook, never believe a pretty face! 😂

​@@harroldhenderson tell me how so in writing?

​@@arghjayem she's not an actual physicist, she's a journalist, they find out did for us from smarter people

@@arghjayemmisogynist … they have to be ugly in order for you to believe them 🤮

Good piont

I agree Johnny just goes for ckickbait and views to get a bigger sponsor payoff.

Has nothing to do with all the cancer huh? Ever live near an atomic plant? Our local one shut down decades ago. Hundreds still work there dealing with waste. The local school had to close their building down and move miles away because of the highest rates of cancer in the state. Ive been offered a lot of money to work there, but I dont know a single person who has worked there and didnt get cancer. You think we can make magic energy from radioactive materials and there not be any consequences? Talk about stupidity....

Also geography. Thinking about Fukushima I realised building a reactor practically on top of a fault line where tsunamis are common is not a good plan

@@Dani_1012Fukushima was an overhyped ‘catastrophe’ it killed a single individual and didn’t release that much nuclear radiation because of safety features. It happened because the company running it was corrupt and grossly mismanaged it

​@@Dani_1012thank you kind stranger for that insight ( I might use it for my essay!)

If not forbthe fact Russia is there, Siberia would be actually a good place to do it.

@@tymondabrowski12 As long as it is away from Kamchatka and the coast of the North Pacific there, yeah it would. Though the infrastructure required to then get the energy from Siberia, and to get workers and repairmen and stuff out tot he plants, might not be very feasible for awhile. 20-30 years may be a very different story though.

Its a ancient roman cement mixture. Im pretty sure

this comment is first

@@arsondude___ limestone aggregate, crack forms, limestone dissolves, crack healed

​@@arsondude___ no. We already discovered what that was that Romans developed to have their cement heal itself but it would not work today. Today we reinforce our concrete with metal and anciet Roman technique would corrode our metal

​@@ObliviouslyAware Moral of the story. Crack heals!

This is all one-sided pro nuclear. Paid?

Perfectly possible to be positive about nuclear, especially looking at current and next gen.

@@darronpreston2098 Not half wrong. Feared it I did as a kid , way back when . Anyhow , have a good weekend

what do you mean by phase of humanity?

if we stop war maybe nuclear power is a mist but in today society war is still rampant and nuclear energy plant is one big target also nuclear energy is still dangerous even theirs a 1 percent chance it to fail like Chernobyl that one fail could destroy a city and deem in inhospitable to life for 50 years or more

​@@zedrhyx1788 History is a cycle and war is an eternal part of that cycle; it will never end.

Yeah, but that dynamic exists anyway. Now it's just oil producers that have that power. I get what you're saying, but whether it's nuclear or not makes no difference.

@@matthewmcclain1316 that why renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal are better in my opinion. Renewable have to be spread out to be efficient and can’t depend on a precise location such as Oil or Uranium. In my view renewables have an opportunity to limit the power of few old man around the globe by limiting the influence of a strategic area that normally would fuels the world energy demands.

Yes they’re stupid

Yes. Look at Chernobyl, normal people learned about it after the radioactive material went from Ukraine to Norway or Sweden. There are still parts of Europe in surprising places like Germany or some north countries where you can't gather mushrooms (which is a cultural thing to do) because the radioactive material fell down in that specific region. Lots of lives were altered and shortened (way more than the official number of casualties). And thing is, you can't really eliminate human error (not with current technology) or "freaky accidents", so whatever you do will at some point go wrong. And with nuclear the impact is bigger. Just looking at Chernobyl, some places there won't be hospitable for thousands of years. I'm not saying it's better to not do any nuclear or it's not worth the risk, but just explaining why people are afraid.

Here in ohio our local atomic plant in Piketon has caused more cancer than anything I could ever think of. Whole schools have moved their building miles because the cancer rates were 4x the norm. Dont know a single person who worked there and didnt get cancer. But let me guess you dont live near an atomic plant huh? Dont have any experiance with them at all but you have some loud opinions huh? Makes since.

​@chasejordan22 That's odd. That would mean the containment of the reactor was flawed. Did they ever fix it or just shut it down? Either that or they were dumping waste illegally.

@@invisalats841 During its nearly 60 years of operation, the cleaning, maintenance and change-out of process equipment at the site generated radionuclide contamination, spent solvents and other chemical contaminants that were disposed of in onsite landfills and surface storage buildings. thats just from wikipedia. heres more A DOE air monitor adjacent to Zahn's Corner Middle School - which is located in Piketon, Ohio, just two miles (3.2 kilometers) from the plant - detected airborne Neptunium-237 and Americium-241 in 2017 and 2018, respectively. On May 13, 2019, a report by Dr. Michael Ketterer of Northern Arizona University indicated the presence of enriched uranium and transuranic radionuclides within the school, resulting in the Scioto Valley Local School District Board choosing to close the school for the rest of the 2018-2019 school year I litetally cant find a shut down date, or reason, but I dont see where anything was illegal or mismanaged.

She’s too fine to process what she’s saying

Wrong, the incentive is misplaced in his video he displays a chart that looks at government subsidies towards these sources of energy… Green energy companies got the most governments subsidies. That’s pretty good incentive.. I’ve also never understood the reason why lobbyists always lobby to ban something that gonna compete against them… like JUST GO IN THAT BUSINESS. Like when cigarette companies lobby against weed, like you have the infrastructure, just go into the weed business and release weed cigarettes.

​@@NarutoUzumaki-vc4wy wrong, it's just the oil lobbies

@@NarutoUzumaki-vc4wy Like if it was easy to use trillions in development of nuclear plants, for then having a low margin of cost. It's much better for them to just say its bad. Thye get a lot more money from that

@@alixante7437 idk man, thats very short sighted.... Its a long term game, unless the point is they cant play a long term game, cause its obviously the future, why not get a headstart and corner the market before anyone gets there.

@@NarutoUzumaki-vc4wy because they will need to invest billions into a lot of things that will have a very long term few returns. It isn't good for them. And they aren't sure that they will succeed. So it's better to feed the already bad reputation of nuclear energy and they will keep getting a lot of money from oil, without spending that much

Its really not high risk.

It is Extremely safe, 200 times more than oil

@@SkydivingChiken it saves the trees

Why ignoring the man here?

Neither do I. Could you please explain?

Not sure why I'm not seeing my comment responses. But Fukushima happened in 2011 that impacted the Nuclear power industry as Johnny has shown to Cleo in the full video of this short.

@@amlesion9142 Oh right, Fukushima.

no one died from radiation at fukushima and the explosion in the power plant was due to hydrogen build up. and the area is safe today.

"Nuclear lobby" 😂 okay

Yeah lets co continue to use Trumps green coal

​@@thatrandomguy8567usa is a corporate playground That's why we have regulations for workers with fair pay and not the mess of a car city in europe

For real man how dare they discover nuclear is the safest energy source ever

Better than spewing coal ash with radioactive particles into the atmosphere.

You are so uninformed, it is hard to even know where to start. You are embarrassing yourself. Just wanted to point that out, in case you are not just pretending to believe what you just said.

Everything is an investment

Yeah, except the only reason why renewables are cheap rn is because of massive, billion dollar government subsidies

Renewables are “cheaper” because they he government is footing the bill and using your tax money to pay for it. The actual cost of solar and wind is far larger than nuclear for the same energy produced. Nuclear can produce far more energy than any renewable, and even fossil fuel

Renewables are bullshit. They're ugly, expensive and break. Nuclear is the best option.

What happened is right wing swedish politicians derailed climate policy, allowing people you like you to (inadvertantly? purposefully?) spread misinformation about how expensive renewables are and tout nuclear. Same thing happened with france and their "crisis"

The toxic waste is handled more securely then pretty much anything else on this planet because its so bad. How is the waste from coal and oil plants handled in comparison, hmmm? Coal and oil can crap the bed at anytime because "meh its just a tiny fine".

But they don't, waste is stored on site

I understand what you're saying, and you make an interesting strategic argument. But I don't believe nuclear energy is that much of a threat. Reactor fuel is typically pretty weak compared to stuff used in nuclear carriers and especially weapons. Along with that, the more dangerous the isotope, the quicker that isotope decays. Most of the dangerous stuff at Fukushima released in the meltdown decayed within 2-10 years of the disaster, depending on the element and isotope. It's the same reason Chernobyl, the site of one of the worst kinds of reactor meltdowns you could conceivably have, is one of the most thriving nature preserves in Europe now, with the only remnant of the radioactive fallout being elevated cancer rates in the animal populations. The only credible danger I can think of with nuclear power is that the centrifuges you build to get reactor fuel can be pretty easily built upon to help make nuclear weapons. The solution to this is usually just to have countries that already have nukes make the fuel, then sell the fuel to non-nuclear powers who want it.

Try googling anything he says. Lol

He was wrong on so much though

it is cheaper than ever.

@mifphilip it's whether it's cheaper than the alternative. It wasn't against gas, and isn't against renewable (though it has other advantages like consistency).

Nuclear waste is extremely dense and not nearly as dangerous as you think. The last 60 years of nuclear waste can fit in the size of one football field. Nuclear waste can even be recycled. We solved the waste “problem” many years ago, and it’s literally a non-issue

wouldnt happen, promise you. now even if it heppened we simply retaliate like we’ve historically done for terrorist events

Who gives a f uck? If china shoots a missle into an operational nuclear power plant the world is over no matter what. They could shoot a missle into the middle of the fucking desert and the world is over, doesnt matter either way.

Even way more likely,what happens if it wear itself out due to poor American maintenance

Nothing

Lmao, this comment is so American 😂

Oil does not produce commercial electricity. What kinda sheikh does not know that

@@namesarecliche3850 sheikh is my surname. My name is. Sheikh Noman Uddin Ahamed Biddut

@@namesarecliche3850 i guess the "me" kind of sheikh

I like how you're just openly against democracy. That is logical. After all, Chernobyl came from that famously democratic country, the ussr

Well, absolute lack of fear and a 'god complex' isn't always great either.

"People are scared of nuclear because they're just misinformed" This is such a great false talking point. Gleefully repeated to discredit anyone, usually successful because nuke people clap like seals.

Cleo Abram, she's also a content creator

Of ig models

Hanford Vit Plant

Dude this comment is so wrong and uneducated. Japan has announced this year they are getting back into nuclear energy. The reason they got it wrong the first time with fukushima was they cut costs and it was easily preventable. Also japan the same country that works it workers to suicide caring about safety that's laughable.

Human error

@@josemorales5117 duh