anti nuclear people thinking nuclear power is some dangerous green goo sitting in a cement tub and then realizing its a giant steam engine with extra steps:
“B-but Chernobyl and 3 mile island!” Those were 40 years ago. Comparing reactor technology from then to today would be like putting an original Apple II against a modern desktop. We also gained a lot of valuable experience on containing meltdowns between then and now, especially after these two incidents
@@haramsaddam238 3 Mile island didn't even have any permanent effects on the local surroundings. There is literally no evidence that *anyone* even got cancer from it
@@haramsaddam238Not to mention both of those invedent happened because the staff running the reactors f'ed up astronomically for the meltdowns to happen in the first place
@@haramsaddam238also, didn't one of the dudes working at 3 mile island frequently showed up drunk to work? The fact that he didn't instantly blow up the reactor on his first day shows that nuclear reactor safety is grossely underexaggerated to the public by the media
It's an intelligence test. Wind and solar will always require supplemental power plants that use fossil fuels. Nuclear and hydro don't require supplemental power plants and we've been moving away from them for decades. "Oops we need coal again"
I feel like what happened with nuclear energy is like if we saw the titanic sink and then decided to cut sea transport out of the equation entirely while promising that trains and planes alone can take on the extra workload.
Reminds me of the time scurvy was reintroduced cause the British used a copper lines container to hold their lemons and it sucked away whatever prevents scurvy, so rather then acknowledging it as a one time thing the British just assumed fruits weren't the solution and reintroduced scurvy to their fleet.
"They produce harmful waste" Yeah absolutely miniscule amounts you can throw into a concrete cask where it stays, the coal though? Yeah thats in your lungs.
@@DASLAKILL a reactor meltdown is just a big water boiler melting itself Even if the pressure vessel blows up that shit isnt gonna stay up there long Dont make stuff up
@@DASLAKILL That's like complaining of eating stuff with radioactive Carbon 14, or because a star exploded million of years ago, or being worried because Bananas have radioactive Potassium inside It's just a non factor
"Being against nuclear power because of Chernobyl, is the same as hating cars because some careless idiot driving a rust bucket without brakes fell off a cliff"
@@YourLocalMairaaboo no government is immune against "cartoonish levels of corruption and incompetence" I'm not gonna trust my government with giant nuclear reactors upwind from my village no matter how much you swear they'll never do an oopsie again
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 the US Navy has been operating reactors since nuclear power was conceived and have had zero accidents ever and who runs the US Navy again
@@cewla3348 seeing as the person my comment was replying to deleted there comment I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't see it however at that point you should have at least had the comen sence to not make a snarky remark to a comment without seeing the full context however if you did see the comment then it was pretty obvious why I brought up the navy's spotless record of nuclear operation please give your reply more than 2 seconds of thought next time or you'll endup looking like a retard again
@@historiesweiss4785 usually 2 but I did hear a story about one that had up to 4 as a bit of a fuck you to congress who didn’t think nuclear power was a good idea
@@historiesweiss4785 pretty much. The nuke who did it was bad shit insane in the best way. From what i remember of the story basically when congress was debating on wether to use nuclear power or not the main argument against it was they thought a carrier would need at least 4 to power it he basically said bet and built it despite it only needing 2. Another thing he did was when he learned there was going to be an inspection on his ship he ordered his men to hide 3 dead rats around the ship. The inspectors came to him and said he failed because they found two dead rats. He told them that they failed at there jobs because they failed to find the third rat. From what I hear he’s a legend at the nuke school
How politicians think Nuclear reactors operate: "bomb goes boom and power go brrr." How it's actually running: "REALLY Hot rock go Sizzle, turbine do a spin."
If Hollywood was realistic: Engineer: "Sir, the reactor's going critical!!" 20 different failsafes activate simultaneously, the reactor shuts down, nothing else happens Overseer or whatever they'd be called: "ugh, this is gonna be a lot of paperwork" Credits
@@redacted8983 There's also prompt critical which may have happened in chernobyl but probably didn't. Prompt critical is what you ususally see in fission reaction illustrations where the neutrons from the fissions are enough for the chain reaction and is what leads to a bomb. Reactors a tuned so that these prompt neutrons are not enough to sustain the reaction and for neurons from the fission products and their radiactive decay to also be required for the reaction to be critical. Basically in prompt criticality the reactivity changes too fast for people or even the machanics of the reactor to respond to so they do that instead which gives them the time. Reactors are designed so that they can't reach prompt critical even if all the safety systes fail, the very wrose you get is a steam explosion and liquified reactor.
I'm convinced these types of people aren't ACTUALLY concerned for the environment or are even ignorant, but instead want to actively INCREASE the total amount of human suffering in the world.
1:45 I used to live in the Norfolk area growing up. During my last high school final, my AP Chemistry teacher had her regular chem class do their final on debating science topics. This one girl gets up and speaks for 3 minutes "why living near nuclear is bad" that was just rhetoric. At the end of her speach, i said: "Not in your class but you do realize I can name 15 nuclear reactors within 15 miles from here right, and we are fine." It took a few seconds before everyone else in the class relaized I was talking about the Carriers and Subs. Someone in the class followed up with "oh yeah, well I guess that destorys [the girl's] argument." Best day of High School by far 😂
Fun fact: Despite the disaster of Reactor 4 in 1986, the Chernobyl power plant was safe enough for workers to return and continue to operate and supply power, Reactor 2 was shut down until 1991 and the power plant officially ceased operation in 2000...
@@PlatinumAltaria Doesn't help that there are movies and games with Pripyat as a setting where there is always some "mutant" thing, and now everyone thinks it's like Ohio...
i do have a question on that, if reactor 4 is like. Really Bad. (we all know about the elephants foot) then how is it even safe to be around the area? like i get nagasaki and hiroshima are fine now cause of how atomic bombs work but chernobyl???
Funny that they never choose to look at the numbers and logic... Chernobyl - 31 deaths (about 4,000 cancer deaths possibly linked) Year: 1986 Nationality: USSR Cause: Design flaws, bad construction, incompetence Fukushima - 0 deaths (about 1,000 indirect deaths) Year: 2011 Nationality: Japan Cause: building a reactor ontop an active fault line despite warning of possible disaster. Three Mile Island - 0 deaths Year: 1979 Nationality: United States Cause: incompetence Fossil fuels - About 4.2 million premature deaths annually (pollution alone) (number provided by the World Health Organization)
Oh, they look at numbers very well. Gouvernment's goal just not about making people happy. It is about allowing people to reproduce to create fresh work power. When robots became cheaper than living man, they ll replace us instantly.
@@kamprouristheoharis8458annually? 4.2 million divided by 4000 and something is between 3 and 4 daily (over 1000 annually) also, another fun fact: coal has little amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium in it. when it is burned, that is released with the microparticles released from burning it (like the acid stuff that causes acid rain or the stuff that blackens snow and accelerates rust), which means that living near a coal power plant, when scaled to the energy produced (as in per TWh, in which nuclear is better when looking at radiation effects, but ignoring climate change), coal does more radiation than nuclear power plants
@@gonozal8_962 yes anually it's in the post. From what I've seen online the numbers line up Although I can't find numbers regarding worldwide deaths for the recent years, I've mostly found about the USA
slag, loose rock and very muddy water. either that or a smouldering pile of molten junk like you see at Chernobyl, but that's really the 100% worst case situation
@@itsdokko2990 yeah, obviously, half-life and all, but they don't know that, they surely don't know that modern, 4th gen power plants leave it "almost" there, as a solid block of slightly irradiating lead instead of spooky goo in a yellow barrel
Nuclear power is, in my opinion, a litmus test of whether someone or some group actually want to fix the problem or if they are just trying to profit from the movement.
Nuclear power oversimplified: Hot rock make water hot. Hot water turn into hot water air. Hot water air make spinny thing go. Spinny thing going make power.
I really hate that about Germany, they then replace those with coal plants that use lignite, the dirtiest coal of them all. Don't even mention that you can recognize a lignite mine very easily, they look like huge impact craters. Education system failed here.
And they give off more radioactive waste in the entirety of nuclear lifetime, a lot of the smoke contains radioactive isotopes of carbon and other trace elements that were around the dig site
It's not just the education system. It was corruption. The former German chancellor got a VP position at a Russian energy company after this term ended. He's living now in Moscow.
*shuts down last nuclear reactors* *flattens entire town to allow for a coal mining operation, despite having promised otherwise* "Man I sure wonder why nobody votes for us greens anymore :("
Yeah.... seriously. And "the left" party is now just a crippled pro Russia shell after its redfash elements ejected themselves into founding the second n*zi party, third if you life in the south. And the last remaining party even pretending to be left wing is just the car lobbies corrupt mouthpiece. Why DO parties run by intellectuals and teachers keep self destructing, but parties by barely sentient mouth breathing reactionaries are run like a well oiled machine....
We won't. At least for a WHILE. Uranium, thorium, etc are plenty in nature or in interior of the earth unlike oil and others which is only predicted to last 100 or so years
Sincr the german greens got in power coal decreased nominally and percentage and renewables share increased from 40% to 60%. I don't know aht their motivations are but they are definitely helping
7:51 This one really annoys me because I've seen people go all "Capitalism is killing the planet" but turn around and complain that Nuclear isn't "Economically viable". Like pick a lane.
those people aren't thinking rationally, just emotionally based on whatever their government approved education told them to (as an aside, look into how many US government officials are invested into both fossil fuel and 'renewable' industries. Then reconsider why nuclear power isn't a big thing)
@@iustinianusspeedrunseh, the entire “political compass”? Idk man, I’m not sure I like eco fascists advocating mass death of non white people to reduce carbon on the planet and also because there “isn’t enough resources on the planet for everyone” even though there is, it’s just hoarded by capitalists, and what isn’t used like food for example, is thrown away just because it’s not profitable or didn’t sell.
The hilarious fact is that nuke power CAN be built in active fault lines because it can handle literal ocean waves just fine (nuclear subs and ships, yoohoo?). Another thing, Fukushima was supposed to have double layer failsafes but the stupidly incompetent management thought "why do we bother installing the backup generator for the backup cooling pump four storeys up? Put them shit in the basement". The whole complex survived the shakes, survived the tsunami barrage, but it got FLOODED. This critical whoopsie means Fukushima could have melted down from sillier things like bad drainage.
@@mrfigaloopierre9610no they couldn’t immediately do it even id they wanted to because the earthquake destroyed all the infrastructure and roads, no fire trucks could arrive fast enough. That’s why now in nuclear safety analysis we also consider these factors such a combination of events outside the plant.
Nuclear Energy is literally one of the only issues that regardless of your political position, you should definitely 100% support lmao. I can't believe we are even having this discussion to begin with, the transition from fossil to nuclear is such a blatantly obvious decision tbh. imagine if we were still arguing about whether to use steam or fossil fuels? yeah that's currently happening with fossil vs nuclear.
For wide scale, infrastructural purposes, nuclear is the obvious choice compared to something like a coal power plant, since they both supply exactly the same thing, electricity. But for individual scale things like cars or generators, internal combustion engines will probably remain the most optimal option since they don't need to be hooked up to a grid to work, and things like batteries are way too bulky and harmful to create in comparison for a usually subpar result.
I also agree with this, yes you have to be more careful with nuclear power, but the amount of terror we have over it is out of proportion, especially considering how many benefits it has. I end up on the conservative side of the isle, and a lot (though obviously not all) of people over here aren't so refusing to believe that climate change is happening, but just skeptical of the solutions that are being proposed. A lot of times it seems more idealistic than practical, but the practicality of nuclear power is something both sides should be able to get behind.
@@codenamepyro2350 we're talking about multiple orders of magnitude more power out of a much smaller footprint. You can build more solar and wind yes, but they are location dependent (solar power in Alaska for instance is not a good idea) and require a significant amount of land. They're a good supplementary power source but they're not currently a viable replacement for fossil fuel plants. Nuclear power on the other hand...
@@7heTexanRebel Alaska has ice so they have more hydro power than they could ever hope to use. The same goes for almost any country so far north, that solar energy is too low. Also solar can be put on roofs, where it usually generates more power than the house beneath it uses in a given time span, without requiring any land. If you do want extra power, you can put solar into the desert where nobody cares about land use. Also wind energy is most efficient where less obstruction such as homes are. A single off shore wind farm can produce enough power for more than a city while staying completely out of sight, hiding behind the horizon. And those are not all the options. Renewables are certainly a viable replacement for fossil fuels in almost all places of the world.
@@codenamepyro2350 You know in order to tie to nuclear plant or coal factory, you need to cover the entire city in solar panels? Its will cost oil, costs more money, and its will produce noticable amount of heat, and its less money cost efficient for regular people.
@@7heTexanRebel Is the size the main concern here? I'd say it isn't. We have a lot more land to work with than time, money, and environmental impact. Solar and wind are much better on the last three, nuclear has its virtues (as you said such as in places where renewables are subpar) but it also has its negatives. Those negatives which aren't problems for renewables
Australia exports loads of uranium, we have no serious earthquakes or tsunamis, we even have lots of space to keep them away from people for extra peace of mind. Unfortunately we are run by coal mining companies.
@@travissmith2848 I found this on Quora: "In fact, the coal ash emitted by a power plant-a by-product from burning coal for electricity-carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements." TL:DR 100x more radioactive; Confirmed
Eh, nuclear reactors don’t make much sense for Australia, we have plenty of sun for panels, plenty of space for wind turbines, and plenty of mountains for pumped hydro. Getting nuclear reactors up here would be a decade long problem getting them legalised both federally and in the states and territories, and then it’s another 2 decades to get them up and running. Nuclear reactors are great, but there’s no real point for them here.
@@Coliflower185 Here in Montana, USA we don't have the population to need such but they'd make sense. We have mountains, but far too steep for hydro storage to be at max efficiency. Days are kinda short during the winter so solar is iffy. Lots of wind (and many wind farms) but sometimes it blows too hard. We do have a fair number of dams for hydroelectric as well. Sadly, most of our generation is contracted out of state and we end up buying power from elsewhere...... Question is what do you plan on doing with the sails when they need to be replaced in 10-20 years? Fiberglass recycling is far from proven let alone any real capacity.
The worry about nuclear waste is complete and utter rubbish, there have been reactors made to accept and work on recycled nuclear fuel (this can be repeated multiple times and reduces the time we need to store the spent fuel each time)
recycled fuel has a host of engineering issues tragically. it works best when used in conjunction with fresh fuel. so the earlier we start using it, the better.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't those reactors invented in the 60's? Like we've known how to use nuclear waste as fuel for a long time now, we just have to implement it.
@@sandcat2383yes, France developed "Super Phenix" a expérimental reactor wich use recycled nuclear waste to work, it was able to produce energy on an industrial scale. But.... Guess what ... "Ecologist" décided to turn it down 😅
I'm all for nuclear energy and acknowledge all the points made in this video. However I think pro-nuclear people should realize that nuclear energy isn't a permanent alternative to fossil fuels. Uranium and other radioactive materials will run out at some point. It will take a lot of time before that happens so for the time being we(all humans) should favor nuclear energy over fossil fuels until better forms of harnessing energy are developed.
The one thing that anti nuclear people don't know is that the construction of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was half assed, just like everything in the USSR, Fukushima was flooded, and all 3 mile island did was let off a little steam.
They really be citing disasters that dislocated a town's worth of people by reactors that were built in the declining USSR or in one of the most earthquake and tsunami prone countries on the planet. Then there's Three Mile Island which was entirely inconsequential and can still never happen again due to modern safety regulations.
@@fablearchitect7645it isn't that expensive, sure it costs a bit, but the savings on fuel are big, **also milions of people don't die every year due to it**
fukushima, in a bubble, worked exactly as it was intended to work, apart from backup generators being placed in the stupidest place possible, fukushima did EVERYTHING to not blow up, but it just couldn't prevent the explosions after loosing grid power
fukushima is especially stupid, because there was another plant CLOSER to the tsunami source that was just fine after getting hit. it was literally just that they also half assed it and didnt listen when people told them how to build it
Germany went from using Nuclear, the most sophisticated way to produce loads of electricity with no enviromental impact, to using coal, the least sophisticated form with major enviromental impact. Kind of Poetic
As a German i am realy sad about this. We Had some of the safest and Most modern reactors in the world Like Isar 2 now we are Back to coal nice. In my Home City i can See 5 different coal plants. There onces was a Plan to build a nuclear reactor there but the green Party portested and now Dortmund ( my Home town) is Stuck on coal. What a shame.
@@_kampfkartoffel2195 Also German, I knew the situation was dire, but I didn't knew that it was THAT dire. The monk was protesting for the right thing.
Ah yes, terra x, because german state media has been so impartial and objective lately. Might as well ask pravda about what happened in ukraine in 1932
We use less coal than ever nominally and in percentage terms than ever in Germany since phasing out nuvlear while our renwable share increased frok 40 to 60%. Plrase stop repeating the same "Germany bad" talking points.
As a german it makes me furious that people still believe its more dangerous than coal or gas. The people i talk to always go: "b-but green energy so good so no need for nuclear." I hate that when i tell them that germany should build more nuclear powerplants. I feel like everybody underestimates how much electricity nuclear power provides and how little electricity green energy provides. Coal lobbyists are just making sure that nuclear stays away. The nuclear lobbyists have almost no political power. Its sad that people seem so educated but are still extremely uneducated.
My home state of Michigan decommissioned a nuclear power plant in the city of Grand Rapids due to safety concerns regarding the reactor chamber. So instead of getting the money to replace and repair the reactor vessel, they instead spent a similar amount of money "investing" in "green" alternatives like solar and wind... in a state that is covered in snow for half of the year. Now there is "Peak Hour" rates set up, where electricity is double its price between 2pm and 7pm during the summer, something that wasn't a thing when the Grand Rapids plant was still online.
IN the grand scheme of things the main reason why building nuclear plants in germany will fail and is a bad idea is not safety, but cost. Other new nuclear plants in europe drasticly overshoot on budget and deadlines. As our Gov is unwilling to take on new debt, i highly doubt that anyone will like the proposal to dumb billions in new nuclear plants, despite the fact that the nuclear industry in europe is pretty dead. We wont even have the proper Fachkräfte to build the plants. also the statement that green energy provides little electricity is just false. Green energy is vastly more cost effective than nuclear. All the nuclear states like France or Korea have a huge pile of debt since they use government subsidieze to keep the plants running.
It’s just a good idea and you will need that for steady stable power now that Russia is led by this nutcase. We aren’t getting Russian gas, I’d rather live next to a nuclear plant than a fracking area tbh used to live next to one in Virginia it’s much better. Governments now no longer want to invest in them cause they are expensive.
Das RWE meinte etwa um 2019 herum, dass sie genug Kohle abgebaut haben, um bis 2030 auf erneuerbare Energie umzusteigen. Es ist fast 2025, und das RWE gräbt immer noch nach mehr Kohle. Die Kohlemine westlich von Köln ist auf Google maps bereits aus dem Weltall sichtbar
@@blueskiestechofficial The nuclear part sure, but the power generation part is almost exactly the same as coal, natural gas, or biomass. It is just heat water, make thing spin. Make thing spin is what most electricity generation is.
@@blueskiestechofficial Nuclear fission is throw a neutron, split an atom, get a bit of energy. Not really hard. Then you use that energy to boil water and use it to generate electricity.
Simple video, explains the biggest issue with public anti-nuclear arguments and the impending threat we are facing. Liked it. Could open a bit more on the actual realistic points of the current debate : Cost is one, alongside time to build (due to poor industrial know how since there's been so much political pressure against new nuclear reactor). The little graph about cost comparison of energy show that renewables energy are extremely cheap (even compared to coal) and make a lot of sense to build just from the price perspective. There's also the factor of how much fuel we'd have if we drastically expanded nuclear (and the maturity of the technology to use other fuel sources). Good video summary, thank you for producing it ! It's obvious that closing working near zero carbon energy nuclear power plants during a climate crisis caused by CO2 is more for clout than actually a grounded decision.
One thing to add: Propaganda from other countries might affect some people's opinions too. For example when Japan was about to release the filtered nuclear water back to the sea, China ramped up its propaganda to make it seem like a bad thing (while they themselves release more waste/chemicals onto the sea). Even if we don't believe this affects people, it must have had some impact, otherwise no one would make propaganda. Btw nice outro! I was thinking of Code Lyoko episode 37 while watching this, when you mentioned people stealing nuclear waste. I recently rewatched the whole show (from season 1 to 4), and now I have Serial Experiments Lain on my bucket list of shows to watch!
bro china bitching about japan's power plant water is hilarious considering their lack of any control on their fishing industry (apparently large government btw) has obliterated so many ecosystems, for the past few years the ling population in american coasts have plummeted because of illegal dredging operations, then they're also pretty much solely responsible for decimating shark populations which has cascading negative effects on every ocean ecosystem, not to mention the shit ton of coal they still use (the worst fossil fuel in terms of emissions) which all runs into the ocean, and their trash problem is as bad as americas despite being so called "communists"
"Your coastal waters are also our *legal* fishing spots too, so please don't polluting it or where else we're able to get healthy fish?" Said China regarding Japan's own right to use their coastal waters.
The idea that only China and "muh Chinese propaganda" has a problem with Japan releasing filtered nuclear water into the sea is ludicrous and straight up propaganda and misinformation. What about South Korea? What about the Pacific islands?
I live 30 minutes away from a nuclear power plant. You would have no idea there is a nuclear power plant there because it is surrounded by forests and wildlife
The biggest tragedy I've learned this video, is how easily the general public was fooled into hating Nuclear. The 2nd biggest tragedy this video taught me was: 4:06 Paying Fortnite Tutors 💀
Here in Australia, for some reason our government is the biggest supporter of anti nuclear energy and weapons despite having the worlds largest uranium mines. What a great logical game of chess our government plays :)
Are you an O level or A level student? Because when I was studying for my O levels our physics textbook taught us about all the types of energy generation and the prospect of clean energy. The conclusion was that most other renewables are very limited in use and should be used as supplemental sources while nuclear power can be used as the main source of energy, like what France does!
@@Mag_ladroth solar and wind are good for homes, but bad elsewhere hydro is very hard if not impossible to setup en masse coal is.. coal gas is.. gas nuclear is really good
@@Mag_ladroth O levels? what a throwback nowadays (in the uk) we're generating a lot more energy from renewables and the proportion is only increasing every year. we're getting ever closer to viable fusion as well
Watching a video with a 04119_snail OC in the thumbnail, with Melty Blood gameplay in the b-role, talking about the consequences of anti-nuclear is so peak
protesters getting mad about taylor swifts private jet, while shutting down nuclear power plants and racking themselves up a personal co2 impact potentially even higher than hers (disclaimer; this is a "both are bad" statement)
I live in Germany and half the people here agree that deciding to shut down nuclear power for no other reason than the politicians being insanely misinformed about it was a incredibly not so good decision that caused us to be in a crippling energy crisis that made living conditions worse and caused energy prices to skyrocket.
Power sources explained: Hydro-electric: Perfect but do you have a river near you? Wind: It ain't windy today so power is gone. Solar: Good night! No more electricty. Geo-thermal: Super expensive for a thing that barely works. Nuclear: Super expensive for a thing that works really well... However there are plenty of countries which shouldn't have this technology. Coal: lol why are we even using this? It gives so much pollution. What are we Victorian England? Natural Gas: The cheapest but we will run out in a few hundred years but who cares about them? The real best source is attaching a generator to the founding fathers spinning in their graves
Hydro fucks up the aquatic ecosystem, not exactly perfect. Geo-thermal requires the right local geology to be viable but when it is it can be the most efficient form of power generation (it also has a high up front cost)
Hydro power hurts the environment as well I think. I don't get the point of why some countries shouldn't have nuclear power though? I mean nuclear power plants aren't bombs, new reactors would just SCRAM before melting down.
I love the dead simplicity of nuclear power. It would be awesome if we could just have tiny reactors that could power neighborhoods. Like the tiny reactors that NASA uses on deep space probes.
Point of information, the reactors NASA uses on spacecraft are RTG's and use a method of power production different than "hot rock make steam make turbine roundy-roundy" and is only suitable for niche things (such as spacecraft where the reliability of a power supply is of utmost importance) due to its exceptionally low output and efficiency. Though I think you're talking about small/modular reactors, which are pretty neat.
You should have said Submarines. And they are trying to develop them. Small scale ones have the same high costs from permanent installation because of insurance and lawsuits. Mirco reactors in semi trailers that can directly replace diesel generators are pretty good and are in active development and don't have the same issues because they are mobile.
My fairly liberal uncle dropped the "but nuclear waste" argument when I mentioned how I like the idea of using nuclear plants for powering cities, instead of taking up vast chunks of land for solar or wind that probably will struggle to meet the demands of the area.
i love the way you're approaching the subject, and i gotta say that i share your opinion widely. But i want to add to the economic part that nuclear is the cheapest solution per unit of power behind renewable (according to market price per source, AKA not representative of the real cost). Not taking into account the energy density per unit of space (the land required for each energy type to occupy to produce a certain amount of power), where, yes, wind is cheaper per kWh, but it has an energy density about 10,000x to 80,000x (depending on calculation and estimations) less than nuclear. I am french and we got like 20GW max for wind and people are already mad about them and ask removal of wind turbines because they can't stand it. (we would need like 10x-15x that to guarantee a 99% coverage of power demand)
Nuclear is literally green energy. The grift you're referring to is the astroturfed advocacies that only exist to _muddy the waters_ and complicate things.
man this hits home especially since im in the Philippines, we would have been the first country in south east asia to have one but since our powerplant was scheduled to open in the same year that the chernobyl accident occurred the public was too terrified, it was never allowed to operate, today our government still maintains the powerplant because there are people in government that still hold on to the hope that it will be opened eventually and I hope that day will come sooner rather than later
I love this video. The editing, the sarcasm, the background gameplay of some anime, it's.. It's splendid. You shall get a million subscribers! And when that happens, don't forget me!
0:23 by the way that toxic waste can be recycled again afaik, since nuclear engineering isn't standing still. Apparently there's a type of reactor that can make fuel out of any radioactive material.
They are still radioactive, there is still potential for usage. Generation 3 Nuclear Power Plants don't do that if I rememebr correctly, but Gen 4 NPP which are still in their alfa state can.
In Belgium, the green party fought against nuclear power for years and recently, the right wing party managed to not have the power plants closed. This singlehandedly made the right wing party greener than the green party has ever been.
I have some concerns about the Nuclear Energy. 1. The waste material isn't being treated, the majority is just being stored or buried. 2. It isn't renewable. I know that it produces a lot of energy, but the raw materials necessarily to make the energy some day will end and before that they will become extremely expensive. (We are already having problems with fossil fuels, because of the scarcity and increased prices, I don't know if depending on other limited source of materials is a good idea)
Also those materials could reintroduce a dependency on another country, likely with less western values. So running into the same danger as with natural gas.
@@tedzards509 Nuclear power plants primarily use a specific type of uranium (U-235) for nuclear fission because its atoms are easily split apart. Although uranium is about 100 times more common than silver, U-235 is relatively rare, at just over 0.7% of natural uranium. www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/the-nuclear-fuel-cycle.php#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20plants%20primarily%20use,over%200.7%25%20of%20natural%20uranium.
1. Yeah fair, but there also isn't much and it's storage/burial is super safe 2. Most reactor fuel is recycled, so one plant can run a long time of off very little. As in, 90%. It's also hypothetically possible to use other fuels than uranium, thorium being a pretty common suggestion.
as a german, I apologize for the behavior of the FRG. there really only was one german state that didn’t do these BS decisions or do useless wars, like crusades or world ones, or bombed yugoslawia for no fucking reason, and it sadly doesn’t exist today. also, the EU mainly is a project to force countries to privatize and deregulate markets to the point that more companies, countries even, can be bought up to extract wealth by investment banks operating just like blackrock basically
Ikr? Everyone who I talk to who talks about entire continents sinking into the ocean and us burning alive in the next 20 years always seethe at the notion of nuclear.
i usually trust the green parties that are in their nature (no pun intended) socialist. they tend to support nuclear power and dont want privatized energy. sadly most green parties are basically trust fund neolibs with a hippie phase
politics is just performance, but i feel like the only way to change that is to have everyone educated on everything each party wants to do so they can form an actual opinion on it - which I don't think the majority of a place's population would ever be bothered to do, so we might, just maybe, be a little bit fucked
It's not friendly fire. It's deliberate due to the unholy alliance of fossil fuel lobby and emotion-based green fantatics with a tiny dash of military interests (the safest reactor designs can't produce weapons-grade material)
Fun fact: coal power actually releases more fallout than nuclear power plants. Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material, and when it's burned those materials are released into the atmosphere via the smoke/exhaust.
A better fun fact: nuclear energy is better for the environment and has a smaller carbon footprint per unit energy than most renewables. Anti-nuclear folks don't care if we compare nuclear with coal. They obviously hate coal, too. What's more important to argue with them is that nuclear power is as great or greater than renewables in almost every conceivable manner.
@@Paraselene_Tao I agree, however... when Germany decommissioned their nuclear power plants, what did they replace them with? Coal. Green energy folks can claim they're anti-coal all they want, but in practice they seem to hate nuclear more than coal.
@@augustday9483 Yeah, that sounds like a joke to me. What else did they think would happen? I really wish the Green Party would wake tf up and stop being anti-nuclear. They get a lot of topics well figured out, but then they eff up what should be an obvious win. Nuclear power is an OBVIOUS win for all of humanity. I have considered contacting my local Green Party about this very topic (them being anti-nuclear (it's one of their main planks of their political platform)). Unfortunately, the Green Party and the people who like to be in it tend to be chemophobic and radiophobic and electromagnetically hypersensitive. This and other irrational fears keep them from being a truly great political party. I don't know how to cure their mental problems. It is very frustrating. I live in a place where the average person is very educated, but they still have irrational fears of chemicals, radiation, and EM fields. This is extremely frustrating for me.
Nuclear power is great for large amounts of population in a small area and solar power is good for small populations in a large area. By the way it takes around 8 Million solar panels to make up the power of a nuclear plant.
Nuclear energy is a great way to support a growing green and renewable electrical grid while phasing out fossil fuels. Energy security is either incredibly hard or impossible on a completely renewable energy grid - any change in supply and demand can upset the grid so you've got to have something reliable and scalable to back it up. Besides nuclear, there's only fossil fuels that have that capability. So you're either a grid with fossil fuel generators supplementing green renewables or your supporting a grid with nuclear energy supplementing green renewables - one of those produces far more greenhouse emissions, air and water pollution, and releases more radioactive particles into the environment than the other and it isn't the nuclear.
Renewables are undesirable compared to nuclear, with the exception of hydro. Most Renewables are worse for the enviroment than nuclear and are way more expensive per kilowatt hour. Renewables are only good because of the activists pushing against nuclear, but since those the same activists pushing for Renewables if they just pushed for nuclear instead everyone would be better off.
Unfortunately modern (as in the ones that are being used in most places) nuclear reactors aren't that great at scaling power up and down. They are really good at providing a constant baseline of power but increasing the power quickly up or down is an issue for them. It's unfortunate since all the people trying to transfer over to renewable power sources need something that can scale quickly, but current nuclear power doesn't play that well with the variability of renewable energy sources. I do think they were trying to get the newer reactors to scale up and down more quickly, but I haven't heard what progress they've made on that.
@whoiam5838 Which is simply a lack of technology in the private sector. Nuclear submarines and ships scale their power out puts up and down in mere minutes without issue. While technically different reactors and smaller it is possible.
batteries could solve a lot of those problems but nobody has come up with good energy storage solutions that aren't stupidly expensive and terrible for the environment
I have said it before I'll say it again. If you care about being environmentally friendly and you don't support nuclear, you do not care about being environmentally friendly. It's not even worth an argument. If you don't support nuclear and your concerned about global warming you are not to be taken seriously unless you're researching nuclear fusion and perhaps graciously maybe geothermal but that really only works in specific areas. Anger...anger and destain is what I feel
@@unorthodoxpickle7014, no it happens everywhere. Cherenkov radiation happens when radiation excites particles in the air (or water) those excitations cause the particles to release photons to return to the ground state, and those photons usually have a wavelength that corresponds to blue. It's just that you can really only see Cherenkov radiation when there's a high amount of radiation. You rarely see highly radioactive objects exposed in the open air (because that would be very dangerous ofc)
This is a gem a person who is well informed and knows what there talking about while also saying that there right on some thing my god I can’t believe it
Hot rocks, convert water into a new material called steam, steam itself is pressure, it gives pushy push when it allowed to and turns back into water when low energy. Magnets do magic with SPINNING where they make electricity as a by product.
To say you could teach a child to run a nuclear reactor is a bit of an overstatement, but I have seen games on a website geared towards kids about running a reactor (Hopped into it, it's well made and looks correct from the images I can find online)
You forgot that "as long as we handle it properly" is quite the caveat. Sizable caveat indeed. You also forgot the radioactive pollution from uranium mining. I will give you that its less bad than coal power plants.
Fukushima frustrates me. Everyone completely ignores the 7.4 magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami that destroyed the entire city to focus on the nuclear plant that made a few blocks within the city slightly more radioactive for a little while. It's like ignoring a city flattening hurricane to focus on the fact that a few buildings were left on fire afterwards. Hell even the people who were in the city originally know it's safe to return but the Japanese government won't let them because of stupid irrational fears.
it was actully 9.1 which makes it more impresive that fukushima would have withstood if they didnt have there backup in such a dumb spot but to befair no one expects to be hit by an earthquake of that scale
A thing that most people don't really realize is how STURDY those power plants are. 9.1 earthquake was not even close to giving it issues structurally. People flee there for their own lives. To destroy a Nuclear power plants you need nuclear level weapons. If a NPP is destroyed, nothing else remains because everything else falls down first.
@@ihcuwign1707 The Fukushima plant was well equipped to handle earthquakes in fact not much damage was done to the planet from the earthquake it's just that they focused solely on the earthquakes and completely forgot to factor in large tsunamis despite warnings from GE and the builders. Japan has adapted to survive these quakes so really the main killer in 2011 was the large tsunami.
Tbf we probably won't be able to phase out fossil fuels, not anytime soon. Nuclear energy can provide base power generation, but heat power plants are the ones picking up the peak power consumption. NPPs can regulate the power production, but only in small margins, and renewables are too inconsistent and don't produce enough power. Source: my whole family works in energy production and i'm studying in energy college
True. We probably cannot fully switch to nuclear or green energy because it has so much factors and it’s pretty expensive. But hey you will never know what we develop in like 5 years
"chernobyl was doomed to happen with the way the Soviet government functioned" - yeah tell that to 11 other cities which had or still have Soviet-built reactors. 44 units built and the one disaster means that it's only the Soviet government that fucked up. And contamination of water after Fukushima disaster should probably be mentioned, especially considering that they did that shit decades after the Chernobyl disaster, when the safety measures and overall technical progress in nuclear energy should have made stuff like that nearly impossible.
Nuclear power sounds high tech, but it’s actually basically a variation of a hydroelectric dam. Instead of using water and gravity to spin turbines, they use water heated up by special rocks to spin turbines. It’s so underwhelming compared to the nuclear explosions people think are being harnessed in those buildings.
@@entcraft44 You know what you are right. I missed a step. Special rocks heat special water, then the special water circulates through tubes to boil regular water, and the steam of the regular water spins turbines.
@@entcraft44tbh, a nuclear fission bomb is mostly that. Big angry rocks goes very very very hot as release lotta energy, ie go boom! Sure, the complexity is in how to control said rock to become angry when we want, but after rock is angry it is quite simple.
The issue is that you can't really argue with stupid. It's hard to argue and try and inform people when they just go 'Chernobyl!!! Fukushima!!!!'. They are so stuck in their misinformed bias that they don't want to learn or be informed.
I remember one time I saw someone say something that goes along the lines of "Arguing against a stupid person is like playing chess against a pigeon, you put pawn to e4, while the pigeon knocks all of the pieces down, shits all over the board and tells his friends how he won"
It sucks that really the only way to combat this is to not let people believe in the hysteria in the first place. Make sure the uninformed get better education that stops this irrational fear from festering. In the mean time, we can't really do anything about the people who've accepted this rhetoric other than waiting for them to cease or pray they come to realize the error in their ways themselves.
omg i loved your video! i first heard of nuclear reactors beeing safe on the safety third podcast (the episode with Kyle Hill) and it has been on the back of my mind since. i really hope some people change their minds about nuclear power thanks to your video!
8:83 Im totally pro Nuclear Power. But this just showes a lack of understanding in economics. If somthing is Profitable it means it is effective. It uses its resources that all have prices in an effective manner so that it makes money back. Prices are a way to convey information what is needed when. If a super project gets build steel prices rise because is it needed by said super project. Nuclear Powerplants can be very profitable because they just pump out Energy at 1-2 ct(European) per kW/h
Nuclear power does have a profit problem, a short term profit problem. They are heavy investments that could fail before profits are made, and in western countries have a habit of being delayed in the most expensive period raising costs of investment.
Nuclear is only less profitable for billionaires that already have all of their assets in fossil fuels and politicians who get "donations" from said billionaires.
Short, well made, and hit the nail perfectly on the head. The issue with nuclear is that politicians don't want a reactor that turns a profit in 10 years because it won't help their re-election and the ignorant masses that believe that nuclear waste is stored in yellow barrels with green goo leaking out.
You forgot about France a country that has 56 nuclear power plants making up about 60% of power production
Probably the only reason Germany was able to even entertain the fantasy of "let's phase out coal AND nuclear - at the SAME time!"
63% actually and it used to be about 70%
@@XazamasGermany is evolving, just backwards.
@@Xiiki really hope they don't devolve back to the 30s and 40s 💀
@@xyzgaming450 afd party, which is rebranded nazi party, has been getting very popular. so sadly, it does seem like they're going that way.
anti nuclear people thinking nuclear power is some dangerous green goo sitting in a cement tub and then realizing its a giant steam engine with extra steps:
“B-but Chernobyl and 3 mile island!”
Those were 40 years ago. Comparing reactor technology from then to today would be like putting an original Apple II against a modern desktop.
We also gained a lot of valuable experience on containing meltdowns between then and now, especially after these two incidents
@@haramsaddam238 3 Mile island didn't even have any permanent effects on the local surroundings.
There is literally no evidence that *anyone* even got cancer from it
@@haramsaddam238Not to mention both of those invedent happened because the staff running the reactors f'ed up astronomically for the meltdowns to happen in the first place
@@haramsaddam238also, didn't one of the dudes working at 3 mile island frequently showed up drunk to work?
The fact that he didn't instantly blow up the reactor on his first day shows that nuclear reactor safety is grossely underexaggerated to the public by the media
literally 90% of power generation humans have made is just boil water its great
WELL I DONT KNOW BUT IVE BEEN TOLD URANIUM ORE IS WORTH MORE THAN GOLD...
Sold my Cad I bought me a Jeep I've got that bug and i cant sleep
URANIUM FEVER HAS DONE AND GOT ME DOWN
URANIUM FEVER'S SPREADIN' ALL AROUND
With a Geiger counter in my hand
I'm goin off to stake me some government land
The fact that they went back to coal after relying on Russia for natural gas because of the war in Ukraine is poetic form of full circle
Trump warned them of that and they scoffed at him.
@@HomelessOldMan9000 Pfp checks out
@@HomelessOldMan9000 Username checks out
@@julioaurelioHows Biden workin out?
It's an intelligence test. Wind and solar will always require supplemental power plants that use fossil fuels. Nuclear and hydro don't require supplemental power plants and we've been moving away from them for decades. "Oops we need coal again"
I feel like what happened with nuclear energy is like if we saw the titanic sink and then decided to cut sea transport out of the equation entirely while promising that trains and planes alone can take on the extra workload.
or like all the people that saw 911 happen and never rode a plane again (even though cars are exponentially more dangerous)
Reminds me of the time scurvy was reintroduced cause the British used a copper lines container to hold their lemons and it sucked away whatever prevents scurvy, so rather then acknowledging it as a one time thing the British just assumed fruits weren't the solution and reintroduced scurvy to their fleet.
@@speedy01247 It's vitamin C, scurvy is vitamin c deficiency.
@@a-ramenartist9734how is that not a false equivalence considering you control the car you drive, but not the plane of which you ride?
@@GingeryGingeryou don't control the car responsible for half of the accidents you end up in.
"They produce harmful waste"
Yeah absolutely miniscule amounts you can throw into a concrete cask where it stays, the coal though? Yeah thats in your lungs.
Nuclear reactor meltdown hot particles are also in your lungs.
@@DASLAKILL a reactor meltdown is just a big water boiler melting itself
Even if the pressure vessel blows up that shit isnt gonna stay up there long
Dont make stuff up
@@DASLAKILL Not only is coal smoke constantly emitted, but it also has trace amounts of radiation - so you're still getting irradiated either way.
@@someguy1900 It's filtered in the US
@@DASLAKILL That's like complaining of eating stuff with radioactive Carbon 14, or because a star exploded million of years ago, or being worried because Bananas have radioactive Potassium inside
It's just a non factor
"Being against nuclear power because of Chernobyl, is the same as hating cars because some careless idiot driving a rust bucket without brakes fell off a cliff"
That is a pretty apt description. Chernobyl was devastating and horrifying, but only happened due to cartoonish levels of corruption and incompetence.
@@YourLocalMairaaboo no government is immune against "cartoonish levels of corruption and incompetence"
I'm not gonna trust my government with giant nuclear reactors upwind from my village no matter how much you swear they'll never do an oopsie again
@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 the US Navy has been operating reactors since nuclear power was conceived and have had zero accidents ever and who runs the US Navy again
@@elapidpython4378 humans? or is this some ULTRA PATRIOTIC HOO RAAH AMERICA IS THE BEST NATION OF ALL TIME I LOVE WAR stuff?
@@cewla3348 seeing as the person my comment was replying to deleted there comment I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't see it however at that point you should have at least had the comen sence to not make a snarky remark to a comment without seeing the full context
however if you did see the comment then it was pretty obvious why I brought up the navy's spotless record of nuclear operation
please give your reply more than 2 seconds of thought next time or you'll endup looking like a retard again
green energy people thinking uranium isnt green (they all start to melt away when i show them a brick of uranium 232)
Which in fact glows green
@@lechatrelou6393 Which in fact doesn't emit any glow. radium and cobalt emit small amounts of light but uranium is just a grey, dull metal.
@@MonkeyMakerMakesThings doesn't it emit green ligh when exposed to uv or is that just uranium compounds?
@@jamjam-sp3he No.
@@jamjam-sp3he to uv? im not sure. but plenty of things glow under UV. neon clothes, bed sheet stains, platypus fur, etc.
1:46 For those who don’t know he was making a joke because aircraft carriers have nuclear reactors on board
Only some
Multiple from what i heard
@@historiesweiss4785 usually 2 but I did hear a story about one that had up to 4 as a bit of a fuck you to congress who didn’t think nuclear power was a good idea
@@wyatthermens2866 lol navy said fuck you to congress then proceeds to build whole fleet of nuclear powered subs
@@historiesweiss4785 pretty much. The nuke who did it was bad shit insane in the best way. From what i remember of the story basically when congress was debating on wether to use nuclear power or not the main argument against it was they thought a carrier would need at least 4 to power it he basically said bet and built it despite it only needing 2. Another thing he did was when he learned there was going to be an inspection on his ship he ordered his men to hide 3 dead rats around the ship. The inspectors came to him and said he failed because they found two dead rats. He told them that they failed at there jobs because they failed to find the third rat. From what I hear he’s a legend at the nuke school
How politicians think Nuclear reactors operate: "bomb goes boom and power go brrr."
How it's actually running: "REALLY Hot rock go Sizzle, turbine do a spin."
ANGRY rock lashes out at some water, the water gets heated and runs away, when it runs away it spins a revolving door that gives us power
The fact that the people that get into politics usually have no science background or even education is baffling.
It's practically the same concept as a sauna, but instead of making heat, it makes power. Water on hot rock go fwooossh
@@cewla3348you just made a description of nuclear power that a caveman would understand.
Might I add, the fins have been excelling at both for decades
Politics is not about solving society's problems, but using them for personal gain
^This guy politics
false.
Brother, politics is about the management of a system, wether that be national politics or book club politics, it’s all management of resources.
@@Alexthegrandest1900 ideally, yes, in practice? Nah
@@olhoTron no shit Sherlock
anti-nuclear is like being anti-vax
If Hollywood was realistic:
Engineer: "Sir, the reactor's going critical!!"
20 different failsafes activate simultaneously, the reactor shuts down, nothing else happens
Overseer or whatever they'd be called: "ugh, this is gonna be a lot of paperwork"
Credits
The reactor going "critical" is called "functioning", because critical just means the fuel's neutron output is equal(ish) to neutron consumption.
@@mister_bomb7777 hmm, might have to change my scenario to make the engineer the butt of the joke
@@mister_bomb7777 and what does it call when it's going supercritical? The same word as is? Nvm, I already found my answer
they would be called the shift supervisor
@@redacted8983 There's also prompt critical which may have happened in chernobyl but probably didn't. Prompt critical is what you ususally see in fission reaction illustrations where the neutrons from the fissions are enough for the chain reaction and is what leads to a bomb. Reactors a tuned so that these prompt neutrons are not enough to sustain the reaction and for neurons from the fission products and their radiactive decay to also be required for the reaction to be critical. Basically in prompt criticality the reactivity changes too fast for people or even the machanics of the reactor to respond to so they do that instead which gives them the time. Reactors are designed so that they can't reach prompt critical even if all the safety systes fail, the very wrose you get is a steam explosion and liquified reactor.
I'll say this before the video starts. Nuclear power is not generating power from explosions, it literally is a steam engine, BASICALLY.
Hot rocks make water turn bug fan
@@matthiuskoenig3378 bug fan :3
@@matthiuskoenig3378"angry rocks close to eachother boil water with a heated argument" is my favourite way of explaining it
@@brunogamesbr1 if we could use twitter as the heated argument source it would be infinite energy
Not unless you're talking about a nuclear salt water rocket, or an Orion Drive.
>french politician
>good person
I'm convinced these types of people aren't ACTUALLY concerned for the environment or are even ignorant, but instead want to actively INCREASE the total amount of human suffering in the world.
Nuclear has the explicit benefit of not being vulnerable to a cloud going overhead. It can also produce at scale.
I think it is about having a problem without a realistic solution.
They're being paid by oil and coal companies to slander nuclear
In Germany the anti nuklear movement has been supported on a large scale by russia who wanted to sell us gas.
@@Matzu-Music and you can CONTROL its output.
Big oil made it look bad and the green party didnt figure that out.
pretty much
"Green Party" is just Big Fossil all along.
Oh no, the Green parties of the world know. They just hate the very thought of the "lower people" having cheap access to energy.
Green is literally big oil.
No it is too expensive and takes to long to build so they dont likr it
1:45 I used to live in the Norfolk area growing up. During my last high school final, my AP Chemistry teacher had her regular chem class do their final on debating science topics. This one girl gets up and speaks for 3 minutes "why living near nuclear is bad" that was just rhetoric. At the end of her speach, i said: "Not in your class but you do realize I can name 15 nuclear reactors within 15 miles from here right, and we are fine." It took a few seconds before everyone else in the class relaized I was talking about the Carriers and Subs. Someone in the class followed up with "oh yeah, well I guess that destorys [the girl's] argument."
Best day of High School by far 😂
I love being a teenager while observing governments taking poor decisions which will horribly affect my adulthood :)
if the voting age was lowered they would start to care a lot more
fr 😔
Same dude, like what is the future gonna be like with all of this chaos?
true
@@sayorancode I think voting age (and age for becoming a politician) should have an upper limit instead
The Simpsons' depiction of nuclear energy and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
True
Literaly yes
Fun fact: Despite the disaster of Reactor 4 in 1986, the Chernobyl power plant was safe enough for workers to return and continue to operate and supply power, Reactor 2 was shut down until 1991 and the power plant officially ceased operation in 2000...
People act like Pripyat is the Upside Down from Stranger Things when it's literally a tourist destination.
@@PlatinumAltaria Doesn't help that there are movies and games with Pripyat as a setting where there is always some "mutant" thing, and now everyone thinks it's like Ohio...
i do have a question on that, if reactor 4 is like. Really Bad. (we all know about the elephants foot) then how is it even safe to be around the area? like i get nagasaki and hiroshima are fine now cause of how atomic bombs work but chernobyl???
@@gardenagnostic They built a dome around it...
Funny that they never choose to look at the numbers and logic...
Chernobyl - 31 deaths (about 4,000 cancer deaths possibly linked)
Year: 1986
Nationality: USSR
Cause: Design flaws, bad construction, incompetence
Fukushima - 0 deaths (about 1,000 indirect deaths)
Year: 2011
Nationality: Japan
Cause: building a reactor ontop an active fault line despite warning of possible disaster.
Three Mile Island - 0 deaths
Year: 1979
Nationality: United States
Cause: incompetence
Fossil fuels - About 4.2 million premature deaths annually (pollution alone) (number provided by the World Health Organization)
Oh, they look at numbers very well. Gouvernment's goal just not about making people happy. It is about allowing people to reproduce to create fresh work power. When robots became cheaper than living man, they ll replace us instantly.
Interesting thanks I'll use these numbers if I ever need them
So fossil fuels are essentially 10 Chernobyls anually
@@kamprouristheoharis8458annually? 4.2 million divided by 4000 and something is between 3 and 4 daily (over 1000 annually)
also, another fun fact: coal has little amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium in it. when it is burned, that is released with the microparticles released from burning it (like the acid stuff that causes acid rain or the stuff that blackens snow and accelerates rust), which means that living near a coal power plant, when scaled to the energy produced (as in per TWh, in which nuclear is better when looking at radiation effects, but ignoring climate change), coal does more radiation than nuclear power plants
@@gonozal8_962 yes anually it's in the post. From what I've seen online the numbers line up
Although I can't find numbers regarding worldwide deaths for the recent years, I've mostly found about the USA
1 guy died from radiation at Fukushima
Fun Idea: Ask an anti nuclear person what nuclear waste looks like.
UUuhhhh.... green evil goo that gives you extra fingers when you touch it
slag, loose rock and very muddy water.
either that or a smouldering pile of molten junk like you see at Chernobyl, but that's really the 100% worst case situation
i would be very surprised if they even know it turns to lead over time
@@skylex157 over a LOOOOOOONG fooking time
but otherwise, yes, you're correct
@@itsdokko2990 yeah, obviously, half-life and all, but they don't know that, they surely don't know that modern, 4th gen power plants leave it "almost" there, as a solid block of slightly irradiating lead instead of spooky goo in a yellow barrel
The Simpsons has done more damage to nuclear power than imaginable
Nuclear power is, in my opinion, a litmus test of whether someone or some group actually want to fix the problem or if they are just trying to profit from the movement.
I agree
Nuclear power oversimplified:
Hot rock make water hot.
Hot water turn into hot water air.
Hot water air make spinny thing go.
Spinny thing going make power.
nuclear power further oversimplified
hot rock make roundy roundy
Horror beyond human comprehension
WOAAAAAH!!!
@@mellowneutronas we navy nukes say it: “hot rock make boat go.”
@@certifiedfreeaboo3790 hail rickover
I came for the thumbnail thinking it was a meme video, but no it’s a literal video that explains a lot of stuff I can barely remember.
I really hate that about Germany, they then replace those with coal plants that use lignite, the dirtiest coal of them all. Don't even mention that you can recognize a lignite mine very easily, they look like huge impact craters. Education system failed here.
That is the power of political fear mongering. Remember it well.
And they give off more radioactive waste in the entirety of nuclear lifetime, a lot of the smoke contains radioactive isotopes of carbon and other trace elements that were around the dig site
It's not just the education system. It was corruption. The former German chancellor got a VP position at a Russian energy company after this term ended. He's living now in Moscow.
They didn't, the coal production didn't went up after the nuclear shutdown
@@workinprogress2742 The coal consumption and imports did.
*shuts down last nuclear reactors*
*flattens entire town to allow for a coal mining operation, despite having promised otherwise*
"Man I sure wonder why nobody votes for us greens anymore :("
Yeah.... seriously. And "the left" party is now just a crippled pro Russia shell after its redfash elements ejected themselves into founding the second n*zi party, third if you life in the south. And the last remaining party even pretending to be left wing is just the car lobbies corrupt mouthpiece.
Why DO parties run by intellectuals and teachers keep self destructing, but parties by barely sentient mouth breathing reactionaries are run like a well oiled machine....
most green parties dont build coal mines
@@fje_grgyour right, they just build the conditions that allow coal mine lobbying, theyre puppets
@@fje_grgmost green partys arent in power amd never will be
@@fje_grgMost green parties don't build nuclear power plants
We really got politicians who think that nuclear waste is just glowing green goo in yellow barrels being put in charge of writing laws
That one guy really was right when he said with 24 hours and a VCR he would be able to convince Joe Biden that Transformers actually happened
Imagine if people protest nuclear fusion in the future, just because it has the name “nuclear”.
call it something else ,then
name something different like how MRI machines dont have nuclear in their name
@@noone-mz1cd Alright, let's brain storm,... how about Plasma Heated Steam Reactor
Well people already protest in front of ITER...
@@sayorancode or maybe the average person should stop being so utterly stupid? Maybe use your brain for once.
"Ok Gordon, just push the sample into the lazer, we'll take it from there"
(Water boils) “Gordon get away from there!” “Attempting shut down! It’s! It’s! It’s shutting down!”
(Nuclear energy be like)
@@PsychoticGirl2003 The accident was contained within safe perimeters, due to extensive operator training and decades of lessons learned.
@@derpcade Gordon doesn’t need to hear all this. He’s a highly trained professional!
*laser
'Lazer' is just wrong and I don't care what Mr Webster thinks
@@I_Stole_A_BTR-80 I see. I can offer you a battle you have no chance of winning. Rather an anticlimax after the sh*t you’ve just posted.
i agree that nuclear energy is the most viable and cost efficient green energy source but what happens when we run out of nuclear fuel
We won't. At least for a WHILE. Uranium, thorium, etc are plenty in nature or in interior of the earth unlike oil and others which is only predicted to last 100 or so years
For the greens, it was never truly about saving the environment. That's just their pull to get you to vote for them.
They're politicians after all
they need their moneeeeee
@@v1_ultrakill_real They need their greens.
As with any political party, it's about them getting the ability to control us rather than another party
Sincr the german greens got in power coal decreased nominally and percentage and renewables share increased from 40% to 60%.
I don't know aht their motivations are but they are definitely helping
7:51 This one really annoys me because I've seen people go all "Capitalism is killing the planet" but turn around and complain that Nuclear isn't "Economically viable". Like pick a lane.
in my opinion, nuclear love should be shared to the entire political compass, because aside from building costs, nuclear power plants do nothing wrong
those people aren't thinking rationally, just emotionally based on whatever their government approved education told them to (as an aside, look into how many US government officials are invested into both fossil fuel and 'renewable' industries. Then reconsider why nuclear power isn't a big thing)
@@iustinianusspeedrunseh, the entire “political compass”? Idk man, I’m not sure I like eco fascists advocating mass death of non white people to reduce carbon on the planet and also because there “isn’t enough resources on the planet for everyone” even though there is, it’s just hoarded by capitalists, and what isn’t used like food for example, is thrown away just because it’s not profitable or didn’t sell.
Lately RUclips has been recommending me a lot of underrated small channels.
The hilarious fact is that nuke power CAN be built in active fault lines because it can handle literal ocean waves just fine (nuclear subs and ships, yoohoo?).
Another thing, Fukushima was supposed to have double layer failsafes but the stupidly incompetent management thought "why do we bother installing the backup generator for the backup cooling pump four storeys up? Put them shit in the basement". The whole complex survived the shakes, survived the tsunami barrage, but it got FLOODED. This critical whoopsie means Fukushima could have melted down from sillier things like bad drainage.
It actually melted down because they refused to flood the reactor, because it was expensive to replace...
@@mrfigaloopierre9610 and because the coolant pumps ran out of power
@@cewla3348 They could have flooded it with a fire truck or with seawater, they had options, but they chose to put corporate interest before safety.
@@mrfigaloopierre9610 It's a nuclear reactor, dummy. You need to keep the water cycling, which is where the coolant pumps came in.
@@mrfigaloopierre9610no they couldn’t immediately do it even id they wanted to because the earthquake destroyed all the infrastructure and roads, no fire trucks could arrive fast enough. That’s why now in nuclear safety analysis we also consider these factors such a combination of events outside the plant.
Nuclear Energy is literally one of the only issues that regardless of your political position, you should definitely 100% support lmao. I can't believe we are even having this discussion to begin with, the transition from fossil to nuclear is such a blatantly obvious decision tbh. imagine if we were still arguing about whether to use steam or fossil fuels? yeah that's currently happening with fossil vs nuclear.
That's the first time I agree with a socialist... That proves your point
Coal fire power plants are steam engines.
I think you specifically mean for vehciles steam vs ice powerplants
For wide scale, infrastructural purposes, nuclear is the obvious choice compared to something like a coal power plant, since they both supply exactly the same thing, electricity. But for individual scale things like cars or generators, internal combustion engines will probably remain the most optimal option since they don't need to be hooked up to a grid to work, and things like batteries are way too bulky and harmful to create in comparison for a usually subpar result.
I also agree with this, yes you have to be more careful with nuclear power, but the amount of terror we have over it is out of proportion, especially considering how many benefits it has.
I end up on the conservative side of the isle, and a lot (though obviously not all) of people over here aren't so refusing to believe that climate change is happening, but just skeptical of the solutions that are being proposed. A lot of times it seems more idealistic than practical, but the practicality of nuclear power is something both sides should be able to get behind.
A socialist saying something normal and agreeable? What has the world come to?
1:25 yeah and also solar and wind produce a laughably small amount of power compared to coal, NG, and nuclear power plants.
you know people could build more solar and wind right?
@@codenamepyro2350 we're talking about multiple orders of magnitude more power out of a much smaller footprint. You can build more solar and wind yes, but they are location dependent (solar power in Alaska for instance is not a good idea) and require a significant amount of land. They're a good supplementary power source but they're not currently a viable replacement for fossil fuel plants.
Nuclear power on the other hand...
@@7heTexanRebel Alaska has ice so they have more hydro power than they could ever hope to use. The same goes for almost any country so far north, that solar energy is too low. Also solar can be put on roofs, where it usually generates more power than the house beneath it uses in a given time span, without requiring any land. If you do want extra power, you can put solar into the desert where nobody cares about land use. Also wind energy is most efficient where less obstruction such as homes are. A single off shore wind farm can produce enough power for more than a city while staying completely out of sight, hiding behind the horizon. And those are not all the options.
Renewables are certainly a viable replacement for fossil fuels in almost all places of the world.
@@codenamepyro2350 You know in order to tie to nuclear plant or coal factory, you need to cover the entire city in solar panels? Its will cost oil, costs more money, and its will produce noticable amount of heat, and its less money cost efficient for regular people.
@@7heTexanRebel Is the size the main concern here? I'd say it isn't. We have a lot more land to work with than time, money, and environmental impact. Solar and wind are much better on the last three, nuclear has its virtues (as you said such as in places where renewables are subpar) but it also has its negatives. Those negatives which aren't problems for renewables
Australia exports loads of uranium, we have no serious earthquakes or tsunamis, we even have lots of space to keep them away from people for extra peace of mind.
Unfortunately we are run by coal mining companies.
And I've heard you get more radiation living near a coal plant than a nuke plant! Where I'm from we call something like that bass-ackwards!
@@travissmith2848 I found this on Quora:
"In fact, the coal ash emitted by a power plant-a by-product from burning coal for electricity-carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements."
TL:DR
100x more radioactive; Confirmed
That and the fact a couple of specific countries wouldn't want us to start utilising nuclear material
Eh, nuclear reactors don’t make much sense for Australia, we have plenty of sun for panels, plenty of space for wind turbines, and plenty of mountains for pumped hydro. Getting nuclear reactors up here would be a decade long problem getting them legalised both federally and in the states and territories, and then it’s another 2 decades to get them up and running.
Nuclear reactors are great, but there’s no real point for them here.
@@Coliflower185 Here in Montana, USA we don't have the population to need such but they'd make sense. We have mountains, but far too steep for hydro storage to be at max efficiency. Days are kinda short during the winter so solar is iffy. Lots of wind (and many wind farms) but sometimes it blows too hard. We do have a fair number of dams for hydroelectric as well. Sadly, most of our generation is contracted out of state and we end up buying power from elsewhere......
Question is what do you plan on doing with the sails when they need to be replaced in 10-20 years? Fiberglass recycling is far from proven let alone any real capacity.
The worry about nuclear waste is complete and utter rubbish, there have been reactors made to accept and work on recycled nuclear fuel (this can be repeated multiple times and reduces the time we need to store the spent fuel each time)
recycled fuel has a host of engineering issues tragically. it works best when used in conjunction with fresh fuel. so the earlier we start using it, the better.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't those reactors invented in the 60's? Like we've known how to use nuclear waste as fuel for a long time now, we just have to implement it.
i’m no expert but i’m also gonna assume that you’re eventually gonna have to to throw some waste out
what i do know is we have figured that out
@@sandcat2383yes, France developed "Super Phenix" a expérimental reactor wich use recycled nuclear waste to work, it was able to produce energy on an industrial scale. But.... Guess what ... "Ecologist" décided to turn it down 😅
@@valian8985 Of course they do, it's Fr*nce, it's awful there
I'm all for nuclear energy and acknowledge all the points made in this video. However I think pro-nuclear people should realize that nuclear energy isn't a permanent alternative to fossil fuels. Uranium and other radioactive materials will run out at some point. It will take a lot of time before that happens so for the time being we(all humans) should favor nuclear energy over fossil fuels until better forms of harnessing energy are developed.
The one thing that anti nuclear people don't know is that the construction of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was half assed, just like everything in the USSR, Fukushima was flooded, and all 3 mile island did was let off a little steam.
They really be citing disasters that dislocated a town's worth of people by reactors that were built in the declining USSR or in one of the most earthquake and tsunami prone countries on the planet. Then there's Three Mile Island which was entirely inconsequential and can still never happen again due to modern safety regulations.
And that is why nuclear power in the west is more costly unless we deregulate safety and construction like they did in the USSR.
@@fablearchitect7645it isn't that expensive, sure it costs a bit, but the savings on fuel are big, **also milions of people don't die every year due to it**
fukushima, in a bubble, worked exactly as it was intended to work, apart from backup generators being placed in the stupidest place possible, fukushima did EVERYTHING to not blow up, but it just couldn't prevent the explosions after loosing grid power
fukushima is especially stupid, because there was another plant CLOSER to the tsunami source that was just fine after getting hit. it was literally just that they also half assed it and didnt listen when people told them how to build it
Germany went from using Nuclear, the most sophisticated way to produce loads of electricity with no enviromental impact, to using coal, the least sophisticated form with major enviromental impact. Kind of Poetic
As a German i am realy sad about this. We Had some of the safest and Most modern reactors in the world Like Isar 2 now we are Back to coal nice. In my Home City i can See 5 different coal plants. There onces was a Plan to build a nuclear reactor there but the green Party portested and now Dortmund ( my Home town) is Stuck on coal.
What a shame.
@@_kampfkartoffel2195 Also German, I knew the situation was dire, but I didn't knew that it was THAT dire.
The monk was protesting for the right thing.
No environmental impact? Where do they dig up the stuff? Maybe, if you are german you should watch the recent Terra X video about Nuclear
Ah yes, terra x, because german state media has been so impartial and objective lately. Might as well ask pravda about what happened in ukraine in 1932
We use less coal than ever nominally and in percentage terms than ever in Germany since phasing out nuvlear while our renwable share increased frok 40 to 60%.
Plrase stop repeating the same "Germany bad" talking points.
6:05 Fun fact: The predicted tsunami was THE SAME HEIGHT as the one that occurred, and ended up flooding the emergency generators.
As a german it makes me furious that people still believe its more dangerous than coal or gas. The people i talk to always go: "b-but green energy so good so no need for nuclear."
I hate that when i tell them that germany should build more nuclear powerplants. I feel like everybody underestimates how much electricity nuclear power provides and how little electricity green energy provides. Coal lobbyists are just making sure that nuclear stays away. The nuclear lobbyists have almost no political power. Its sad that people seem so educated but are still extremely uneducated.
Same in Italy brother🙄
My home state of Michigan decommissioned a nuclear power plant in the city of Grand Rapids due to safety concerns regarding the reactor chamber. So instead of getting the money to replace and repair the reactor vessel, they instead spent a similar amount of money "investing" in "green" alternatives like solar and wind... in a state that is covered in snow for half of the year. Now there is "Peak Hour" rates set up, where electricity is double its price between 2pm and 7pm during the summer, something that wasn't a thing when the Grand Rapids plant was still online.
IN the grand scheme of things the main reason why building nuclear plants in germany will fail and is a bad idea is not safety, but cost. Other new nuclear plants in europe drasticly overshoot on budget and deadlines. As our Gov is unwilling to take on new debt, i highly doubt that anyone will like the proposal to dumb billions in new nuclear plants, despite the fact that the nuclear industry in europe is pretty dead. We wont even have the proper Fachkräfte to build the plants.
also the statement that green energy provides little electricity is just false. Green energy is vastly more cost effective than nuclear.
All the nuclear states like France or Korea have a huge pile of debt since they use government subsidieze to keep the plants running.
It’s just a good idea and you will need that for steady stable power now that Russia is led by this nutcase. We aren’t getting Russian gas, I’d rather live next to a nuclear plant than a fracking area tbh used to live next to one in Virginia it’s much better. Governments now no longer want to invest in them cause they are expensive.
Das RWE meinte etwa um 2019 herum, dass sie genug Kohle abgebaut haben, um bis 2030 auf erneuerbare Energie umzusteigen. Es ist fast 2025, und das RWE gräbt immer noch nach mehr Kohle. Die Kohlemine westlich von Köln ist auf Google maps bereits aus dem Weltall sichtbar
That's it? That's nuclear energy? That was just boiling water!
Yeah but it uses a really spicy rock so it’s bad now I guess
its very complicated, and its a lot more than just "boiling water"
@@blueskiestechofficial The nuclear part sure, but the power generation part is almost exactly the same as coal, natural gas, or biomass. It is just heat water, make thing spin. Make thing spin is what most electricity generation is.
Always has been, all along
@@blueskiestechofficial Nuclear fission is throw a neutron, split an atom, get a bit of energy. Not really hard.
Then you use that energy to boil water and use it to generate electricity.
Simple video, explains the biggest issue with public anti-nuclear arguments and the impending threat we are facing. Liked it. Could open a bit more on the actual realistic points of the current debate :
Cost is one, alongside time to build (due to poor industrial know how since there's been so much political pressure against new nuclear reactor).
The little graph about cost comparison of energy show that renewables energy are extremely cheap (even compared to coal) and make a lot of sense to build just from the price perspective.
There's also the factor of how much fuel we'd have if we drastically expanded nuclear (and the maturity of the technology to use other fuel sources).
Good video summary, thank you for producing it ! It's obvious that closing working near zero carbon energy nuclear power plants during a climate crisis caused by CO2 is more for clout than actually a grounded decision.
One thing to add: Propaganda from other countries might affect some people's opinions too.
For example when Japan was about to release the filtered nuclear water back to the sea, China ramped up its propaganda to make it seem like a bad thing (while they themselves release more waste/chemicals onto the sea).
Even if we don't believe this affects people, it must have had some impact, otherwise no one would make propaganda.
Btw nice outro! I was thinking of Code Lyoko episode 37 while watching this, when you mentioned people stealing nuclear waste. I recently rewatched the whole show (from season 1 to 4), and now I have Serial Experiments Lain on my bucket list of shows to watch!
Code Lyoko goated show. Istarted looking into nuclear power after watching that episode too!
bro china bitching about japan's power plant water is hilarious considering their lack of any control on their fishing industry (apparently large government btw) has obliterated so many ecosystems, for the past few years the ling population in american coasts have plummeted because of illegal dredging operations, then they're also pretty much solely responsible for decimating shark populations which has cascading negative effects on every ocean ecosystem, not to mention the shit ton of coal they still use (the worst fossil fuel in terms of emissions) which all runs into the ocean, and their trash problem is as bad as americas despite being so called "communists"
"Your coastal waters are also our *legal* fishing spots too, so please don't polluting it or where else we're able to get healthy fish?" Said China regarding Japan's own right to use their coastal waters.
I miss Code Lyoko
The idea that only China and "muh Chinese propaganda" has a problem with Japan releasing filtered nuclear water into the sea is ludicrous and straight up propaganda and misinformation. What about South Korea? What about the Pacific islands?
I live 30 minutes away from a nuclear power plant. You would have no idea there is a nuclear power plant there because it is surrounded by forests and wildlife
You would know if you looked up cancer density around them. 90 percent of nuclear reactors in the USA alone are leaking.
The biggest tragedy I've learned this video, is how easily the general public was fooled into hating Nuclear.
The 2nd biggest tragedy this video taught me was: 4:06 Paying Fortnite Tutors 💀
Here in Australia, for some reason our government is the biggest supporter of anti nuclear energy and weapons despite having the worlds largest uranium mines. What a great logical game of chess our government plays :)
Nuclear energy = good.
Nuclear weapons = bad.
I forget if it's due to being addicted to Chinese coal or not.
@@Blackgriffonphoenixg Australia is run by Oil Companies and the mafia.
Something about Australia gov is completely backwards.
Australian government sounds like an immense joke seriously whenever I hear about it
I’m still in school, and at least here, we are taught that nuclear power is good. It will probably be more relevant as time goes on
Hopefully but the old heads in power are too stuck on their ways.
Nice, when I was in school lin 2019 they were still on the nuclear hate wagon.
Are you an O level or A level student? Because when I was studying for my O levels our physics textbook taught us about all the types of energy generation and the prospect of clean energy. The conclusion was that most other renewables are very limited in use and should be used as supplemental sources while nuclear power can be used as the main source of energy, like what France does!
@@Mag_ladroth solar and wind are good for homes, but bad elsewhere
hydro is very hard if not impossible to setup en masse
coal is.. coal
gas is.. gas
nuclear is really good
@@Mag_ladroth O levels? what a throwback
nowadays (in the uk) we're generating a lot more energy from renewables and the proportion is only increasing every year. we're getting ever closer to viable fusion as well
Watching a video with a 04119_snail OC in the thumbnail, with Melty Blood gameplay in the b-role, talking about the consequences of anti-nuclear is so peak
That was a pretty decent explanation of how a nuclear reactor works.
Rocks, but they become spicy when you polish them really really hard.
protesters getting mad about taylor swifts private jet, while shutting down nuclear power plants and racking themselves up a personal co2 impact potentially even higher than hers (disclaimer; this is a "both are bad" statement)
filthy centrist!
That’s a really good point
This just made me think, does co2 output increase the larger a collection of people forms?
How exactly does a single person get a personal co2 impact higher than taylor swift.
@@Cheeseburgerlove Ikr?
I live in Germany and half the people here agree that deciding to shut down nuclear power for no other reason than the politicians being insanely misinformed about it was a incredibly not so good decision that caused us to be in a crippling energy crisis that made living conditions worse and caused energy prices to skyrocket.
Power sources explained:
Hydro-electric: Perfect but do you have a river near you?
Wind: It ain't windy today so power is gone.
Solar: Good night! No more electricty.
Geo-thermal: Super expensive for a thing that barely works.
Nuclear: Super expensive for a thing that works really well... However there are plenty of countries which shouldn't have this technology.
Coal: lol why are we even using this? It gives so much pollution. What are we Victorian England?
Natural Gas: The cheapest but we will run out in a few hundred years but who cares about them?
The real best source is attaching a generator to the founding fathers spinning in their graves
nuclear is not that expencive the cost comes from dealing with all the legal bullshit not building the actual plants themselves
one thing these all have in common: japan can't do any of them
@@a-ramenartist9734 XD
Hydro fucks up the aquatic ecosystem, not exactly perfect.
Geo-thermal requires the right local geology to be viable but when it is it can be the most efficient form of power generation (it also has a high up front cost)
Hydro power hurts the environment as well I think. I don't get the point of why some countries shouldn't have nuclear power though? I mean nuclear power plants aren't bombs, new reactors would just SCRAM before melting down.
I love the dead simplicity of nuclear power. It would be awesome if we could just have tiny reactors that could power neighborhoods. Like the tiny reactors that NASA uses on deep space probes.
Point of information, the reactors NASA uses on spacecraft are RTG's and use a method of power production different than "hot rock make steam make turbine roundy-roundy" and is only suitable for niche things (such as spacecraft where the reliability of a power supply is of utmost importance) due to its exceptionally low output and efficiency. Though I think you're talking about small/modular reactors, which are pretty neat.
You should have said Submarines. And they are trying to develop them. Small scale ones have the same high costs from permanent installation because of insurance and lawsuits. Mirco reactors in semi trailers that can directly replace diesel generators are pretty good and are in active development and don't have the same issues because they are mobile.
@@gljames24 Mobile means it can be stolen. I'd rather not add the capability of being stolen to a nuclear reactor.
There is a company called NuScale in Oregon making small reactors the size of cargo containers. Three of their reactors can power a small town.
Bro you aren't passing a bill why u saying point of information 😂😂@@MrKillerMichael
"OH look an Aircraft Carrier" Hey, wanna know what probably powers that thing?
IT'S POWERED BY FREEDOM!!!
@@mrfigaloopierre9610 aircraft carrier immediately looses all power
@@sayorancode It requires more
S A C R I F I C E S
@@sayorancode "Wake up honey, time to go work your 45 hour a week job to pay your student loans!"
My fairly liberal uncle dropped the "but nuclear waste" argument when I mentioned how I like the idea of using nuclear plants for powering cities, instead of taking up vast chunks of land for solar or wind that probably will struggle to meet the demands of the area.
Did you bring up how most nuclear waste is cleared of radiation pretty fast while harmful waste is buried multiple kilometres underground?
@starhammer5247 or how solar panels of equal power will produce dozens times of poisonous waste into soil since solar batteries naturally degraded
@@Yeet-eq7ve Solar Panels are way too inefficient to be viable.
@@starhammer5247 I know, I am part of nuclear gang
@@Yeet-eq7ve I figured as much. Not really any downsides for nuclear generators, even Aircraft Carriers use them and they don't suffer any issues.
i love the way you're approaching the subject, and i gotta say that i share your opinion widely. But i want to add to the economic part that nuclear is the cheapest solution per unit of power behind renewable (according to market price per source, AKA not representative of the real cost). Not taking into account the energy density per unit of space (the land required for each energy type to occupy to produce a certain amount of power), where, yes, wind is cheaper per kWh, but it has an energy density about 10,000x to 80,000x (depending on calculation and estimations) less than nuclear. I am french and we got like 20GW max for wind and people are already mad about them and ask removal of wind turbines because they can't stand it. (we would need like 10x-15x that to guarantee a 99% coverage of power demand)
The green energy grift requires all of its competition to be legislated out of existence to keep the racket going.
Nuclear is literally green energy. The grift you're referring to is the astroturfed advocacies that only exist to _muddy the waters_ and complicate things.
You sound like you are part of the Nuclear navy Field. Anime PFP? Fighting games? Seamen Guzzler joke? The evidence is all there.
gotta be lol
man this hits home especially since im in the Philippines, we would have been the first country in south east asia to have one but since our powerplant was scheduled to open in the same year that the chernobyl accident occurred the public was too terrified, it was never allowed to operate, today our government still maintains the powerplant because there are people in government that still hold on to the hope that it will be opened eventually and I hope that day will come sooner rather than later
I love this video. The editing, the sarcasm, the background gameplay of some anime, it's.. It's splendid. You shall get a million subscribers! And when that happens, don't forget me!
0:23 by the way that toxic waste can be recycled again afaik, since nuclear engineering isn't standing still. Apparently there's a type of reactor that can make fuel out of any radioactive material.
Yup France and many other countries do that and produce little to no waste
They are still radioactive, there is still potential for usage. Generation 3 Nuclear Power Plants don't do that if I rememebr correctly, but Gen 4 NPP which are still in their alfa state can.
I heard that Skunkworks in Lockheed Martin uses a nuclear reactor to cut down on electricity bills
Damn I feel like doing research with you is gonna be an acid trip HAHAHAHA history and geopolitics mashed with comedy is always gold
In Belgium, the green party fought against nuclear power for years and recently, the right wing party managed to not have the power plants closed. This singlehandedly made the right wing party greener than the green party has ever been.
I have some concerns about the Nuclear Energy.
1. The waste material isn't being treated, the majority is just being stored or buried.
2. It isn't renewable.
I know that it produces a lot of energy, but the raw materials necessarily to make the energy some day will end and before that they will become extremely expensive.
(We are already having problems with fossil fuels, because of the scarcity and increased prices, I don't know if depending on other limited source of materials is a good idea)
Also those materials could reintroduce a dependency on another country, likely with less western values. So running into the same danger as with natural gas.
3. the fuel is super rare and will create more resource wars.
@@Chawk282 Not rare, just hard to extract.
@@tedzards509 Nuclear power plants primarily use a specific type of uranium (U-235) for nuclear fission because its atoms are easily split apart. Although uranium is about 100 times more common than silver, U-235 is relatively rare, at just over 0.7% of natural uranium. www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/the-nuclear-fuel-cycle.php#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20plants%20primarily%20use,over%200.7%25%20of%20natural%20uranium.
1. Yeah fair, but there also isn't much and it's storage/burial is super safe
2. Most reactor fuel is recycled, so one plant can run a long time of off very little. As in, 90%. It's also hypothetically possible to use other fuels than uranium, thorium being a pretty common suggestion.
As a Czech im so pissed that Germans are mad at us for using Nuclear
Just ignore the turks
as a german, I apologize for the behavior of the FRG. there really only was one german state that didn’t do these BS decisions or do useless wars, like crusades or world ones, or bombed yugoslawia for no fucking reason, and it sadly doesn’t exist today. also, the EU mainly is a project to force countries to privatize and deregulate markets to the point that more companies, countries even, can be bought up to extract wealth by investment banks operating just like blackrock basically
@@weirdguylol lol, 2024 Germans aint beating them WW era Hun accusations.
yea we here in germany are pissed as well because of the energy prices *AHEM*
AND YOUR GRID IS DIRITIER THAN GERMANY ONE LOL.
This is why I can’t take most “environmentalists” seriously. They complain about CO2 but ignore the most obvious solution.
Ikr? Everyone who I talk to who talks about entire continents sinking into the ocean and us burning alive in the next 20 years always seethe at the notion of nuclear.
It's a solved problem and they don't wanna use the solution, so why should I give a damn?
i usually trust the green parties that are in their nature (no pun intended) socialist. they tend to support nuclear power and dont want privatized energy. sadly most green parties are basically trust fund neolibs with a hippie phase
politics is just performance, but i feel like the only way to change that is to have everyone educated on everything each party wants to do so they can form an actual opinion on it - which I don't think the majority of a place's population would ever be bothered to do, so we might, just maybe, be a little bit fucked
Green energy Mf’s attacking nuclear power is crazy friendly fire
It's not friendly fire. It's deliberate due to the unholy alliance of fossil fuel lobby and emotion-based green fantatics with a tiny dash of military interests (the safest reactor designs can't produce weapons-grade material)
It's not friendly fire, green energy is just a red herring.
No, it wastes time and is to expensive compared to solar/wind.
"wastes time" what? @@dererik9070
@@dererik9070 its arguably cheaper than wind/solar.
Fun fact: coal power actually releases more fallout than nuclear power plants. Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material, and when it's burned those materials are released into the atmosphere via the smoke/exhaust.
A better fun fact: nuclear energy is better for the environment and has a smaller carbon footprint per unit energy than most renewables. Anti-nuclear folks don't care if we compare nuclear with coal. They obviously hate coal, too. What's more important to argue with them is that nuclear power is as great or greater than renewables in almost every conceivable manner.
@@Paraselene_Tao
I agree, however... when Germany decommissioned their nuclear power plants, what did they replace them with?
Coal.
Green energy folks can claim they're anti-coal all they want, but in practice they seem to hate nuclear more than coal.
@@augustday9483
Yeah, that sounds like a joke to me. What else did they think would happen? I really wish the Green Party would wake tf up and stop being anti-nuclear. They get a lot of topics well figured out, but then they eff up what should be an obvious win. Nuclear power is an OBVIOUS win for all of humanity. I have considered contacting my local Green Party about this very topic (them being anti-nuclear (it's one of their main planks of their political platform)). Unfortunately, the Green Party and the people who like to be in it tend to be chemophobic and radiophobic and electromagnetically hypersensitive. This and other irrational fears keep them from being a truly great political party. I don't know how to cure their mental problems. It is very frustrating. I live in a place where the average person is very educated, but they still have irrational fears of chemicals, radiation, and EM fields. This is extremely frustrating for me.
@@augustday9483
I agree. I made a long response, but youtube hid it.
Quora says 100 times more. I've already googled it for a comment further up
Nuclear power is great for large amounts of population in a small area and solar power is good for small populations in a large area.
By the way it takes around 8 Million solar panels to make up the power of a nuclear plant.
Nuclear energy is a great way to support a growing green and renewable electrical grid while phasing out fossil fuels. Energy security is either incredibly hard or impossible on a completely renewable energy grid - any change in supply and demand can upset the grid so you've got to have something reliable and scalable to back it up. Besides nuclear, there's only fossil fuels that have that capability. So you're either a grid with fossil fuel generators supplementing green renewables or your supporting a grid with nuclear energy supplementing green renewables - one of those produces far more greenhouse emissions, air and water pollution, and releases more radioactive particles into the environment than the other and it isn't the nuclear.
Renewables are undesirable compared to nuclear, with the exception of hydro. Most Renewables are worse for the enviroment than nuclear and are way more expensive per kilowatt hour.
Renewables are only good because of the activists pushing against nuclear, but since those the same activists pushing for Renewables if they just pushed for nuclear instead everyone would be better off.
@@fablearchitect7645 Source?
Unfortunately modern (as in the ones that are being used in most places) nuclear reactors aren't that great at scaling power up and down. They are really good at providing a constant baseline of power but increasing the power quickly up or down is an issue for them. It's unfortunate since all the people trying to transfer over to renewable power sources need something that can scale quickly, but current nuclear power doesn't play that well with the variability of renewable energy sources.
I do think they were trying to get the newer reactors to scale up and down more quickly, but I haven't heard what progress they've made on that.
@whoiam5838 Which is simply a lack of technology in the private sector. Nuclear submarines and ships scale their power out puts up and down in mere minutes without issue. While technically different reactors and smaller it is possible.
batteries could solve a lot of those problems but nobody has come up with good energy storage solutions that aren't stupidly expensive and terrible for the environment
The anti-nuclear movement is literally just "b-b-but dats scawwyyyyy!!!" Turned into a political ideology
nobody talks about the oil spill like the bp horizon which had just as bad and long lasting eviromental affact
I have said it before I'll say it again. If you care about being environmentally friendly and you don't support nuclear, you do not care about being environmentally friendly.
It's not even worth an argument. If you don't support nuclear and your concerned about global warming you are not to be taken seriously unless you're researching nuclear fusion and perhaps graciously maybe geothermal but that really only works in specific areas.
Anger...anger and destain is what I feel
is this a video about a femboy ranting on nuclear energy being awesome?
This is why im gay
Disgusting
@@theALTF4 why u here then
@@theALTF4 i am secretly gay (Not really i just really want to make people like you mad)
@@theALTF4 skill issue
@@theALTF4womp womp
Nuclear energy IS green, and I'm not just making a joke about the glow, because that's actually blue.
Cherenkov radiation i think
@@Something_From_Outer_Space Only when it's in water though.
@@unorthodoxpickle7014 Oh yeah, you are right
@@unorthodoxpickle7014, no it happens everywhere. Cherenkov radiation happens when radiation excites particles in the air (or water) those excitations cause the particles to release photons to return to the ground state, and those photons usually have a wavelength that corresponds to blue. It's just that you can really only see Cherenkov radiation when there's a high amount of radiation. You rarely see highly radioactive objects exposed in the open air (because that would be very dangerous ofc)
@@Something_From_Outer_Space
If you see the blue glow you've probably received a lethal dose of radiation
This is a gem a person who is well informed and knows what there talking about while also saying that there right on some thing my god I can’t believe it
Hot rocks, convert water into a new material called steam, steam itself is pressure, it gives pushy push when it allowed to and turns back into water when low energy. Magnets do magic with SPINNING where they make electricity as a by product.
To say you could teach a child to run a nuclear reactor is a bit of an overstatement, but I have seen games on a website geared towards kids about running a reactor (Hopped into it, it's well made and looks correct from the images I can find online)
You forgot that "as long as we handle it properly" is quite the caveat. Sizable caveat indeed. You also forgot the radioactive pollution from uranium mining. I will give you that its less bad than coal power plants.
Besides the Chernobyl disaster, most all radiation incidents occur from mismanaged medical equipment disposal or theft.
Fukushima frustrates me. Everyone completely ignores the 7.4 magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami that destroyed the entire city to focus on the nuclear plant that made a few blocks within the city slightly more radioactive for a little while. It's like ignoring a city flattening hurricane to focus on the fact that a few buildings were left on fire afterwards. Hell even the people who were in the city originally know it's safe to return but the Japanese government won't let them because of stupid irrational fears.
it was actully 9.1 which makes it more impresive that fukushima would have withstood if they didnt have there backup in such a dumb spot but to befair no one expects to be hit by an earthquake of that scale
A thing that most people don't really realize is how STURDY those power plants are.
9.1 earthquake was not even close to giving it issues structurally. People flee there for their own lives. To destroy a Nuclear power plants you need nuclear level weapons.
If a NPP is destroyed, nothing else remains because everything else falls down first.
@@ihcuwign1707 The Fukushima plant was well equipped to handle earthquakes in fact not much damage was done to the planet from the earthquake it's just that they focused solely on the earthquakes and completely forgot to factor in large tsunamis despite warnings from GE and the builders. Japan has adapted to survive these quakes so really the main killer in 2011 was the large tsunami.
Tbf we probably won't be able to phase out fossil fuels, not anytime soon. Nuclear energy can provide base power generation, but heat power plants are the ones picking up the peak power consumption. NPPs can regulate the power production, but only in small margins, and renewables are too inconsistent and don't produce enough power.
Source: my whole family works in energy production and i'm studying in energy college
True. We probably cannot fully switch to nuclear or green energy because it has so much factors and it’s pretty expensive. But hey you will never know what we develop in like 5 years
"chernobyl was doomed to happen with the way the Soviet government functioned" - yeah tell that to 11 other cities which had or still have Soviet-built reactors. 44 units built and the one disaster means that it's only the Soviet government that fucked up. And contamination of water after Fukushima disaster should probably be mentioned, especially considering that they did that shit decades after the Chernobyl disaster, when the safety measures and overall technical progress in nuclear energy should have made stuff like that nearly impossible.
Nuclear power sounds high tech, but it’s actually basically a variation of a hydroelectric dam. Instead of using water and gravity to spin turbines, they use water heated up by special rocks to spin turbines. It’s so underwhelming compared to the nuclear explosions people think are being harnessed in those buildings.
We literally found out a way to split molecules of atoms for energy before we harnessed the sun
That is dishonest. It is as if I would say "A nuclear bomb is just air heated by special rocks really fast".
@@entcraft44 You know what you are right. I missed a step.
Special rocks heat special water, then the special water circulates through tubes to boil regular water, and the steam of the regular water spins turbines.
@@adrianvulpes9509Spécial water? The water that comes in contact is different than normal water? Is it something like heavy water
@@entcraft44tbh, a nuclear fission bomb is mostly that. Big angry rocks goes very very very hot as release lotta energy, ie go boom!
Sure, the complexity is in how to control said rock to become angry when we want, but after rock is angry it is quite simple.
Fun Fact: France also recycles as much as 98% of their nuclear waste to make more fuel
The issue is that you can't really argue with stupid. It's hard to argue and try and inform people when they just go 'Chernobyl!!! Fukushima!!!!'. They are so stuck in their misinformed bias that they don't want to learn or be informed.
I remember one time I saw someone say something that goes along the lines of "Arguing against a stupid person is like playing chess against a pigeon, you put pawn to e4, while the pigeon knocks all of the pieces down, shits all over the board and tells his friends how he won"
Calling them stupid is too easy of a cop out for them, they are malevolent. Or the places they get their info and inspiration from, are malevolent.
It sucks that really the only way to combat this is to not let people believe in the hysteria in the first place. Make sure the uninformed get better education that stops this irrational fear from festering. In the mean time, we can't really do anything about the people who've accepted this rhetoric other than waiting for them to cease or pray they come to realize the error in their ways themselves.
Man I'm just saying, but if you added more random photos and less gameplay to this type of content, you would go really popular in no time.
or more gameplay
@@sayorancodeless is better
Idk. It seems to work for him and until i make content like that i personally wouldnt critisize
@@drago6568i think is fine a little of polite critisize
omg i loved your video! i first heard of nuclear reactors beeing safe on the safety third podcast (the episode with Kyle Hill) and it has been on the back of my mind since. i really hope some people change their minds about nuclear power thanks to your video!
8:83 Im totally pro Nuclear Power. But this just showes a lack of understanding in economics. If somthing is Profitable it means it is effective. It uses its resources that all have prices in an effective manner so that it makes money back. Prices are a way to convey information what is needed when. If a super project gets build steel prices rise because is it needed by said super project.
Nuclear Powerplants can be very profitable because they just pump out Energy at 1-2 ct(European) per kW/h
Nuclear has the highest LCOE. It's not controversial, pretty much all sources agree on this.
Nuclear power does have a profit problem, a short term profit problem. They are heavy investments that could fail before profits are made, and in western countries have a habit of being delayed in the most expensive period raising costs of investment.
From a Libertarian Perspective that is a general problem as Goverments Increase Time Preference. @@matthiuskoenig3378
Nuclear is only less profitable for billionaires that already have all of their assets in fossil fuels and politicians who get "donations" from said billionaires.
@@soupcake3092 Yeah like the Green Party in Germany
1:40 the layers to this joke are amazing
Nuclear singing: "everything you can do i can do better~!"
renewables: Oh no, we gotta shut this guy up before people realize!
Short, well made, and hit the nail perfectly on the head.
The issue with nuclear is that politicians don't want a reactor that turns a profit in 10 years because it won't help their re-election and the ignorant masses that believe that nuclear waste is stored in yellow barrels with green goo leaking out.
Im not sure why youtube has been recommending me smaller youtubers I've never heard of, but this is pretty good.