Good shit, Nuclear is soooo much better than shit like gas coal oil. And in the current there are places where we simply can't just use renewable energy, Nuclear works

That's why you rely on US who fu#ed you up many times especially with 57billon deal of Submarines. Great.

@@cte4dota excuse me, France relies on the US ? It's a joke right ? HAHAHHAH France is the oldest ally of the US AND the main competitor when it's about military sales... What happened to France since the Aukus deal ? at least 3 or 4 multi billion contracts with Rafale and other stuff and now India and France are Making a nuclear submarine deal and also a new Rafale contract. Ask youself why France called her ambassadors from the US and Australia but not UK... The real reason is because UK is also a customer, they have a pending order with France... (a boat...) I can tell you one thing, each time the Rafale wins, the US looses, they are always in the final round to win the contracts, but for Aukus, it' was 100% politic, the US don't care about the submarine deal, what they want is to be able to send their military assets in the Australian ports to be closer of China... Nice try, but you should do your homework better...

@@johndoe-cd9vt Whatever you say man, just worship ur bosses in US and do what they want and you will be cool, You where ally of Russia also? But you don't like them just coz US masters like it that way? Russians did nothing wrong to you.

@@cte4dota France is probably the country who likes the most Russia in Europe... In fact most of the other countries are scared of Russia, but France is not because: 1) She shares a long history with Russia 2) She is the only nuclear power in EU... BUT I hate what Germany is doing with Russia, she is too dependent and weaken the EU states.

Cost, waste disposal, battery development over the next 20 years...

@@1968Christiaan Waste? Mean the stuff that's still 97% fuel and can be recycled indefinitely?

@@1968Christiaan well I would rather store waste underground where it is unlikely to harm anyone then waste in the air that kills millions of people and tens of millions of animals per year.

@@1968Christiaan how much does it cost to have solar power station that can provide 1000-2000 MW of power 24/7 365 days a year in any climate?

@@VFPn96kQT well no nuclear plant meets those parameters. However a 3 GW continuous solar farm and storage that does meet those parameters is being built now in Australia (which has the climate and land) to supply Singapore (which doesn't). Cost is about 12 billion USD, so about 1/3-1/6 (depending on how you measure - capital costs only or life cycle costs) of the price of the same sized EPR plant being built in the UK, and its taking about 6 years, so 1/4 the lead time of the UK plant.

The reason is that company don’t have to pay for the Energiewende, but the taxpayers

Nuclear waste is a problem.

My neeeighbor is a horse

@@miteshmistry25 And there are solutions being reserched to make it easier to solve than the carbon emissions problem with traditional fuel... While being much much much more sustainable than both traditional fuel and renewed energy.

@@ogedeh Juan?

The world should follow France's energy example.

As a German I agree. European nuclear power would be a great benefit especially of we develop through reactors further.

I hope your country leads the way with Nuclear energy in the EU.

First thing I found nice about macron lol

Better news next year : Macron reelection.

At least Belgium is going to be replacing their reactors with newer ones.

Funnily enough, Japan didnt

Ah Germany was so cocky that their renewables would save the day until the wind decided not to blow and the sunshine not be there at night (how dare it). Love how Germany is trying to say natural gas is renewable, unless they're going to tap into the German Reichstag - should probably be enough gas there to power half of Europe and while at it Brussels would be another NG rich site....

@@rw-xf4cb they have backed themselves into an illogical corner. Thus saying burning fossils fuels is environmentally sustainable. I hate when the environmentalists can’t accept reality and they contribute to the pollution just as much as non-environmentalists.

The Netherlands are gonna build 3 new nuclear plants too

WELL SAID

They would be enough if the politicians actually had courage and would enforce reforms and crack down on the wasteful consumption of energy done every single day.

@@greob so, on a dark winter day with almost no wind we should all live without electricity? Or maybe act like the Belgian Green Party and build more gas power plants

@@pros3795 Denmark is 84% renewable with zero problems and low prices..

When the free market creates power, it is SWS Solar Wind and Storage because that is the only way to make money on power. Regulated Utilities must sign 25 year contracts for gas that stifle innovation and they must run the plant even if they don’t want the power because their agreement says so. Free enterprise is buying batteries in Australia and getting a 50% return on capital each year and lowering power prices.

RNG is sustainable.

and with all the gas leakage that happens in natural gas pipelines, natural gas is almost as bad as coal when it comes to greenhouse gasses. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas compared to C02.

@alex bob agreed. Old gas plants are horrible. But if ur getting gas from natural waste products like spoiled food and landfills than its actually carbon negative.

@@RafaelsFlix Russia says otherwise...

well, there is no renewables without a toping possibilty able to compensate, and that is natural gas (or worse).

Have you actually watched the video?

@@shakiMiki Yes, I have. Nuclear energy is the future.

And Ukraine is an example of continuing to use nuclear power despite setbacks?

@@myroslavnesysiuk730 And, inevitably someone is going to come, pointing out problems, that only apply to old reactor designs...

@@frogg8891 uhhh. Don't remind. So many times

It is a bet... that someone doesnt improve on battery storage in the next 20 years. That nothing unforeseen goes wrong... that somebody somewhere can bury all their waste and nothing will happen to it... AND that the budgets limits can be held. No modern nuclear power station has been built within budget... often many time more expensive.

@@1968Christiaan Battery storage will likely NEVER even come close to the energy density of fission, and that is without even acknowledging the fact that batteries are not a source of power. Yes, repositories will have to be built. Budgets can be blown when power is vital and global warming mitigation is more import. Anyone who thinks that the TERAWATTS of energy we need to maintain modern society will EVER be provided by renewable energy and storage does not understand energy production or energy density at all.

@@theephemeralglade1935 Well SAID

@@1968Christiaan ...what does storage have to do with generation?

​@@8BitNaptime Solar panels are on average more effective power generators. More modular, cheaper production, no fuel, etc. With perfect energy storage they would be way better than nuclear or anything else. Currently storage is not good enough though, incurring too large losses in storing and retrieving energy. But with the ongoing electric vehicle revolution, research into more efficient batteries is gaining massive funding, so it's only a matter of time. For context I'm currently pro-nuclear as well. Don't really see any drawbacks, and we can't wait 40 years for better batteries and solar to be viable. Wind pollutes too much aesthetically and kills birds etc. Whoever approved/subsidised wind turbines should be forced to live in wind turbine parks the rest of their lives.

Nuclear power is cheaper and safer.

Nuclear power is not, will not and has never been a financially viable option. There are great videos on youtube about the financing of nuclear power stations. Companies had to be given massive funding to start the projects, have not found ways to get rid of the waste.. and want to move out of nuclear as quickly as possible. Nuclear is the long term worse option next to "carry on with coal". This is a conversation about future energy security. Ask yourself this real personal question ... if you had a million dollars to invest... would you bet that a company can create cheap electric storage in the next 20 years... (Musk, Iron-Air, Liquid metal, Redox etc) or would you bet NO ONE can crack that and put your investment in a nuclear power plant ? This is why nuclear is no longer privately financed........

@Robert Groot they dont create as much energy tho and the reason why they arent being built is for political reasons

@Robert Groot Read about torium cycle. It didn't produce waste near at all, also current nuclear waste can be used as fuel for this type of reactors.

@@1968Christiaan Also read about toruim cycle, no waste at all.

Nuclear also allows them to be more independent.

"you can't supply base load power with renewables" is just a wrong statement. Baseload power does not require huge powerplants nor plants who can run steadily for long periods of time. The components of your baseload just must be able to replace eachother within a short period of time. Since Solar and Wind are currently the cheapest electricity sources you want to use as much of them as you can. Wind is generally already a part of baseload. While solar is used to cover peak demand during the day it can also go down into the baseload replacing among others Hydro, which can then power back up once the sun has set. In the future baseloads will become even more dynamic since wind and solar have no fuel cost and supplying baseload with gas or coal, you have pay for, while solar and wind sit idle but could generate is just a waste of money. Also having high-megawatt single powerplants can even be something really legbreaking. When France has to, and i think they even currently are, shut down one or more nuclear powerplants, which can mean a output reduction of multiple gigawatts, thats a expensive hole to fill

You only forget one thing. Solar and wind energy is not being given to the people, but to big corporations. Eg the Netherlands allowing Facebook to build a datacenter so big it has the same amount of energy consumption as the entire city of Amsterdam. How the hell can we become carbon neutral if we're going to give >15% of our total energy supply to datacenters? Datacenters don't like nuclear energy, because that isn't green. So nuclear energy can provide baseload to the people without big corp snooping away the electricity.

@@alexties6933 france have mountain terrain and rain enough to replace all their nuclear power plants, using the storage system we already use. New river dams, can pump up back the water when the solar and wind produce above the demand, using that not used energy, to the dam produce again when the wind and solar are short. In that system we only need 2 dams in sequence to do the energy storage like a battery. One of the dams of course must be in a "dry" river base to allow that energy storage. We already have 2 new dams of that double fuction, builded conected to two old big river dams. Now we are building 3 new sequencial dams, in a river basin that was not enough to one old system dam, and in the mountains were we have more wind generation parks. The 2 upper dams has that double fuction, and the down dam are only for holding the water and produce energy if the upper 2 dams are releasing too much water.

@@ricardoxavier827 why is land development and hydroforming for power generation not considered pollution? Is carbon dioxide the only pollution that matters? I would consider digging, development of natural areas, diverting waterways large scale pollution also.

France also has the lowest CO2 emissions per person in the EU, due to nuclear power.

@@davidbarry6900 it gets even better. next gen reactor designs use previously disguarded waste as fuel. legacy nuclear could not extract the majority of the power in the fuel. next gen uses molten salts. no need to mine new uranium, 100s of years worth of fuel sitting stored at the nuclear power stations still.

As president Giscard (in the context of the 70's oil crisis) said : "In France we don't have oil, but we have ideas" haha.

In Fact ,France has the 7th best air quality in the World .

Mark my word : in the next 10 years, Germany will go back on its decision, they recently went in deficit in their energy balance for the first time in decades. Especially if France and the Netherlands start to export nuclear massively to them, they will likely try to build SMR. But it's my opinion, their green madness will end eventually.

Are your fracking activities completely closed? Apparently you have huge natural gas resources ...

@@OmmerSyssel True, we are sitting on one off the largest reserved. Getting that gas causes a lot of quakes thou and it literally destroys houses and towns as a result so its not a viable source.

You know that Macron let the Fessenheim close itself in 2020, right? He doesn’t have a clear opinion about anything, he is sometimes in favour of something and sometimes against that same thing. That’s why I wouldn’t vote for him in 2022

There are no known Uranium deposits in the EU to speak of.

@@SchnuckySchuster there are some in Spain and Portugal 😉

Glad you can't vote as uninformed as you are.

You really know nothing about Macron. He is full of contradiction. At the beginning of his campagn, he planned to shut down 12 nuclear reactor

Do you know where 50% of the fuel rods came from? take a guess

@@midnattsol6207 Even if it comes from Northkorea, once you possess it, nobody can turn tap on or off at will... You have greater control for your energy security.

@@midnattsol6207 Do you know that stockpiling enough fuel for a decade or more of operation is trivially easy? Quite the stark contrast from gas supplies that have to be continuously replenished.

don't hold your breath for 25 -30 years.

Considering 2022, as a german, i am still laughing....

@Blitz Where can I find this study?

Gas emmits only half the Co2/kwh conpared to coal... The reason we use it because we don't need to import it

@@0799qwertzuiop And nuclear is 0%. If burning whale blubber only had half the emissions of coal would you endorse going back to killing whales for mankind's energy needs?Natural gas is still a limited, antiquated, non-renewable, carbon-based fuel that pollutes our air and water. So I'm left wondering what's your point?

Your English is great, and it's probably just autotype on your phone that spell it like this, but just in case it is one you're unsure about yet: With 'another' in English, you can't put 'an other' without having changed the meaning quite significantly. 'an other' is different to 'another.' 'Another' means additional/further, whereas 'an other' means an alternative/separate thing. The two words aren't just another way of writing the one word. Of course as with all languages there are exceptions! And I'm sure you already knew the meanings. But your English is so good I wanted to point this thing out in case it was one of those quirks of refinement that we can benefit from being told we've missed them. Sorry for the pedantry if it was only your phone distorting what you actually typed. This wouldn't surprise me, given how perfect your English otherwise was. 🙂

@@sanders555 well blubber is technically net 0 emmissions. My point is that Gas is a much better resource to use compared to coal. We currently can't supply all our energy needs with renewables so using Gas to plug the gap isn't that bad. Nuclear isn't a solution either because it won't be ready in time. The only other option is to not use as much energy wich is not going to happen.

They use breeder reactors so they can reuse stored waste that they have, as smart as molten salt reactors infact the both of them are extremely good reactors either one of them is good

@@bigcnmmerb0873 French here. Dunno where you got that info, but we don't have breeder reactors. The last one we've built, Superphénix, which worked fine was shut down prematurely just as it got operational, because Jospin, prime minister at the time, thought it wasn't "economically viable". So it's getting dismantled... And there was another experimental project, Astrid, that got shut down recently too. Unfortunately, there isn't enough political Will anymore to really make headway with Nuclear, and there's a big political opposition from "Green" parties even in a Nuclear Bastion like France, which truthfully is managing to sabotage things. Well, people are starting to wake up to it, and now that other countries are interested in breeder reactors, people are starting to see we were 20 years ahead of the rest and we squandered it all to appease idiots.

@@Baamthe25th damn that's really unfortunate, as for the info couldn't remember whether it was Russia or France so just want with france instead lol so sorry bout that.

Amazing to think that we build nuclear power stations on fault-lines and tsunami hot spots to stop the hugely immense 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the air. We are estimated to make about three percent of that very large 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide that Earth's eco system is utterly dependant. The rest is spewing from volcanoes and the fault-lines they sit on. We ignore the monster storms that are generated by these massive volcanoes spewing these particles that the moisture condenses on and creates the super storms. And now we see long duration Volcanoes like La Palma breaking all the rules of any volcanoes we have seen going off in our history and we wonder why we see elevated levels of carbon dioxide? Unknown to most, Chernobyl went bang on the day of a massive Earthquake as did Fukushima. Now we see cancer rates rise amid endless altering of the safe amount of parts per million of radioactive particles permitted to accommodate the massive leaks from just 4 reactor meltdowns we know of over 35 years. Possibly about one percent catastrophic failure overall perhaps. Now we watch our loved ones die slowly of cancers. Not in pain as we have taken Afghanistan's opium to solve that problem. But they can die of our 'Green' choices and all their money can be drained off before their departure by medical and pharmaceutical corporations that can extend their early departure but still at great cost beyond just the hard cash. Perfect profiteering in what we have all perceived to be 'right wing' scenario but it's sold to us as a 'left wing' environmental agenda. I mean, come one: there is no right or left wing. There is just vulnerable human beings getting swayed by a political bullshit agenda that uses 'woke' bullshit to drive their profiteering business ideas and then buy legislation from politicians that push ruthless profiteering green agendas on us...by LAW. But Hay!! Good news, Bill Gates says he can get us to carbon zero with vaccinations. And the environmentalists all believe it. Doesn't it look like British Columbia is crying out for lots more nuclear power stations to be built on these flood plains. To SAVE THE WORLD...yeah!! Apparently we're going to build 16 new power stations to save Britain here in the UK! YEAH! It like the power station built near me at Hinkley Point in the UK. Literally built on the main tsunami hot spot of Western Europe. The last time the tsunami occurred was when La Palma last majorly erupted and the fault line that it sits on that runs out to the Mid Atlantic Rift that.likely caused the tsunami that dwarfed the Fukushima tsunami. But that the invisible wall of belief we hide behind so we can pretend we can't comprehend that. A good environmentalist knows he or she is good because of his or her beliefs. They are no different to Christians. They have taken Christ off the cross and stuck the Earth on it instead and now she's dying because of your sins. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to believe than you or me killing Jesus. All right I did it...I'll lay down my life in servitude. And if we believe our servitude makes us good to this nuclear fission obsessed carbon dioxide hating god then just like Christianity, we're good only by belief but totally toxic in reality which basically means heinous and utterly evil... Ring any bells? Until we see through our duality and realise we are merely being invaded by beings that run a system called 'belief' to control Humanity which is nothing more than an invasive entity that has its claws locked on to only one thing: you body and mind. Welcome to the invasion of the body snatchers...the believers. All the answers you are looking for are beyond belief now and if you can't cross that line then your time is all but done here on this plane. Because our beliefs are killing our world it has to let you go. We give it no choice. Time to take your shot. It's ok. You ready for your booster yet? The believers will be-lieving shortly. Go in hate, doubt and belief. Or stay in love. The problem we face is about to get solved once and for all. The solution to it all stares you in the face but you can't believe what you see. Some times you have to be honest with yourself and ask the real question you need to ask yourself: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING? Not me. Very interesting video. Thanks very much.

@@bigcnmmerb0873 yeah russia still has some SFBs online BN-600 and 800. Unfortunately, we closed down superphénix a while ago to appease "environmentalists". And also bc uranium is cheap.

Amazing to think that we build nuclear power stations on fault-lines and tsunami hot spots to stop the hugely immense 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the air. We are estimated to make about three percent of that very large 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide that Earth's eco system is utterly dependant. The rest is spewing from volcanoes and the fault-lines they sit on. We ignore the monster storms that are generated by these massive volcanoes spewing these particles that the moisture condenses on and creates the super storms. And now we see long duration Volcanoes like La Palma breaking all the rules of any volcanoes we have seen going off in our history and we wonder why we see elevated levels of carbon dioxide? Unknown to most, Chernobyl went bang on the day of a massive Earthquake as did Fukushima. Now we see cancer rates rise amid endless altering of the safe amount of parts per million of radioactive particles permitted to accommodate the massive leaks from just 4 reactor meltdowns we know of over 35 years. Possibly about one percent catastrophic failure overall perhaps. Now we watch our loved ones die slowly of cancers. Not in pain as we have taken Afghanistan's opium to solve that problem. But they can die of our 'Green' choices and all their money can be drained off before their departure by medical and pharmaceutical corporations that can extend their early departure but still at great cost beyond just the hard cash. Perfect profiteering in what we have all perceived to be 'right wing' scenario but it's sold to us as a 'left wing' environmental agenda. I mean, come one: there is no right or left wing. There is just vulnerable human beings getting swayed by a political bullshit agenda that uses 'woke' bullshit to drive their profiteering business ideas and then buy legislation from politicians that push ruthless profiteering green agendas on us...by LAW. But Hay!! Good news, Bill Gates says he can get us to carbon zero with vaccinations. And the environmentalists all believe it. Doesn't it look like British Columbia is crying out for lots more nuclear power stations to be built on these flood plains. To SAVE THE WORLD...yeah!! Apparently we're going to build 16 new power stations to save Britain here in the UK! YEAH! It like the power station built near me at Hinkley Point in the UK. Literally built on the main tsunami hot spot of Western Europe. The last time the tsunami occurred was when La Palma last majorly erupted and the fault line that it sits on that runs out to the Mid Atlantic Rift that.likely caused the tsunami that dwarfed the Fukushima tsunami. But that the invisible wall of belief we hide behind so we can pretend we can't comprehend that. A good environmentalist knows he or she is good because of his or her beliefs. They are no different to Christians. They have taken Christ off the cross and stuck the Earth on it instead and now she's dying because of your sins. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to believe than you or me killing Jesus. All right I did it...I'll lay down my life in servitude. And if we believe our servitude makes us good to this nuclear fission obsessed carbon dioxide hating god then just like Christianity, we're good only by belief but totally toxic in reality which basically means heinous and utterly evil... Ring any bells? Until we see through our duality and realise we are merely being invaded by beings that run a system called 'belief' to control Humanity which is nothing more than an invasive entity that has its claws locked on to only one thing: you body and mind. Welcome to the invasion of the body snatchers...the believers. All the answers you are looking for are beyond belief now and if you can't cross that line then your time is all but done here on this plane. Because our beliefs are killing our world it has to let you go. We give it no choice. Time to take your shot. It's ok. You ready for your booster yet? The believers will be-lieving shortly. Go in hate, doubt and belief. Or stay in love. The problem we face is about to get solved once and for all. The solution to it all stares you in the face but you can't believe what you see. Some times you have to be honest with yourself and ask the real question you need to ask yourself: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING? Not me. Very interesting video. Thanks very much.

Today's nuclear 'waste' is not a problem - but the SOLUTION to climate change! Feed it to breeder reactors and get 100 times the energy out of it! It's just a LIE to say waste is a problem. This 4 minute Argonne Labs video explains. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g9J9d6eZtp-RoHk.html

I bet by the end of next 20 years SpaceX startship program would be sucessful and it would be wiser to dump all the waste on Venus. Additionally france can recycle and reduce the size of the waste.

Don't the smaller reactors produce more waste?

@@eclipsenow5431 Nuclear energy is extremely complex and you don't have the technical know-how to have an opinion on it. Don't jump on a bandwagon because some media influencer want you to contort to their belief.

@@acevaver5425 You could say that about literally any 21st century technology. I don't know what was said here that made you assume anyone's knowledge on the topic was just as lacking as yours, much less reach the conclusion they're on some influencer "bandwagon". I hate people commenting on subjects in which they have no grasp or real depth of understanding as much as anyone, but for you to post that kind of criticism here just makes it sound like you just have a chip on your shoulder and an uninformed, garbage interpretation of facts more than it makes you sound like any type of genuine, well-intentioned advocate for rational, better-informed opinions. You've contributed nothing to this dialog other than cultivating a distaste for you and your commentary from a large public audience.

and thats only one of dangerous aspects of Energiewelte

Does it Mather where the gas come from?

@@arnehofoss9109 ecologicly, i does not, politicly, it does.

Amazing to think that we build nuclear power stations on fault-lines and tsunami hot spots to stop the hugely immense 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the air. We are estimated to make about three percent of that very large 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide that Earth's eco system is utterly dependant. The rest is spewing from volcanoes and the fault-lines they sit on. We ignore the monster storms that are generated by these massive volcanoes spewing these particles that the moisture condenses on and creates the super storms. And now we see long duration Volcanoes like La Palma breaking all the rules of any volcanoes we have seen going off in our history and we wonder why we see elevated levels of carbon dioxide? Unknown to most, Chernobyl went bang on the day of a massive Earthquake as did Fukushima. Now we see cancer rates rise amid endless altering of the safe amount of parts per million of radioactive particles permitted to accommodate the massive leaks from just 4 reactor meltdowns we know of over 35 years. Possibly about one percent catastrophic failure overall perhaps. Now we watch our loved ones die slowly of cancers. Not in pain as we have taken Afghanistan's opium to solve that problem. But they can die of our 'Green' choices and all their money can be drained off before their departure by medical and pharmaceutical corporations that can extend their early departure but still at great cost beyond just the hard cash. Perfect profiteering in what we have all perceived to be 'right wing' scenario but it's sold to us as a 'left wing' environmental agenda. I mean, come one: there is no right or left wing. There is just vulnerable human beings getting swayed by a political bullshit agenda that uses 'woke' bullshit to drive their profiteering business ideas and then buy legislation from politicians that push ruthless profiteering green agendas on us...by LAW. But Hay!! Good news, Bill Gates says he can get us to carbon zero with vaccinations. And the environmentalists all believe it. Doesn't it look like British Columbia is crying out for lots more nuclear power stations to be built on these flood plains. To SAVE THE WORLD...yeah!! Apparently we're going to build 16 new power stations to save Britain here in the UK! YEAH! It like the power station built near me at Hinkley Point in the UK. Literally built on the main tsunami hot spot of Western Europe. The last time the tsunami occurred was when La Palma last majorly erupted and the fault line that it sits on that runs out to the Mid Atlantic Rift that.likely caused the tsunami that dwarfed the Fukushima tsunami. But that the invisible wall of belief we hide behind so we can pretend we can't comprehend that. A good environmentalist knows he or she is good because of his or her beliefs. They are no different to Christians. They have taken Christ off the cross and stuck the Earth on it instead and now she's dying because of your sins. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to believe than you or me killing Jesus. All right I did it...I'll lay down my life in servitude. And if we believe our servitude makes us good to this nuclear fission obsessed carbon dioxide hating god then just like Christianity, we're good only by belief but totally toxic in reality which basically means heinous and utterly evil... Ring any bells? Until we see through our duality and realise we are merely being invaded by beings that run a system called 'belief' to control Humanity which is nothing more than an invasive entity that has its claws locked on to only one thing: you body and mind. Welcome to the invasion of the body snatchers...the believers. All the answers you are looking for are beyond belief now and if you can't cross that line then your time is all but done here on this plane. Because our beliefs are killing our world it has to let you go. We give it no choice. Time to take your shot. It's ok. You ready for your booster yet? The believers will be-lieving shortly. Go in hate, doubt and belief. Or stay in love. The problem we face is about to get solved once and for all. The solution to it all stares you in the face but you can't believe what you see. Some times you have to be honest with yourself and ask the real question you need to ask yourself: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING? Not me. Very interesting video. Thanks very much.

Being dependent on Russian natural gas now is the worst of times with invation of Ukraine by Russia looming

yeah, and as long as those plants stay online, they keep generating money. add to that the cost of oil / coal we don't have to import to replace it and the math becomes abundantly clear.

@@Lapantouflemagic0 If you also add the fact that EVs are becoming more viable by the year , you can see why having a robush and energy dense generation system is important.

THIS Germany spends oodles of money on importing gas, France gets to keep every dime.

That is also nuclear expertise that can be sold or traded to India as they develop nuclear plants and nuclear ships. India is moving into solar panel production so that is a relationship that can be mutually beneficial and a win-win.

Nuclear FTW!

As a German; would you buy anything technological from France?

@@Izingana French engineering is one of (if not the) best in the world.

@@Hepad_ Enlighten me, please!

It's not going to happen. Germany will never back down from nuclear, not in near future. Current govt wiith greens defo won't. Which means even if a pro-nuclear party/coaliting wins in 2025, puts through legislative changes, the earliest date for *planning* a new German nuclear plant would be 2027, assuming typical timeframes meaning an online date of mid to late 2030s.... And who would build and run it? Germany relinquished its nuclear industry. Siemens sold off its reactor business in 2011. And at any rate, what party would advertise being pro-nuclear when 80% of Germans oppose it?

Yeah. Also France invest quite a lot to avoid any disasters.

@@achillezins6548 lets be honest here, whit exception of Chernobyl, (and dont know what and when in china you have in mind), TMI is not even worth mention, and Fukushima was not that bad, technology - even for 2nd generation of reactors- hold out most of it inside.

@@marianmarkovic5881 I think you wanted to respond to the other guy. I'm just saying that france spends a lot, just to aviod any disasters (almost half of it's nuclear budget)

@@achillezins6548 true, but overall it fits tread, another thing is current regulations made overpaying for nuclear safery, respectivly whit additional cost there are demminishing returns.

@@marianmarkovic5881 yeah France invest a lot in nuclear (a total of 176 billion € to be exact since 1945 and 80 billion € just for safety). It’s very expensive yeah but it’s economically profitable. France nuclear industry makes every year 20 billion €. The nuclear sector brings together 220 000 jobs and 2500 companies (source: EDF, IDE)

I love more safe theory,....in fact we just paying 4x cost for chance of accident rate 10e-10 instead of 10e-8.....

@@marianmarkovic5881 Nuclear energy maybe costly to build but accounting for long term cost it can compete with fossil fuel on prices. Also new technologies like molten salt reactor can reduce cost even further

The d3mocrats made sure to stop America's use of nuclear power

@@jamescollier3 a glut of natural gas for most of the last decade has cushioned the effects of the current enegy transition in the US so they could ignore the problems emerging from not including a nuclear expansion in the grid but that's ending as we speak for quite a few reasons (underinvestment, increasing LNG export capacity, fewer financing options for natural gas projects, and a natural market correction). It'll be harder to ignore as prices rise and blackouts like those that occured in California and Texas this last year become more frequent.

@@coreymicallef365 and that the current administration is trying to go carbon free.

Nuclear FTW!

Guess what,the best Nuclear powerplants in the form of VVER-1200 comes from the Russian Federation as well

guess they mean renewable created gas, there are some business channels in my country as well discussing that gas produced by fermentation of feedstock, or other reclaming processes of waste should be allowed to get certificates of renewablity so they can be competitive with gas of fossil origin on national, european and international markets

@@jorisderijck1779 I think they are talking about gas found underground. The reason is probably that they want to use gas power plants as a backup for solar/wind. Seeing solar+wind+gas as a single package, could put gas into the sustainable group. But while I understand their thinking, I don't think it's a good idea. Since to be sustainable, you need energy storage. Not a backup gas power plant.

@@Robbedem Energy storage have problem, noone know how big it truly needs to be, and how costly it can become then, imagine batteries to keep country on for 2 weeks in winter,...

Almost as if you have failed to understand all the issues the video brought up. Always the problem with binary thinking.

@@shakiMiki Nuclear FTW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the Germans believe in something, they really do.

that is cool experience not gonna lie

Everyone is normally comfortable with even dangerous practices, until shit happens. Fukushima was such a case ...

Well, these are the guys that promised to keep coal until 2038 (until even their highest court couldn't stomache it and reduced the promise to 2030).

Gas is sold by Russia. Germany wants to open a new gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. In the 1970 and 1980, the Grünen and anti-nuclear germans had links with the USSR. I bet they are still "useful idiots" right now.

the Japanese almost had it right in the Fukushima plant design, oh well. They knew ahead of time that having the diesel generators too low to sea level was the last risk, but didn't want to allocate the money to move them

Fukushima survived earhquake whit 5*, actualy, if it didnt have set automatic shutdown during earthquake it could use electricity produced to keep cooling going even after tsunami,... but honestly, it killed old power plant 10-15 years early, and caused complicated decommision, but overral it is nowhere as bad as media and antinuclear populist making it to be.

"Uranium ores hasten to point out that they come from the ground" bull's-eye :-)

Nuclear energy is need to build because we can achieve advance nuclear energy to promote space journey so we need build nuclear power plant to gain more knowledge

I think a barrier that many who would otherwise support nuclear energy is still cost. Or at least ignorance to the cost over time. The concept of keeping the grid at capacity when renewables are not available gets lost in translation as well. Like many good ideas, one of the biggest obstacles is that most people have no interest in a long form discussion explaining pros and cons. I’m for nuclear power expansion, but even I have many questions on the process of mining, ensuring supply, and disposal. Those are issues with answers but the problem is the lack of individuals who are interested enough to inquire. How much is gas/petrol on a given day? That is the only energy question I ever hear. I consider myself to be on the environmentalist side of issues more often than not, but why on God’s green earth would anyone think burning coal for another 40 years while we improve renewable technologies is a better environmental choice than reactors pumping steam during the same time. On an unrelated note, I don’t believe I heard the story comment on where Germany gets it natural gas.

@@StanZbornak nuclear plant need to build so we can gain knowledge for every plant we build so we can build advance nuclear energy by continuing reasearch and we can dispose waste

@@oll9693 I agree and hope to see the day humans perfect fusion reactors. But in the meantime we need to convince citizens to demand this from their governments. In the US I find people on all ends of the political spectrum with disdain or ambivalence towards nuclear energy expansion, further highlighting OP’s suggestion of an unholy alliance of strange bedfellows pontificating half truths and conveniently forgetting to expound upon cost over time and innovative disposable techniques.

@@StanZbornak practice makes man perfect capitalist not wait for result they need immediate energy but only nuclear energy bring renewal energy

It can't happen soon enough. The sooner India has a clean reliable source of electricity, the sooner it's economy can go stratospheric.

India has a lot of Thorium.

@@skasteve6528 we are limited by the restrictions imposed by formation of NSG group Just wait till we can find a way around it and see our energy sector thrive

@@shadowpat810 better build toilets first and educate people about condoms...l

well bigest help came from Cannada, Currently India made reactors are based on CANDU design,... Cannada was just unhapy that India used them for making nukes, but thats story for another day....

I would disagree with your assessments on most points to be honest. The german (conservative/libertarian) government paid for a study 10 years age which answered all those questions and showed how Germany could be run on 100% renewables incl storage without the need of new technology (except a moderate learning curve) and without added cost to the system. Since then reality has shown that the learning curve in storage and renewable technology was underestimated by them by a lot. I could give you a break down if you are interested as I'm currently working on a presentation on renewables at my german university, for which I reread that old study and compare it with the current situation and give an outlook into the future. First of there is a negative correlation between wind and solar, so u have more wind at night and in the winter, which lowers the need for storage. Based on data for Germany over the last 10 years, the need for long term storage is much lower than first expected, but installed power has to be equal to peak power. We need massive amounts of hydrogen and synthetic fuel for heavy industry, ships/airplanes, and long term storage, etc. as there is no alternative. Luckily this is cheaper and ironically more efficient than nuclear. (Nuclear has an efficiency of around 33%, while hydrogen storage can be over 40%) I highly doubt though that hydrogen cars will ever be a sygnificant thing and even hydrogen trucks might never happen. 2 years ago I would have answered "I don't know", but if you look at the data coming in, I can't see any feasible pathway for hydrogen cars, while BEVs are already on their pathway to take over the market. (November we had more BEVs than Diesel cars sold in Germany.) On the other hand France has relyed on german coal power for 4 winters in a row now and around half of their reactors is due to be decommissioned in this decade. I doubt how they could replace 30 reactors in 10 years if their last reactor took almost 2 decades and 19bn to be build.

@@TBFSJjunior what you said is not totally true. generally, france import electricity from germany, but , in the same time,export the double for italie,spain and uk . france have a positive balance for electricity. and when you are talking about effeciency, what is the effeciency from a solar panel and a wind turbine ? rsponse 25 30 % max.

Riot.

@@TBFSJjunior Admittedly, I don't know the details about German strategy - my impression is that it is politically driven in the sense - give me the best strategy without nuclear- and then this is what they came up with. It might work. But i have a PhD in electrical engineering and power systems and 20 years experience in energy regulation and some things don't look intuitive to me. Even some things you said above are looks dodgy. 1. You don't compare 33% thermal to electric efficiency with 40% electric to electric efficiency - these are apples and pears. Further 40% E2E efficiency with H2 is a dream, currently its more like 30%. 2. If you have installed wind and solar equal to peak demand and because average output is about 30% of installed, where do you get the missing energy to cover electric demand as well as to generate wast amount of hydrogen. In my intuition you need much more installed power than peak demand. 3. there may be more wind at night and in the winter on average, but there are seasons when this is not the case and then what? 4. My question on seasonal storage remains unanswered. The rest of what you say makes sense, but just to set the table: what is your profession and experience?

@@olivierb9716 France is indeed struggling in the past years with its nuclear fleet and sometimes indeed needs to import electricity in total. But this reflects the hard time (namely neglect) on nuclear industry over past 30 years. This does not mean these problems will persist. Nuclear has a much greater and feasible potential to close the energy gap than any other strategy. Probably the best mix is to have installed power 50-60% (of peak demand) that is available anytime (nuclear, hydro) and about 70-80% (of peak demand) of RES, and produce hydrogen when there is excess. But maybe you need much more.

Absolutely. We need nuclear until we figure out cheap, safe, sustainable, and reliable energy storage. After we have that we can ditch nuclear for good and go 100 % hydro, solar and wind.

firs dying by Islamization of France, second, who know how thing will turned out in future.

@@marianmarkovic5881 will definitely be better than serbia for sure

Windscale Harrisburg Jaslovské Bohunice Chernobyl Monjun Fukushima A list goes ever on and on, until it reaches immense scale, list of plants that blow through roof, and where it ends I can not tell... (sung on famous tune from even more famous motion picture) That is one component, there were serious accidents and people don't like radioactive emissions in their back yards, don't like being forced out of their homes because something went wrong in power plant. Another component is that nuclear power will for ever be linked with military and nuclear bombs. As well by it's nature nuclear power is highly centralized and thus gives immense power to whoever controls those power plants and trust to corporations and governments is on steady decline from some 60's. And even if governments in Europe would be saint and never did anything bad, It would take just USA and their sometimes shady deeds to sow distrust in Europe. Their entertainment & news industry is so powerful. I would argue that rather than continuous power supply, that continuous power consumption, is the dream of owners of steam cycle based power plants (unlike hydro they suffer when power output must be suddenly changed), civilization needs on-demand power and best sources of this are hydro, system with batteries and "small" ICE units, NOT 1GW+ reactor blocks. BTW do you know that in some countries companies must send consumption plans to power companies and if those are not followed they must pay hefty fines? That is significant drawback of centralized power systems. As well you should take in account that nuclear power will be, for at least 20-25 years after construction, expensive, somewhere in range of 80€ (stated by source in ČEZ) to some 120€ per MWh (expected price from Hinkley Point C) and you have to add various fees and taxes, suddenly price form grid matches or is even higher, than power from consumer-side renewable power system which will provide stable price and, when paid out of pocket, will not suffer from effects of inflation, price from gird will, and their payback period is usually calculated for 10 to 15 years. Any power produced after that period costs the company only maintenance fo the system. Skyrocketing prices of gas in Europe have more complex causes than simple reliance on gas. One reason is Russian pressure on NS2, another are low stocks of gas after covid crisis. Some part plays less windy weather. Another small are high prices of CO2 emissions... Fossil fuels consumption can be changed, lowered, once we will start production of fuels. Price of energy form renewables - wind and solar - was already pretty low and around 2015 some project went as low as 20-30$ range in places like Saudi Arabia, this can already sent price of hydrogen per MWh, to regions of 50-60€/MWh, which is already below price of nuclear power and user side generated power can be quite reasonable.

@@MrToradragon You list all of those nuclear accidents, and besides Chernobyl, how many people have died from them? More people die DAILY due to effects caused by pollution from fossil fuels (not to mention the various accidents) than have died during the entire 21st Century due to nuclear. It's estimated that 36,000 people die per year in the EU and US alone just from coal, while the TOTAL death toll for nuclear power is less than 1,000 confirmed deaths EVER, and even the worst estimates don't even breach the 10,000 mark. Nuclear power outcompetes every other possible electrical generation's price point, except for the fact that people are so illogically terrified of it that governments impose massive amounts of redundant red-tape and 'safety measures', raising the price by absurd amounts. Saying that governments should avoid nuclear power because governments have made it too expensive to compete with solar/wind (which they've then subsidized) is a bit of a circular argument.

@@adamperdue3178 Illogical would be storing dangerous waste for 100.000 years! #itsAllAboutMeMeMeMe Illogical would also be the economics. Way too expensive for building, waste-storage and disasters…

@@Izingana its not even that, run it through a next gen molten salt reactors and its down to 300 years with a 95%+ burn up compared to solid fueled reactors of ~1% burn up.. it depends on the reactors type you use.

@@bencoad8492 Stop repeating! You sound like an add..

If the land that a nuclear power plant is on was covered with solar panels, including the setback allowances, Solar would produce more power from the same amount of land. Also people can live there, they can build their homes under the solar panels, their garden shed can be covered in solar panels. The cost for the solar installation is much lower then actual nuclear build costs and no radioactivity is released.

@@tomkelly8827 but it doesn't work when is cloudy and at night.

@@tomkelly8827 it is nice dream,.. but lavs of physic are aginst you. You are also ignoring a hellot of toxic materials used in those solar panels.

@@tomkelly8827 nope. It's the exact opposite. Solar would require way more land than a nuclear plant to produce the same amount of power.

@@tomkelly8827 Anywhere north of Chicago, solar is carbon positive.

thorium reactor and molten salt reactor are just a project. a lot of solutions needs to be found. and the u 233 is a very radioactiv material and can be use for atomic bombs

@@olivierb9716 The idea is to fission the U233 for further energy production and then dispose of the waste. As far as removing it from the reactor's salts I have heard that it is quit difficult but I am not an expert. As far as experimental, yes only Oak Ridge has run one experimental reactor or this type. The research looked very promising but looking promising & being feasible are two different things. All I am saying is that it should be worth the small amount of research needed to find out more about this reactor.

@@olivierb9716 plutonium is extremely toxic and you have to breed fuel to make nuclear a long term energy solution.

Germany us betting on Gas as backup,.. there is no wonder that this nonsence is going trouth EU,...

Well, Gaz is still progress compared to coal. It emits half the CO2 I agree that it's bullshit compared to nuclear that essentially emits nothing.

@@Baamthe25th Unfortunately, the transportation requirements mean that natural gas lifecycle emissions are 47% higher than the direct emissions at the site of consumption. Plus leakage is a big problem and as much of the natural gas is methane it is an even bigger problem as that causes 4 times the greenhouse effect as CO2 does. It also releases Nitrous Oxide. Source: Sorry, KZfaq won't let me put a link in my comment even if I use [dot]

Amazing to think that we build nuclear power stations on fault-lines and tsunami hot spots to stop the hugely immense 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the air. We are estimated to make about three percent of that very large 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide that Earth's eco system is utterly dependant. The rest is spewing from volcanoes and the fault-lines they sit on. We ignore the monster storms that are generated by these massive volcanoes spewing these particles that the moisture condenses on and creates the super storms. And now we see long duration Volcanoes like La Palma breaking all the rules of any volcanoes we have seen going off in our history and we wonder why we see elevated levels of carbon dioxide? Unknown to most, Chernobyl went bang on the day of a massive Earthquake as did Fukushima. Now we see cancer rates rise amid endless altering of the safe amount of parts per million of radioactive particles permitted to accommodate the massive leaks from just 4 reactor meltdowns we know of over 35 years. Possibly about one percent catastrophic failure overall perhaps. Now we watch our loved ones die slowly of cancers. Not in pain as we have taken Afghanistan's opium to solve that problem. But they can die of our 'Green' choices and all their money can be drained off before their departure by medical and pharmaceutical corporations that can extend their early departure but still at great cost beyond just the hard cash. Perfect profiteering in what we have all perceived to be 'right wing' scenario but it's sold to us as a 'left wing' environmental agenda. I mean, come one: there is no right or left wing. There is just vulnerable human beings getting swayed by a political bullshit agenda that uses 'woke' bullshit to drive their profiteering business ideas and then buy legislation from politicians that push ruthless profiteering green agendas on us...by LAW. But Hay!! Good news, Bill Gates says he can get us to carbon zero with vaccinations. And the environmentalists all believe it. Doesn't it look like British Columbia is crying out for lots more nuclear power stations to be built on these flood plains. To SAVE THE WORLD...yeah!! Apparently we're going to build 16 new power stations to save Britain here in the UK! YEAH! It like the power station built near me at Hinkley Point in the UK. Literally built on the main tsunami hot spot of Western Europe. The last time the tsunami occurred was when La Palma last majorly erupted and the fault line that it sits on that runs out to the Mid Atlantic Rift that.likely caused the tsunami that dwarfed the Fukushima tsunami. But that the invisible wall of belief we hide behind so we can pretend we can't comprehend that. A good environmentalist knows he or she is good because of his or her beliefs. They are no different to Christians. They have taken Christ off the cross and stuck the Earth on it instead and now she's dying because of your sins. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to believe than you or me killing Jesus. All right I did it...I'll lay down my life in servitude. And if we believe our servitude makes us good to this nuclear fission obsessed carbon dioxide hating god then just like Christianity, we're good only by belief but totally toxic in reality which basically means heinous and utterly evil... Ring any bells? Until we see through our duality and realise we are merely being invaded by beings that run a system called 'belief' to control Humanity which is nothing more than an invasive entity that has its claws locked on to only one thing: you body and mind. Welcome to the invasion of the body snatchers...the believers. All the answers you are looking for are beyond belief now and if you can't cross that line then your time is all but done here on this plane. Because our beliefs are killing our world it has to let you go. We give it no choice. Time to take your shot. It's ok. You ready for your booster yet? The believers will be-lieving shortly. Go in hate, doubt and belief. Or stay in love. The problem we face is about to get solved once and for all. The solution to it all stares you in the face but you can't believe what you see. Some times you have to be honest with yourself and ask the real question you need to ask yourself: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING? Not me. Very interesting video. Thanks very much.

Well said Nuclear FTW!

and meanwhile building big reactors on the ground,.... clearly, there is place for both technologies.

There is still reserves off the shore of Holland, and France buys its gas from Algeria and Egypt as well as Holland as previously said. The advantage with gas is that you can make combined cycles power plants (a gas turbine producing electricity with the exhaust heat directed to boil water that will too spin a steam turbine). However, it's indeed still a carbon fuel and that will fuck up the climate and ocean water pH

It's not a coincidience. Cost overruns, delays and plethora of issues plague most nuclear projects. The EPR is a shitshow, Finland's new EPR is 12 years over schedule and €10 billion over vost. Even in China 3/4 of their reactors suffered delays. Or the fact right now 1/3 of French nuclear capacity is offline for maintanace due to a recently found problem affecting same reactor types. Or look at the mismanagement of the American Vogtle Plant's new AP1000s. Hell, even back in golden age of 70s new US reactors constantly faced serious issues and overruns. And yeah right now with high energy prices nuclear looks attractive, but it wasn't the case just a few years before when cheap gas and renewables seriously undercut nuclear's profitability. Much, much more can be said on the matter, but to sum it up nuclear energy has many reasons why it failed to reach the promises it once had, and saying greens and chernobyl/fukushima is responsible (while partially true) covers up the responsibility of the nuclear industry's poor management and the financial aspect.

@@ffffuchs you make it sound like the alternative has no problems. But look at germany, they have shut down their nuclear industry, and their carbon footprint has gone up. Because they fill the gap with carbon based generation eg gas. Or they import frances electricity which is nuclear. They have spent 100s of billions on green tech and they still are at a low % of total generation. Solar is marginal in europe, wind is not- yet there is a problem when there is no wind. What is your solution?

@@pweb4941 mix of nuclear and renewables with some countries having more in some, plus some storage and finally some gas for a short while as a bridg.e

@@ffffuchs Nord stream 2 is not a bridging solution though is it?

@@pweb4941 NS2 is primarily geopolitical projects with its own slew of issues.

SMRs made sence in Canada, whit a lot off grid communities, in central Europe, whit well developed Grid based on big central sources, bigger plants made more sence. moreover in times when SMR are still in development phase, while big reactors are aviable for construction.

Amazing to think that we build nuclear power stations on fault-lines and tsunami hot spots to stop the hugely immense 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the air. We are estimated to make about three percent of that very large 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide that Earth's eco system is utterly dependant. The rest is spewing from volcanoes and the fault-lines they sit on. We ignore the monster storms that are generated by these massive volcanoes spewing these particles that the moisture condenses on and creates the super storms. And now we see long duration Volcanoes like La Palma breaking all the rules of any volcanoes we have seen going off in our history and we wonder why we see elevated levels of carbon dioxide? Unknown to most, Chernobyl went bang on the day of a massive Earthquake as did Fukushima. Now we see cancer rates rise amid endless altering of the safe amount of parts per million of radioactive particles permitted to accommodate the massive leaks from just 4 reactor meltdowns we know of over 35 years. Possibly about one percent catastrophic failure overall perhaps. Now we watch our loved ones die slowly of cancers. Not in pain as we have taken Afghanistan's opium to solve that problem. But they can die of our 'Green' choices and all their money can be drained off before their departure by medical and pharmaceutical corporations that can extend their early departure but still at great cost beyond just the hard cash. Perfect profiteering in what we have all perceived to be 'right wing' scenario but it's sold to us as a 'left wing' environmental agenda. I mean, come one: there is no right or left wing. There is just vulnerable human beings getting swayed by a political bullshit agenda that uses 'woke' bullshit to drive their profiteering business ideas and then buy legislation from politicians that push ruthless profiteering green agendas on us...by LAW. But Hay!! Good news, Bill Gates says he can get us to carbon zero with vaccinations. And the environmentalists all believe it. Doesn't it look like British Columbia is crying out for lots more nuclear power stations to be built on these flood plains. To SAVE THE WORLD...yeah!! Apparently we're going to build 16 new power stations to save Britain here in the UK! YEAH! It like the power station built near me at Hinkley Point in the UK. Literally built on the main tsunami hot spot of Western Europe. The last time the tsunami occurred was when La Palma last majorly erupted and the fault line that it sits on that runs out to the Mid Atlantic Rift that.likely caused the tsunami that dwarfed the Fukushima tsunami. But that the invisible wall of belief we hide behind so we can pretend we can't comprehend that. A good environmentalist knows he or she is good because of his or her beliefs. They are no different to Christians. They have taken Christ off the cross and stuck the Earth on it instead and now she's dying because of your sins. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to believe than you or me killing Jesus. All right I did it...I'll lay down my life in servitude. And if we believe our servitude makes us good to this nuclear fission obsessed carbon dioxide hating god then just like Christianity, we're good only by belief but totally toxic in reality which basically means heinous and utterly evil... Ring any bells? Until we see through our duality and realise we are merely being invaded by beings that run a system called 'belief' to control Humanity which is nothing more than an invasive entity that has its claws locked on to only one thing: you body and mind. Welcome to the invasion of the body snatchers...the believers. All the answers you are looking for are beyond belief now and if you can't cross that line then your time is all but done here on this plane. Because our beliefs are killing our world it has to let you go. We give it no choice. Time to take your shot. It's ok. You ready for your booster yet? The believers will be-lieving shortly. Go in hate, doubt and belief. Or stay in love. The problem we face is about to get solved once and for all. The solution to it all stares you in the face but you can't believe what you see. Some times you have to be honest with yourself and ask the real question you need to ask yourself: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING? Not me. Very interesting video. Thanks very much.

@@davedobbschannel are you ok?

Don’t forget, solar panels are made in Xinjiang. So not, humanely sustainable.

Plastic waste irradiating the f planet.

@@billpetersen298 Also, solar panels will not necessarily be available, if anything happens to crash China or sour international relations.

Yea all nuclear power plants used today were first designed in the 70s and 80s and are still better in almost every way than even renewables and there the only clean energy source that’s actually cheaper than gas and coal without major tax cuts and subsidies and if we’re able to implant Molten Salt Reactors they’ll be able to produce even more energy for less cost

Agree 100%

Amazing to think that we build nuclear power stations on fault-lines and tsunami hot spots to stop the hugely immense 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide in the air. We are estimated to make about three percent of that very large 0.04 percent of carbon dioxide that Earth's eco system is utterly dependant. The rest is spewing from volcanoes and the fault-lines they sit on. We ignore the monster storms that are generated by these massive volcanoes spewing these particles that the moisture condenses on and creates the super storms. And now we see long duration Volcanoes like La Palma breaking all the rules of any volcanoes we have seen going off in our history and we wonder why we see elevated levels of carbon dioxide? Unknown to most, Chernobyl went bang on the day of a massive Earthquake as did Fukushima. Now we see cancer rates rise amid endless altering of the safe amount of parts per million of radioactive particles permitted to accommodate the massive leaks from just 4 reactor meltdowns we know of over 35 years. Possibly about one percent catastrophic failure overall perhaps. Now we watch our loved ones die slowly of cancers. Not in pain as we have taken Afghanistan's opium to solve that problem. But they can die of our 'Green' choices and all their money can be drained off before their departure by medical and pharmaceutical corporations that can extend their early departure but still at great cost beyond just the hard cash. Perfect profiteering in what we have all perceived to be 'right wing' scenario but it's sold to us as a 'left wing' environmental agenda. I mean, come one: there is no right or left wing. There is just vulnerable human beings getting swayed by a political bullshit agenda that uses 'woke' bullshit to drive their profiteering business ideas and then buy legislation from politicians that push ruthless profiteering green agendas on us...by LAW. But Hay!! Good news, Bill Gates says he can get us to carbon zero with vaccinations. And the environmentalists all believe it. Doesn't it look like British Columbia is crying out for lots more nuclear power stations to be built on these flood plains. To SAVE THE WORLD...yeah!! Apparently we're going to build 16 new power stations to save Britain here in the UK! YEAH! It like the power station built near me at Hinkley Point in the UK. Literally built on the main tsunami hot spot of Western Europe. The last time the tsunami occurred was when La Palma last majorly erupted and the fault line that it sits on that runs out to the Mid Atlantic Rift that.likely caused the tsunami that dwarfed the Fukushima tsunami. But that the invisible wall of belief we hide behind so we can pretend we can't comprehend that. A good environmentalist knows he or she is good because of his or her beliefs. They are no different to Christians. They have taken Christ off the cross and stuck the Earth on it instead and now she's dying because of your sins. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to believe than you or me killing Jesus. All right I did it...I'll lay down my life in servitude. And if we believe our servitude makes us good to this nuclear fission obsessed carbon dioxide hating god then just like Christianity, we're good only by belief but totally toxic in reality which basically means heinous and utterly evil... Ring any bells? Until we see through our duality and realise we are merely being invaded by beings that run a system called 'belief' to control Humanity which is nothing more than an invasive entity that has its claws locked on to only one thing: you body and mind. Welcome to the invasion of the body snatchers...the believers. All the answers you are looking for are beyond belief now and if you can't cross that line then your time is all but done here on this plane. Because our beliefs are killing our world it has to let you go. We give it no choice. Time to take your shot. It's ok. You ready for your booster yet? The believers will be-lieving shortly. Go in hate, doubt and belief. Or stay in love. The problem we face is about to get solved once and for all. The solution to it all stares you in the face but you can't believe what you see. Some times you have to be honest with yourself and ask the real question you need to ask yourself: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU KIDDING? Not me. Very interesting video. Thanks very much.

The French Energiewende was done in the 70s, was called the "Mesmer plan", and as you said, it worked.

INDEED

france and rejection of woke culture? it's like the birthplace of it

@@barryr.9354 Not really french culture very much encourages freedom of speech. There very keen on there rights. The main issue they have with "woke" which bit vague of a term is often tells people what to do. French generally speaking don't like being told what to do or think. But on other hand there very pro gay right and trans rights. But unlike USA being gay isn't a big deal.

To be honest, it's not about ecologism, but about cost and energetic independance.

@@gontrandjojo9747 disagree french very green focused people. It is part sustainable. But they're population is generally very pro green Vs most western countries.

@@murphy7801 France betting on nuclear energy is not for ecologist reasons, that's my point.