Can We Trust Nuclear Power Again After Chernobyl? [4K]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Even as the need for it becomes more urgent, can nuclear power outrun the legacy of the deadly Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters?
-
Subscribe to Spark for more amazing science, tech & engineering videos: goo.gl/LIrlur 🚀
Find us on:
Facebook: / sparkdocs
Instagram: / spark_channel
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
#Nuclear #Chernobyl #Fukushima 
Наука
![Quantum Physics: The Laws That Govern Our Universe [4K] | The Secrets of Quantum Physics | Spark](/img/1.gif)
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life many times over in the hands of some of the most irresponsible people, but folks are worried about some of the most responsible people furthering nuclear energy development to save life on this rock as we know it. Confusion is what happens when emotion and partisan politics gets involved in just about anything.
But aren't those people you call "the most responsible" responsible for Fukushima? Chernobyl? Sl1? Three mile island?
I couldn't agree more with your comment
Well said
@@lihuish1963 Yes. They have also taken the lessons of those accidents to heart and developed methods to avoid them in the future.
This has been so successful, that those accidents, cumulatively, have killed about 65 people and it is estimated that approximately 4,000-11,000 might get thyroid cancer at some point in their lives. That population is highly monitored, and so they detect the cancers very early, at a very treatable stage.
Solar and wind kill that many people every year (It turns out it is dangerous working at heights, like rooftop solar or up 100m at the top of a turbine tower - who knew?).
Hydro has the single most deathly accident and dealt major ecological damage to an area almost the size of Connecticut!
Coal spews particulates, heavy metals, acids into the air each and every day, killing tens of thousands a year, in addition to high emissions.
Natural gas fracking creates earthquakes, in addition to high emissions.
@@factnotfiction5915 agreed, but, if there's an accident installing a solar array, the mess is cleared and work starts again the next day.
With Fukushima, the land becomes deadly/uninhabitable for atleast a century. Also there are 450 people from the Tokyo electric company there exposing themselves to deadly radiation.
The death rate is questionable at best and at worst, it'll grow consistently. As will the tumours directly caused by, what you call, a safe reactor.
Yes. Saved you 48 minutes there.
Ty. I clicked on the video just to make the same comment
We always have been able to trust it, it's clean energy it produces a whole lot of energy, and meltdowns aren't common in newer nuclear power plants.
Clean huh what about at of the spent rods that are still radioactive, do they just magically disappear?
@@andy123441 they're usually put into secure disposal sites or enriched to be reused.
Coal plants emit more radiation into our air and water in a year than all the nuclear plant disasters of all time. Modern designs that don't use water cooling and that are passively safe will allay the concerns of all if they will get their knee-jerk reactions out of the way and actually inform themselves.
@@air_ no one has reused spent nuclear fuel.... Everyone always talks about this but we both know that it's just a pipe dream....
Who are you actually referring to when you say "we"?
I don't trust it! I have never trusted it... And I will never trust it...
They emit way to much heat pollution and when the fuel is spent, it's still pumping radioactivity into the ground and heat for far too long.... We need cooling, not heating!
Yes. Uranium (Nuclear Power) is currently the most viable option to provide baseload electricity to meet global electrification demand.
Yet there is always a concern for the “ China ( melt down ) Theory “ and the storage of spent uranium fuel rods that have a half life if 10,000 years .
I am pro atomic energy but there are concerns about about their long term effects .
Thorium is better
@@blah21 What ETF or Company do you suggest ?
But sea water is better. I desgined a generator that should make over 100,000 volts of power...using sea water...
@@rodkirt9273 If you were actually pro nuclear energy, then why would you be so ignorant in your comment about it?
Nuclear power is the future. Chernobyl was an example of the operators being forced into doing many, many things wrong...AND: Not having a true containment building was just stupid, and could never be approved (even in Russia) today.
What about Fukushima? They said that was state of the art. Most nuclear sites are on land that'll be underwater in a few centuries too. People who advocate for NP like it's some golden bullet are short sighted and naïve.
In short, it’s just another example of why socialism is bad.
@@BurgerTaco Ask yourself why US developers have been told the local utilities don’t allow solar panels on new homes.
Russia today has approved the name of the nuclear power plant to be placed on a rocket that is ready to head in your direction.... Apparently Putin doesn't like the heat emissions of the nuclear power plant in your area and is planning to do something about it....
@@BurgerTaco problem with solar panels is that they provide very little energy and it isn't enough to provide to a whole community. Nuclear energy may be more expensive, but it's highly effective at providing energy stretching across miles. Not to mention, I don't even think there is a way to store all that solar energy, as of yet. Until they somehow manage to do that, I'm going have to go with Nuclear energy.
I'm on a huge learning about nuclear power kick right now!!
I want to watch these with my 3 kids!
Here is all you need to know if you live in the U.S.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Utilities, not the media, decide the most cost effective electrical power source and give the above failures no U.S. utility is even considering new nuclear at this time. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
In both cases, the ratepayer is stuck with paying the $50 billion bill. And the silence of the Rah Rah nuclear folks on these events is deafening.
@@clarkkent9080 Yet you continue to ignore from your blank trolling channel the fact that the US and many other countries have built and used small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.
Unfortunately finding accurate stories about anything nuclear/radiation related is difficult. Fear mongering sells, actual facts do not.
@@clarkkent9080 The left should be supporting Nuclear more than anyone else.
Nice to have a realistic appraisal of Nuclear and why it needs to be prioritised now. The benefits of 4th generation Molten Salt Nuclear are especially exciting for safety, cost, speed to implement and scalability once over half dozen designs get through R&D when Western governments reset regulatory requirements due to their inherent safety.
There are no molten salt reactors. They are still being developed.
Im not gonno bother watching the video. The answer is yes, it is statisticcaly the safest energy. End of story.
We'd better. Solar and Wind aren't gonna cut it.
Not even close and not even with magical batteries.
In Europe we only get negatives from going full on renewebel, price has been rising for years. I live in Belgium and we have nuclear power plants but our government is planning to replace them with gas, at this time this is unthinkable and to me it's unacceptable. For Australia new nuclear power would be great and realistic to actually be spice stable and reduce emissions
Germany has chosen to close theirs as well, and is paying dearly for it.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk In my own opinion, their decision was not bad per se (they are incresing the power of renewables quite seriously, so they WILL have replacement for the nuclear power , but not yet) but it was too premature, and not principially necessary (the plants they are shutting down are not yet at their maximum serviceable age) but their public opinion demanded that they do the switch down ASAP... they could kept the plants at least ready for restart (in emergency situation), but that would cost allmost same upkeep money as if they were runing, so they most probably didn't think about that...
They shut those plants at least few years too early. AND, second error, was to force the gas connection to Russia (Mordor) eg. NorthStream 1 + 2 so much that other sources were neglected (like Lybia and other African sources, Middle East)... so replacement for nuclear was not only renewables (mostly solar and wind) but often gas plants, which are normally OK for peaking sources (that do not run the whole day/year) but they had too much of them in baseload... besides that, gas is needed not only for electricity production, but also for heating buildings and in industry, where it can be replaced (to some extent) by electricity (if you have enough of it) but since you allready lack enough gas for power plants, chances are high you don't have any surplus of elecricity either...
@@SYNtemp Renewables in Germany can in no.way replace nuclear unless they include a means of storage. Any country that tries to go 100% renewables will have a collapsed grid without storage. The only renewable that can store energy is hydroelectric.
Devil demons their lies plans deeds obey to god!
@@eluilus4017 Now you know why people look at you funny.
I truly believe we learned from our mistakes. As far as Japan goes you really can’t prevent natural disaster. I guess location would be key!!
Even in Japan, there were (reasonable, feasible, and predictable) ways that the disaster at the plant could have been avoided, even with the natural disaster happening outside. Location is important to consider for the future in a rapidly changing world, but that doesn't mean every existing power plant is doomed to fail or anything like that. We know what happened at Fukushima, we could have prevented it. We should be able to prevent it in the future.
And we keep making new mistakes.That is Russian roulette with the world.
@@adbogo That is just the progress, mistakes will be made, but nuclear power plant mistakes are trivial compared to oil spills and air pollution.
Fukushima only happened cause the emergency generators where all below the water line, would they be installed on the roof nothing would have happened
@@Cyrribrae as i see it, Fukushimas fault (just like Titanic or the WTC 911) was buildt in the design
A new documentary on nuclear energy is call Nuclear Now.
Produced by famous film director
Oliver Stone.
Nuclear is the way to go and safe.
Build it to modern safety standards, don’t put it on a seismically unstable island and actually maintain it.
Actually you can still build it on the seismically unstable island, just put the diesel backups above the reactor containment vessels instead of in the basement where it can be flooded. Also the western shore is fine.
It is not a question - can we trust nuclear power again ? -
It is a question if we can manage and keep control with those
whos in the command / control room and who doing maintenace .
Nuclear power as such is not that dangeros as long as ALL
safety procedures is at place and nobody violate them .
As for our future right now , urning more fossil fuel is not good ,
because it will keep increase the global warming .
Hydro power can only be archived in countries who have
mountains and river ect , so many countries cant get it .
Solar power only work where there is sunshine and that mean
in the western countries they are of limited use in winter and cloudy
days . Ok we can put them in the many desserts , yes that is
one solution . Wind energy only work when wind blows , but
as with solar energy is a tool we can still use .
Both have the problem that we need to have some sort of
power storage so we can still get energy when they are not
running at full capacity .
Those are indeed great technologies but not alone and here
is where Nuclear power is i fact a good thing in combination
with those other alternative sources .
Until we have other options for power , nuclear power is
actually our best solution for a large amount of power
in a relative clean way .
Storage of the nuclear waste is a problem but the Chinese
is very close to have a good solution .
They have for some years experimenting with
Nuclear Power Plants that can run on the waste from the
conventional ones and after burning that fuel in a special
reactor it is no longer that dangerous .
Now storage doesnt have to be so long time and radiation
from the waste is drastically reduced too .
We as humans have to use what we have right now and
at the same time develop new better technologies .
I just wish they could spend all the money they use
on stupid wars on solving our planets problems .
Good summary, Macron has said France's policy is for a 50:50 split between renewables and nuclear by 2050 as well as an overall 60% increase in electric power as it displaces coal, oil and gas. The plan includes extending the life of some of the existing reactor fleet and building up to fourteen new EPR2s. France is one of the very few countries to have mapped out in some detail how it is going to achieve emmission targets. It is an extremely sensible and realistic plan to ensure prosperity and keep the lights on.
@@jimgraham6722 Thanks a lot .
Yes that's true and China have such plans too , but as usual the rest of the world is just talking the usual ' green talk ' .
pretty words but only words , no actual real
plans . Good to see that France they actually have real planning and not just empty talks .
This is why we need to invest in modern advanced nuclear energy options. Small form reactors, LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, liquid reactors, with modern technology, engineering, material science, safety measures understandings and designs, computer technology, robotics, It will really allow any nation to be pretty much be energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, etc.
SMRs have a lot of appeal to me. Community heat and electricity. I'd happily host one.
Every reactor type you list has been built and tested here in the U.S.. Now it is up to private industry to build them without taxpayer welfare
Almost 15 min in and still not a single mention of nuclear. More then enough propaganda for me. Waist of my time. Im here to hear about nuclear. Not your fear mongering.
It's the best answer for our power needs till cold fusion or H3
Lol. Cold fusion. It’s just a decade away!
Yes we need nuclear energy and yes we have to study nuclear science more. We must create an fusion battery if we are to halt climate change. Creating an nuclear fusion battery will help with space travel has well.
There you go, again promoting a unknown technological solution. You have been promising me fusion for all of my 60 years.
Fusion will certainly be an energy supply one day, but it will take at least a few centuries. That's not for tomorrow.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Just twenty more!
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr Bull. In the meantime I have had nuclear fusion collectors on my roof for many decades.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk the tech has to get there or we humans wont
go nuclear go. it feels good to be from Ontario thank you. I have thought it was ridiculous to see people with loud mouths and lots of fear win. go nuclear go . I live in between Pickering and Darlington and I wish for more. Cheap power equals jobs equals happy people or citizens
Co2 is a building block of life
This is like asking if Responsible people should be able to use drugs on occasion in my book. Nuclear is the safest least polluting best output energy source hands down. The soviet union was not known for safety procedures. Did they even have an OSHA equivalent or was it just another corruption wing?
Soviet safety programs consisted of a shot of vodka and a cigarette prior to repairing anything. Maintenance programs consisted of a large wrench to hit most things with. Ideally you’d practice both in order to have a safe maintenance program. Failure to comply was a gulag in Siberia.
Watch GE Safety Engineer 1985 presentation on nuclear safety reality: galen winsor
Wind and solar are supplemental at best to fossil fuel not to mention the irregularities in terms of their quality
If the USA had invested on a large scale in solar energy beginning in 1979 nuclear wouldn't even be a talking point today. Currently solar out-produces coal so that's not an unrealistic belief.
There will be another serious nuclear disaster in my lifetime based on statistics. With each major disaster/accident overshadowing the last, it provides evidence that nuclear power is not getting safer.
Wind and solar are window dressing to appear to be doing something about climate change but in reality have next to zero impact.
No power plant can be 100% safe no matter what fuel is used.
Nuclear energy only poses a potential threat. Coal burning power plants re no a threat but are actively killing us every day every minute they run. I don't see how any sane person could prefer that to nuclear.
Here's a logical idea, use new nuclear power plants to power the making of solar and wind power equipment (and tidal etc).
Can we build them?
Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Talking about Chernybol an acquantance went through the ex-Soviet Union after that accident to see if he could improve the safety of their Nuclear Plants. He was horrified at the lack of safety but worked with other Nuclear Engineers to bring those plants up to safe standards. Unfortunately he has since died or I'd ask him to write his own piece with his experiences. But the world's Nuclear Power Stations along with the new safe Nuclear Power plants need an International Safety board with examimers ging around to keep everything safe. The Japanese plant had a another plant along the coast better built that suffered no ill effects from their Tsunami. More people died from being moved than from teh radiation there by the way. People who flew out of Tokyo to get away from the accident suffered more radiation form the aeroplane flight than from the accident. It was a case of hysteria. The new safer smaller Nuclear Power plants ae now being produced by Rolls Royce and others. It is repored they take about ten months to build and place.
The new safer (i.e., Rolls Royce) reactors are just lines on a drawing board. Please do not claim advantages before one is built, run for a number of years and proven.
Chernybol was not a light water reactor, did not have a containment building (until after the accident) and was an unsafe design because of its response to temperature increases.
This design would have had no chance of being allowed for use in the western world.
No lives were lost at 3mile island or Fucachima due to the nuclear accidents.
Lives were lost at chernybol, because of poor design and practices. combined.
@@davidhenry5128 What does light water reactor have to do with it? Many reactors are
NOT light water
No one can account for the long term effects of any of those accidents but the financial effects are huge. At Three Mile Island you had a multibillion-dollar plant less than 1 year old, permanently disabled, $1 billion spent to clean up the reactor core and the containment is so contaminated that they cannot afford to clean it up, so it sits for hundreds of years. Now many nuclear plants are being operated beyond their design life and I predict that if one of these old plants does have an accident, then there will be pressure to shut them all down at one time. And losing 19% of our generating capacity all at once will not be a good thing.
In spite of all the horror stories supposed to happen, they really haven't. Nuclear power is a story of technology. It is going to be a major part of our future. We can grow up or be forced into massive acquisition.
Elon Musk, who I've had issues with in the past, is dead right when it comes to nuclear power. He is urging America (and other countries) to build more nuclear power plants. The days of needing to be afraid are gone. We should instead be afraid of civilization without the abundance of electricity nuclear power creates.
Instead of building tons of coal based plants or relying on foreign countries for energy supplies.....build your own nuclear plants. So simple.
We shouldn't trust dangerous power plants we don't need. We don't need nuclear power plants but we keep building them regardless of danger and lack of need. The Edison generator and dynamos power plants are adequate replacement with inverters and transformers as usual for power plants.
Yes we can have complete trust in Nuclear power
Clickbait title. We have been using it around the world ever since just fine.
We should be pouring money in to nuclear power using Thorium as the primary fuel source because the fuel cycle results in far less and safer waste that will not require as long of a storage life, safeties that can be built into the reactor itself from the outset and the benefits of consuming currently stored Urainium waste as additional fuel which will go a long way to reducing current storages.
People raise problems with the MSR's design etc but they're not physics problems but an engineering problem which can be solved.
The new technology that current regulations keep from being used would end our pollution from energy problems. There is even a nuclear generator that uses the radioactive spent fuel rods from older generations of nuclear plants.
Correct but you need a processing plant to separate the Pu239 from the other isotopes in the spent fuel. Then you need a plant to mix the Pu239 with U238 to make assemblies that can inserted into the reactor. And then there are the shipping casks needed to move the spent fuel from the old reactors to the processing facility along with security and loading and unloading facilities. It is not so simple or cheap when you consider the reality of actually doing it. MOX that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies was canceled in the U.S. after spending $17 billion and they finally admitted that it would cost $100 billion more to complete and operate.
I beieve the answer is yes. The RBMK reactor is a bad design, exacerbated by Soviet incompetence. We use an entirely different design and our nuclear technicians better-trained.
Our need for energy is only going to increase as time goes on. Renewables cannot fill the breach quickly enough and come with their own issues. We already see probems with hydro in the Southwest as reservoirs like Lake Mead in the US dry up because of overuse and drought.
Despite what alarmists might think, the US nuclear industry has a good safety record (3 Mile Isand was the worst large scale reactor accident we've had. Of course one should not build in areas where there are seismic hazards--Australia has large areas of cratonic rock which tend to be stable seismically and geologically, so it has an advantage there.
I beileve the US (and other countries as well) need to seriousy consider making nuclear either part of their power generation mix or a larger percentage where nuclear is aready a part of the mix.
Can we trust nuclear power after Chernobyl?... YES, 100% YES!
Every kWh we consume from nuclear energy is a kWh less for a nuke.
Don’t use electricity! Use charcoal!
hehehe
Let's make sure we don't build them on top of or near major earthquake faults where they can be hit with tsunamis, like the geniuses that built Fukushima.
or hurricanes, or volcanos, or anywhere there is not perfect weather. But I believe that is where people want to live
It is very disappointing how many people are terrified of clean, safe nuclear power.
One thing I slightly disagree with in this video is putting nuclear power stations right beside high power demand industries.
If people were not afraid of nuclear, I would agree BUT... People are afraid of nuclear power and scaling up nuclear power is quite efficient. As a result it makes sense to at least consider placing nuclear power stations far from human centers and to simply scale them up by the necessary percentage to handle transmission losses.
It is NOT cheap.
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080 I never said it was cheap. I said it was safe and clean. I believe we should be investing in new, next generation nuclear power plant designs. Not necessarily ones that reprocess weapon grade plutonium, but focusing on maximizing power generation as a function of cost while ensuring the risk of melt downs are as close to zero as possible.
The reality is this. Fossil fuels can't provide power indefinitely, regardless if you believe in global warming. In a few hundred years it would be gone if we simply kept using it so fossil fuels are simply not a long term option. Solar and wind consume significant land area and are not effective all over the world. Transmission losses, physical area and costs make it impractical to power the world with solar and wind.
Next generation geothermal might be a good option for certain regions but for much of the world nuclear fission is the best long term option (until fusion becomes a reality, if it ever does).
While the US may not be able to get nuclear to work I am confident many other up and coming countries will. Countries that invest in large, safe, clean nuclear power will be able to power a large manufacturing industry as well as power EVs, etc.
It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 30+ years.
@@Slider68 I don't disagree with anything you say. My point in replying in these YT videos is that most people have no idea what is really happening with nuclear in the U.S. today and they apparently rely on YT videos for their information and news. I just try to provide FACTS so people can truly understand the situation. Isn't it strange that not one of these YT videos on nuclear power has even mentioned real projects and real results?
Just call it a green fission plant.
The problem is the type of reactor, with ours there's a huge risk of accidents...with thorium reactors, security is far jetter, but reactors are less effective : 3 thorium for 1 uranium...
Don't rely on social media and YT videos for your information. There is a very good reason why Thorium reactors are rare and it is not a conspiracy.
Australia has committed to buying eight nuclear powered submarines employing highly enriched fuels. These will be stationed in places like Newcastle. It makes sense now to buy some more reactors to.power the grid, this would be a much more useful application of the technology.
Well at least we could power some of our coastal cities by plugging into our new nuclear sibs🎉
@@Kenlwallace Quite possible, but running them full tilt alongside the dock would likely overheat the harbour water, particularly in summer.
SMRs
We are actually going to experience a massive population decline. As more and more of the worlds populations modernize the birthrate goes down and we are currently not even at a replacement birthrate.
@Patrick Pat that is part of it but in nations that are just beginning to modernize that is not much of a factor but things like reduced infant mortality , easier access to food and medicine, access to technology all contribute to a lower birthrate and to more freedoms and equality for women.
The population decline poses another problem in that there will not be enough people to look after what infrastructure has already been built and that will lead to collapse and failure of much of it.
Only the wealthiest of nations will be able to sustain themselves by attracting immigration of workers to maintain the systems.
Edison generators and dynamos power plants with inverters and transformers equal nuclear power plants.
We have enough knowledge to build smaller nuclear centrals, which can be built much more securely in case of an accident. It is a clean Energy without CO2 emission.
I AM MUCH MORE CONCERNED AND WORRIED FROM THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. THE WORLD MUST FORCE EVERY COUNTRY TO DESTROY ALL NUCLEAR WEAPON.
WE KNOW THAT WE CAN NOT USE THEM, SO WHY KEEPING THEM? WE MUST PUT SANCTIONS TO ANY COUNTRY REFUSING TO DESTROY THEM BEFORE ONE DAY A FOOLISH DICTATOR USE THEM.
Don't be naïve, Iran could develop nukes very quickly and if every other country gives theirs up the only nuclear power will be what can only be described as a terrorist state. Also if everyone agrees to dispose of them, who can police this? How would we know for sure that the communists in China would actually do it and not lie like they do about everything else?
@@reverse_meta9264 We must prevent countries like Iran from acquiring the atomic bomb, clearly, but as long some countries will have nuclear weapons, others will want them too. This weapon must be banned. We can't use them anyway. If Poutine send one somewhere, what would it change to reply. Just make the situation worse.
Can We Trust Planes Again After Tenerife?
Controlling the weather is currently beyond human capability. While we can influence localized weather conditions through activities like
cloud seeding,
manipulating weather on a large scale
requires an understanding of complex atmospheric. The data that you have from February to June of 2020 you have e so many sensors all over the world which can help you understand the atmosphere processes which can activate the ecosystem. This time period was profound in that prior to this quarantine period we could only speculate what would happen in we reduced our carbon foot print and now after that you have a real life scenario ,
energy resources,
and advanced technologies. As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, we do not have the means to fully control or manipulate global weather patterns. It's important to note that discussions on this topic often involve ethical, environmental, and practical considerations.
Simple answer: yes
Its probably for flying people to space.
Fairy Tails down the end of the garden path.
Apologies if I have repeated myself as Google, apparently some RUclips comments go down the "memoryhole". Computer says no!! ;-)
`After Chernobyl` ? You mean all the current waste depositories and old power stations left to rot away right now ?
We must build Thorium Fueled, Liquid Salt, Nuclear Reactors (aka LFTR), which do not create radioactive waste, CO2 or micro particulates. There is sufficient thorium on Earth to fuel these power stations for 100,000 years.
No one in the U.S. is even considering Thorium probably because the people that invest their money don't get their information from social media and YT videos.
Imagine of all the top nuclear scientists from all over the world build modular safe reactors suitable for different situations and replace all coal thermal plants in India China Australia and generator based power middle East etc
That would be led by rich countries and billionaires would be a huge difference for climate and the way I see it it's the only way forward so hopefully like these smart scientists everyone else shd recognise this huge potential and come together
Molten Salt reactors are safer, yes. But the waste heat problem is still with us. Waste heat is worse for nuclear reactor-generated power than for any other method in use today. Waste heat given off by nuclear power generators is instant, not delayed as in greenhouse gases emission from other methods. Anyone think of that before they do a cost-benefit analysis? Apparently _not_; disgusting.
We need Thorium reactors!!!
No one in the U.S. is even considering Thorium. It is either another conspiracy theory or pure economics and too many technical issues. Which is it?
TL;DW: YES.
What happened at Chernobyl was the work of bunglers that didn't know what they were doing!!!!! And that was 37 years ago!!!!! Did that ever happen again!!!!!????? NO!!!!!!!!!!
Dont hire cowboys to operate the wheel and we should be fine tbh
It’s never the plant, it’s the workers and systems and policy’s.
There are 440 nuclear plants operating right now. Anybody worried about failures?
Nuclear power is the best in every way. It is safer than any other way to produce energy (yes. Including Chernobyl and Fukushima). It is the cheapest. And it is the best for the environment, causing the least CO2 and not using tons of rare earth minerals as solar does. The tiny amount of waste isn't a real problem, just a political one.
BUT sadly people and politicians are stupid and don't know about energy production and the ones who understand it often don't get financing for a nuclear reactor because they are a very long term investment. They cost a lot, but generate tons of profit. But that only shows after a few years because of the high initial cost and stupid politicians could shut them down... But they can run for 40 to 80 years!
France and the rest of the world understood that. The west didn't and dreams about the holy renewables who are worse for the environment and cause more and more blackouts... And germany went peak stupid by shutting down almost all of their nuclear reactors while keeping all of their coal plants running!
CHEAPEST?????
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Nuclear nonproliferation treaty has a reason. We have agreed not to build develop or share nuclear technology. Not just nuclear power or nuclear power plants but all nuclear technology. Why is nuclear technology so dangerous and what.dies nuclear technology and nonproliferation treaty have to do with global warming? Nuclear cascade and ozone cascade are related. What is the global warming aspects of these violations of Treaties instituted by scientists to initiate survival. ??
Excellent video, thanks!
How about the REALITY for the last 4 advanced new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@Clark Kent Yet you continue to ignore from your blank trolling channel, many countries have been building and using small modular reactors for many decades, built in two years or less for millions, not billions.
Research STOPPED in the early 90's
Imagine when the funding is cut
Yes, you can.
Its a bizarre circle here, we go around and around with opinion after opinion and I love that, facts are just that, an opinion. What is funny to me personally is the enemy (energy) that is so hungry has supplied all these scientific opinions, computer models, personal exploration (with electronic devices) Fossil fuel eating,] vehicles and heating. We wont go forward without using the tech we have now, everything we produce now is reliant on fossil fuel no matter how far advanced we are and thats a sad fact. think about it. Are you using fossil free products.
No facts are reality. Opinions are like @ssholes everyone has one so having an opinion is nothing special
Sweden is doing good when it comes to electricity? someone need to do more research
This film really ripps off Oliver stones new nuclear power film.
It’s our only way out
Chernobyl was a steam explosion caused by human error & Fukashima was a hydrogen explosion - neither were nuclear explosions
neither is a dirty bomb but that is essentially what Chernobyl and Fukashima were
Liquid metal batteries will have a long life.
what kind of a title is this,we do and are trusting it if anything id I've titled after fukinsHima that gives me more reason to not trust it than Chernobyl just the fact they are more modern reactors and stuff I don't know im going to bed its 3:35am night everyone
Shameless assertions of design is incredible. We as observing insolent response to our treaties should be vigorously motivated to arrest and prosecute these insolent and dangerous traitors betraying our trist and endangering our existence on the planet. They are not worth human existence and should be immediately arrested and loudly prosecuted and severely punished for violating american Treaties instituted by scientists to initiate survival.
Wé should keep aside the uranium and the other radioactive minerals, in case of we need it for future space travels or some great projects/dreams of humanity, in which others energies are not suitables (mostly because of the huge quantity needed).
Nuclear power should stay in the field of scientific research, until we're able to maximize it's use, and improve the security of the process (including wastes).
Burning a such powerful and quite rare material, for domestic/industrial comfort and for warfare effectiveness/cassus belli, is quite a waste, an unafordable luxury. It's like using a space shuttle for the first time (and being barely able to pilot it) for a small ride, when you can do it simply by bicycle.
I've always been amazed at how ideas are put I to real life implementation, without considering, or worse, ignoring the issue of population increase.
Eisenhower saw the Autobahn at end ww2. Said hey, this is great, interstate highway system. Yeah great, if there are 2 friggin cars on the road.
Electric lighting, yeah, fun stuff...when not used and a used by
B I L L I O N S of people.
The robber barons like Ford forced cars and bought up trolley lines and trains and destroyed them to sell their cars.
When I saw Solent Green in the early 70's as a boy, i was NOT frightened by the prospect of canabalism. Hey, under used resource. I was scared by the idea of over population, 90+ degree heat AM/PM and killing the planet.
Moral of the story? S T O P MAKING PEOPLE. REDUCE POPULATION!!!!!
AM/PM...You don't like their vast assortment of zoom zooms and wham whams?😮
what are you saying?
learn english.
Population growth tapers however. It won't just increase forever. The trend is often that as a country develops its birthrate falls.
Malthus had the same idea as you. That population growth would outpace technology and our ability to get resources. He was wrong.
Resources that he thought would become scarce actually became more plentiful as we got better at finding and utilising them. So on, so forth.
Interesting argument, but a reduction of the comsumption is a more rational solution, of course with the growth population and life comfort improvement, a reduction of the comsumption seem impossible, in the future. I don't like the word clean energy. They is, and will never have clean energy, the physic laws of thermodynamic and entropy are simple, they is no free energy. They will always be a cost to paid, whatever choice we make.
Of course free energy in the sense of perpetual motion machines is not possible.
But there's no reason clean energy should be impossible. Conservation of energy has no bearing on enviromental concerns.
And it's going to get worse if the Greenies get their way with electric cars. We will need a grid with 30% greater capacity.
save yourself an hour: yes we can
It is not about safety but about cost.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Utilities, not the media, decide the most cost effective electrical power source and give the above failures no U.S. utility is even considering new nuclear at this time. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
In both cases, the ratepayer is stuck with paying the $50 billion bill. And the silence of the Rah Rah nuclear folks on these events is deafening.
@@clarkkent9080 thats all cool but MAGA types have NEVER been pro nuclear. nice try though
@@clarkkent9080 Yet you continue to ignore from your blank trolling channel the fact that the US and many other countries have built and used small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.
Relying on global nuclear-power is horrific.
Relying on renewables is more horrific.
☀️
Chernobyl, what about Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Kyshtym, a hydrogen bomb dropped offshore in Tavie Island, Georgia, a lost nuke in British Columbia, the lost nuke off the coast of Spain in the 60s, that one was found. We seem to be careless with nuclear.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are not even similar. In any way.
@@lowellcalavera6045 you're correct, nuclear bombs are safer. They go off when detonated. Power plants are more complex and usually go boom by themselves, even when they try to keep the core cooling.
@@jasonborn2598 Nuclear power has proven to be the safest form of electricity generation methods we have.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk you can live next to the plant. Not to mention the radioactive materials that you have to bury for 10,000 years. Plus they are really good at making bomb material.
@@jasonborn2598 Why bury it when you can reuse it in fast breeder reactors or reprocess it? It's easy to bury if so inclined. There's a lot less radiation living next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.
The global population is DECREASING not increasing… births dropped off DRAMATICALLY
there are absolutely no negative information about nuclear. Here is one to ponder, why is it the most expensive energy alternative on the planet?
How about the REALITY for the last 4 advanced new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
When you consider energy storage required for wind/solar to work, nuclear actually comes out cheaper.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk How is spending $17 billion on a new nuclear power plant and then canceling it cheaper????/ Only if you ignore FACTS and REALITY
@@clarkkent9080 Ask the NRC. How would be spending TRILLIONS on a renewable 'solution' that will leave you with a grid that leaves you cold and dark?
If you, anyone else, or any team would like to build a possibly much better thermonuclear reactor with a little more effort, applying both electrostatic and magnetic fields may result in stable and tight non material confinement.
Sketch made by keyboard characters:
+V n0s n0s n0s n0♤s n0s n0s n0s +V
A row of flat magnetic coils like washers on a bolt separated by wide spaces carries both a stepped electric voltage increasing in positive voltage along the axis in both directions from the ground ♤ in the center. A stepped magnetic field made of ring magnets is also strung along the axis. A metal shell around the magnets carries its step of electric charge. The magnetic field is slightly stronger in the center so the magnetic field lines curve smoothly away from the axis. MIT developed a wonderful superconducting ring magnet using a flat stainless steel ring with a spiral grove on at least one face holding a brittle superconductor.
This is free information for the betterment of civilization.
Aloha
I call BS on the amount of material used.
Lets save you 48 minutes...
Chernobyl was about very sloppy engineering and zero safety precautions. Modern nuclear plants are pretty safe until and unless they get clobbered by massive tsunami. Because light water reactors (what modern reactors are called) MUST have powered water cooling even when shut down. This was the downfall of Fukushima, the diesel generator that powered its cooling pumps was destroyed by the tsunami. When you drown a running diesel (or gasoline) engine the uncomprehensible water destroys it.
Additionally, and the video did not cover this, molten salt reactors, with or without thorium are the way forward. They have no high pressures and don't use a steam cycle. This means they are much smaller. They are also more efficient because of the higher temperatures. As if that wasn't enough, they can use existing nuclear waste as fuel... AND the decay products are a combination of valuable rare earth elements and waste that is of such a low hazard that it only needs to be stored in a dry warehouse for a decade or two.
BTW there is enough fuel for molten salt reactors in the form of 'nuclear waste' to run things for about 1000 years.
Let me save you 48 mins. The only MSR project (Terrapower's Natrium) reactor project in the U.S. is not going so well. And the ESTIMATE cost of the plant is 2-3 times that of other power production methods.
Also you can't just dump spent reactor fuel into any reactor without very very very expensive reprocessing so that is not going to happen.
Reality is not that simple.
Nobody needed to evacuate Chernobyl or Fukushima, the radiation levels were never more than you would get from some granite counter tops. It's all about construction and corruption. We could have had nuclear submarine type reactors decades ago, but big oil and coal made sure that NO level of radiation was considered safe, even though radiation hormesis has been shown to be safe and effective. As always it's all about the money.
My army unit was in the field in Germany when our NBC monitor alarms started going off. Supply drove back to Graf and came back with personal dosimeters and Geiger counters. To say the least, you are dead wrong.
@@blackhawk7r221 And what actual levels are we talking about?
Well both have put people in the ground. And there’s pretty big area around them that’s going to make you sick and die. Could they move the zone back some? Very possible. You are 100% correct about the money. What really killed thorium reactor was big money from uranium mining and processing lobbying, not the military distaste that it doesn’t enrich fuel for weapons well. It’s a misdirected blame. Follow the money. After all, we have the best politicians money can buy.
@@SkypowerwithKarl " And there’s pretty big area around them that’s going to make you sick and die."
Search "It Sounds Crazy, But Fukushima, Chernobyl, And Three Mile Island Show Why Nuclear Is Inherently Safe"
@@thedarkmoon2341 MUTHAFUCKIN 10, how about that. I’m not going to split hairs. Believe the idiots on the internet or get outside and talk to someone who was there on the ground living it. Jesus goddam Christ how have kids become so clueless.
Nuclear is the way to go they say. Finishing would suggest otherwise. Chernobyl could have brought life altering event to the entire European continent. Even if it's a slingshot that something can go wrong. Can't be taking chances when 1 mistake could potentially wipe out thousands. Not to mention a nuclear winter. Too many people like to forget about the 1 negative. That 1 negative could bring about our demise as humans. So, be very careful what you wish for. " Nuclear power is safe " 😂😂😂😂 tell that to the victims of Chernobyl. Oh you can't. Why? Because they are dead. Yeah, nuclear sure was safe to these people. Too many armchair scientists thinking they have worked it all out. Don't bother suggesting Nuclear power is 100% safe. As it's 1 negative could extinct our species. That is playing with fire if you ask me.
Nuclear fusion is the future
I think it'll remain in the future as well. I cannot envisage a way to create a supercritical (as in net energy out) fusion reaction under terrestrial conditions.
You have been promising me fusion for all of my 60 years, and flying cars for all of my mother's 80 years. Get over it already.
I got a question.. Its because planes crash and yes its a disaster when they fall but still its the safest way to travel isnt it?? Sooo... Yes i believe nuclear is the way forward.. No fossil power plants.. the issue is that most contries cannot afford it.. Or can they?? Capitalism is the problem..we need to switch to a way in wich we all work togheter not for.. I believe yes Capitalism was good brought progress but we are so stuck on a system that big corps and central banks are in such a hole that we cannot get out of.. It needs to start from bin politics and self interess and begin think forward as a society...citys are build wrong.. We should have more free car zones and more public transport..commodity is good but we should be more responsible.. The issue is fossil fuel is cheap and obviously corps go for cheap and profitable instead of sustainability and progress..i know prices will sky rocket but we could fight by increase tax on wealthy people wich have more that they can spend and even them could inject money in the economy to push more into develop alternative options of the fossil fuel like magnetism and renewable energy
The physical laws governing nuclear power, and Murphy's law work together to assure that nukes will do us much more harm than good. And that's not even considering human error or intentional malice.
Omg Murphy's law is a saying not an actual law.
Climate change has been going on long before we arrived. Enplane what made it change before we got here.
I clicked on this to make this comment…. Of course we can. This isn’t 1986 anymore and those reactors were somewhat flowed safety issues. Click bait video spark do better
Conventional solar photovoltaic doesn't help industry very much - beyond the electricity it can produce of course, which can be used to run electric arc reactors or induction furnaces, but you would need hundreds of hectares of solar panels to provide the equivalent of a drop in the bucket worth of power. Same goes for wind turbines of course. However, there is another form of solar power which is more directly useful industrially: Solar concentrators, aka solar furnaces. These do occupy a significant amount of land (several hectares per furnace at least), but that isn't necessarily a huge problem, because the ideal sites for building them are large desert zones which get fairly consistent direct sunshine. Which doesn't tend to overlap all that much with areas of high residential population density, or with agricultural land, so it doesn't have to compete with either farming or housing.
Anyway, a properly focused solar furnace - and this is existing technology which has already been built in some places - can generate exactly the kind of temperatures necessary for smelting metals or other high heat industrial applications. I have seen a solar furnace effortlessly melt steel, for example - which takes a MINIMUM of 1500 degrees C. Nuclear reactors can produce large amounts of lower level (up to 1000 degrees C) process heat, which would certainly be useful for some industries, as well as district heating of course. But nuclear cannot yet generate the kind of high temperature furnace heat which is currently only possible with either electric arc reactors or combustion furnaces burning fossil fuels.
Solar concentrators CAN do this, because they have a massive efficiency advantage compared to solar photovoltaic: A solar panel gets on average about 30% conversion of incident solar energy into electricity, though some of the latest research scale solar cells have apparently reached 47%. But a solar concentrator converts the majority of the incident solar energy directly into heat, so will always be far more efficient when used as a furnace. So while I completely agree with the necessity of advancing nuclear power as part of the solution to providing energy, solar concentrator furnaces are one method which has been conspicuously overlooked by the above documentary.
We lose 2 billion everything back to normal
Please consider time lines and the levelized cost of energy production. A given dollar will produce faster results by investing in solar and wind. Yes, nuclear for special applications has a place, but I do wish that you would stop these infomercials.
Levelized cost leaves out way too many factors, EROEI is a much better metric to judge different energy sources.
@@chapter4travels Yes, there are some impassive (older) charts out there that show nuclear having greater values than wind or solar. But there are other factors. Me, I can put solar on my roof, but I cannot put a nuclear reactor in my back yard, at least not yet. I believe in distributed energy systems. I fear that an extensive nuclear route has grave political and social consequences. Beside much like fossil fuels, it is questionable if nuclear fission is a long term option.
@@chrisconklin2981 You can supply some electricity to your house with solar panels, (I'm 100% off-grid with batteries, no grid tie-in) But you can't power a modern industrial society with "renewables". Only advanced nuclear can do that without fossil fuels and there are no long-term fuel issues to worry about.
Chris, be sure to factor in storage into you solar meme. That's where wind and solar always fail.
@@chapter4travels You can't even power a single household on solar alone unless you live near the equator. You are leaving out the fact that you also rely on some other fuel source such as natural gas, propane, firewood, and gas or diesel for your generator.
Guess its better to risk a city here and there compared to loosing the climate war. I suspect the biggest danger is hackers.
Well gas doesn't seem a good bet a.t the mo🇬🇧
Chernobyl? You mean fuka shima...
But sea water is better. I desgined a generator that should make over 100,000 volts of power... Using sea water...
That's not telling us anything. I can make thousands of volts by dragging my feet on carpet.