Our supportive viewers are the coal-est, you all rock! Want to become our Patreon or member on RUclips? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
@@fence03Even with the few mess-ups in history, it has a better track record than everything else - according to those who actually bother to do the math
@@factorfitness3713 Spent uranium can be recycled for use in reactors designed for such fuel. Useful isotopes such as cobalt-60, which has medical and industrial applications, can be produced in nuclear reactors as well. It's at least sustainable enough to get us to commercially viable fusion power. Then all of this becomes largely moot, because hydrogen is the single most abundant element in the universe.
@factorfitness3713 Nuclear power produces less radioactive waste than rare earth mining (which wind and solar could well depend on). If you were to take *all* the spent fuel from all commercial reactors *ever* used in the US, it would all fit on just one gridiron football field if stacked 40 feet (~12 metres) high. Just the 3 blades of a *single* wind turbine (which wear out after only 25 years) fill up roughly the same volume. Granted, these blades aren't toxic (unless you incinerate them - which we sometimes do), but they have to go *somewhere* and we'll eventually run out of space to bury 'em all (unless we burn it). As zsheets noted, it could be reprocessed into MOX, or fed into a breeder reactor, effectively recycling it. It's estimated that if a sufficient number of breeders were built, then that "spent" fuel could provide *all* of the United States' electricity for the next 150 years (at current consumption rates). Lastly, it's worth mentioning that the industry treats spent fuel (even after its cooled off and had its harmfulness reduced by decades of radioactive decay) as if it's the most dangerous yet worthless thing on the planet (it's neither). Meanwhile, huge quantities of solar panels are left to rot in landfills where the trace amounts of lead contained therein will eventually leach into the environment (lead, of course, has no half-life - it's toxic forever and will never become any less toxic, unlike radiotoxins, which decrease radioactivity at an *exponential* rate). We can afford to have so much security for nuclear waste because there's so little of it - nuclear power is just absurdly efficient. So yeah, nuclear waste is the most sustainable toxic waste there is.
Im glad that there are finally a few videos that talk about alternatives to things like fossil fuels WITHOUT demonizing Nuclear power. I never understood how so many groups can be against fossil fuels and then push so hard against one of the best alternatives because they dont properly understand it. Its refreshing to see education channels open to the idea of nuclear as just one of many tools to help fight against fossil fuels.
Yeah Real Engineering did a video on it in case you haven't seen it. ruclips.net/video/UC_BCz0pzMw/видео.html The issue is that it is only successful in the long term, so neither a politician or an investment business would consider it worth their time.
"I never understood" There is an explanation circulating in more right wing circles, that's not about actual ecology but about feeling morally superior (for an average supporter) or getting political power (for the top). Too cynical and exaggerated? Maybe for approach towards nuclear power indeed, but matches in cases like Green New Deal, which is mostly even barely about ecology.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Yes. People are basically brainwashed by both politicians and oil barons to believing that we'll all die of another Fukushima if we switch over to nuclear.
I hate when underfunded technology gets pigeonholed as expensive. Hell look at LED's, them shits was mad expensive 20 years ago. Now they practically give them away.
Does the price include the total cost of stopping people or the environment from getting harmed by the radioactive waste until the waste is no longer dangerous to anything?
@@infinitefire77yes81 yeah I wish we had regulated the initial steam engine and internal cumbustion engine with the same strictness as we do nuclear. Which makes me wonder would those engines have advanced in their design and working under such strict regulation.
hey at least it's not me playing stellaris... every single planet must be turned into a tomb world! there can only be ONE surviving race! i uhhh, may have a bit too much fun playing actual space hitler in that game.
I'm glad that they mentioned nuclear energy. Unfortunately, it seems to be forbidden to discuss these days. Hydro has some real potential in select areas. Wind and Solar simply are not reliable enough and require too much land to be realistically viable. En masse, they also can wreak havoc on their local ecosystems. The same goes for bio fuels. Nuclear is the only viable solution that we currently have if we're really serious about ending carbon emissions. Including liquid thorium reactors and waste scrubbing, there's still a lot of real potential to be unlocked.
They're talking about carbon sequestration. You can do things like pump the C02 into an old abandoned mine or something, then seal it off. You can also attempt to convert the C02 back into rock form, but this is energy intensive, and if you're going to do this then you shouldn't have burnt the coal in the first place. You'll spend more energy converting the C02 to rock than you will get out of the coal.
You can filter coal fumes to remove harmful chemicals and soot, but co2 itself is very energy intensive to collect. As far as climate change is concerned, coal just isn't viable.
If you're technology is developed enough, you'll find blaze rods and dried kelp much better than coal, as you're normally collecting them in a renewable way.
Nuclear yes finally! it is THE clean solution, but I think the issue people have with nuclear is due to a branding issue... "Nuclear" unfortunately makes people think of "nukes", perhaps re-branding it as "atomic energy" or "fission power" would distance it from the past
@@eltimbalino what the hells wrong with you dude, your not comparing it to coal, coal kills MORE people than nuclear does per energy generated, it may cost more but the plants we are currently using are freaking 70 years old cold war technology, or even older
I'm very happy that MinuteEarth included nuclear as an acceptable "green" replacement for coal. It gets a bad rap despite how safe it actually is. More research funding should be put into nuclear fusion so we can reap the benefits of unlimited energy with next to no downsides.
Yeah. Solar, Wind, Geo and Nuclear are my favourite energy sources. Every energy source has it's ups and downs, but these have the least cons, and some good benefits too.
2:17 why is nuclear power price is in green while being *higher* then coal price which is red? I like and agree with the general message you gave but I feel like that design choice makes it look way more black and white then it is, bordering on misleading.
The price for renewables is in reality much higher too. I don't want to offend anyone, but it is easier to say something that isn't entirely to a less educated person that to try to explain it with the complex scientific method. This is why you learn a Rutherford type atom instead of the quantum model, it's just much easier and am average won't use it anyway You can say the same about wearing face masks for example.
Nuclear is cheaper, safer, and can actually be cheaper than coal beyond the cost of the plant. It is literally better but stopped being used because of the cold war, Fukushima and Chernobyl, and environmentalists who can't understand that Nuclear is a better alternative to coal.
I'm just confused trying to comprehend what the colors mean on that line ($/MWh). The way I see it, it seems that they colored just by column, instead of row.
Props for including nuclear! Btw, the third number, $/MWh is "with current regulations" Not "with appropriate regulations". The NRC is the biggest polluter in the country due to how it overregulates and thus artificially raises the cost of nuclear power.
Obviously instead of burning coal we should be syphoning energy from Hell on Mars. Dr. Samuel Hayden has assured the world that nothing can possibly go wro- aaAAAHHhaAJkkahjahkAAAAAA...
150 years that we know of. There is probably much more. And as technology improves and types like solar and wind become better supplements coal resources will probably end up lasting longer than needed. Much like peak oil became a joke and now they are not worried about running out of supply but instead worried about running out of demand.
@@Aaron.Reichert There's also the possibility of oil extraction becoming more expensive than consumers can afford, since easy sources of oil are becoming rather scarce.
@@juliasteam2077 I doubt that, it's not just in the last few decades that human energy consumption has risen but it's been a trend throughout all of human history. It's a very safe prediction to say that energy consumption will continue to rise, probably forever. While yes some devices get more efficient at doing what they do we also do those things more (a modern graphics card uses a fraction of the power UNIVAC and is many times more powerful but now every computer has one whereas only big institutions had mainframes like UNIVAC) and this is also helped by population growth. However it's not just that a lot of the rise in consumption is also gonna come from more people getting access to reliable power, 20 years ago the majority of the world did not have reliable power, but now massive infrastructure projects have brought Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and rural areas online. So yes I do really think that I can predict anything about the energy consumption of the future, in fact I think I can predict a lot about it and I'm willing to bet actual money on it because it'd be probably the safest bet ever made. The developments you mention are barely factors in the face of constantly rising production and consumption and it would probably be impossible to find any engineer or economist who does not predict that power consumption will continue to rise. Just the fact that even developed countries are constantly expanding their infrastructure and strengthening it should be a clear sign that this isn't a trend that's gonna end any time soon.
We've always asked what coal does when it's lit on fire, but never asked _how it feels_ to be lit on fire. Does it feel like it's burning bright or like it's just a flaming heap?
There's also the upfront cost of coal that is cheaper. A coal power plant is cheap to build compared to hydro, solar or wind power plant. That's why rapidly developing nations will still chose coal to answer to the demand.
This is completely incorrect, wind is easily the least expensive way to create new power today. Coal has become one of the most expensive ways, hence it's significant decline in the past decade.
@@GregHassler as with all things, it depends. You're right that a wind project is cheaper per MWh with newer tech if you have a good spot for windmills. Sadly cheap coal plants without good pollution control is cheaper and easier to build for developing countries. I'm 100% for clean energy because with fossil fuels, you always pay the price in the future with the cleanups, health issues and global warming.
@@seneca983 sorry that's incorrect, it's cheap to build and operate. On a per kWh basis. Nuclear is the one that's super expensive to build up front and then pays back generously after 12-15 years, but nobody is willing to wait that long anymore. Coal is expensive and has a long lead time to build. Wind is quick and quite cheap. Nat Gas might be the closest thing to it.
Wind may be cheap but its very weather dependant, so it needs a lot of investment in whole system to work sustainably. For example solar power is much better in that regard. Although it is also very weather dependant, it also has correlation between pick production and pick usage in the grid in countries that use air conditioners a lot.
How did you calculate those numbers for nuclear power? It would be nice to also explain the whole chain for all sources - e.g. solar cells are only clean energy after you buy them and until you need to replace them (producing a lot of toxic waste during productions and when thrown away).
Also It’s the 2nd most unhappy state in the US due to the obsolete and perniciousness nature of the coal industry. Big energy companies don’t care about unskilled miners leading to them being subjected to abysmal conditions for minimal pay. And many are left destitute when coal mines go dry
Not poop but Methane gas is a pretty good energy source. And we get it "naturally" from waste and also poop. Maybe not the best source but a working one.
Just a puntualization from the sources you provided. From ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy it states that the 0.02 deaths/TW from nuclear is likely to be lower than that, since the method used for calculating indirect number of deaths "likely overstates the number of potential cancer cases and deaths which result from low-level radiation exposure".
The comparison to quitting cold turkey is actually quite apt. We've got a massive population, and prosperity that goes beyond compare, nix the last couple of months for the poor fools who were locked down and forced to congregate into only a few shops, spreading the disease with vigor. Quitting fossil fuels means: No delivery trucks for the vast majority of people. This means no food deliveries, unless you're paying top dollar. It means you have to live near enough to a farm that hauling the food with your dinky little bike isn't going to take more than half your day. It means starvation for the majority, despite having abundant food. It means having food devoured by insects. Frankly, the transition is going smoothly as new sources of power are being brought online and slowly begins to out compete the primary sources of power. Electric cars are slowly making their way into the hands of even relatively normal people. And mass land transport, via automated electric haulers is becoming a thing. Things are progressing and getting better, but rushing ahead isn't a smart idea. But hey? You want to help push it along? Go out and buy the alternatives yourself. Show your monetary support. "Money talks. Bullshit walks." Which is an odd phrase. As the bullshit seems to talk an awful lot.It's those that have made themselves valuable to others, and then pledged that value to others who actually get things done.
At least they were honest in this video when talking about the need for nuclear to maintain a base load. The only reason we can utilize all the new renewable energy resources is because nuclear and coal can be utilized at any time to make up for the lack when there is little sun, little wind, or hydro isn't an option. The book "Lights Out" goes into detail about this and how the need to eliminate the moratorium on new nuclear power plants.
That is not what base load is and in fact solar and wind are pretty much perfect for base load. Base load refers to what the demand is at it's lowest, ie the base you need to cover without considering peaks. It's the peaks that are the issue however it is also wrong to say that nuclear and coal are great for those either, especially nuclear. A nuclear power plant is also best at covering base loads and it is slow to increase production and is at it's most efficient when producing a constant amount of power. You can do it but it'll be less efficient and really nuclear is at it's best when it's at peak efficiency. Coal is similar, it takes a long time to start up a coal power plant so it's not quick to respond to sudden demands but the demand curves usually are gentle enough that coal can keep up. But still usually it's most efficient when running at a constant load where the furnace is basically lit from when the plant is inaugurated till it's shut down. However any sort of turbine power is in generally better at dealing with demand curves because of the resistance naturally induced when there's more supply than demand. Obviously though you can't rely too much on that or you'd risk fire. But this is why Britain while using coal and nuclear still had to build a pumped storage battery, coal and nuclear simply couldn't respond to the sharp peaks in British demand.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Nuclear Power are way cheaper than Coal. **shows Nuclear as 155 and Coal as 109** Edit: Woah I just realized that MinuteEarth replied on this comment
And unfortunately, the total price of coal is not paid by the coal companies, so it remains a profitable investment. The Gates Foundation makes money by donating just over 10% of its funds to efforts like renewable energy research, to remain tax exempt, while investing the other 90% in whatever is most profitable. Bill Gates has said himself that he thinks fossil fuel divestment has zero impact on emissions.
Any study on the cost and pollution on solar panel creation? What about the the cost of processing them once they become garbage? I am interested to know if it is still overall an cost effective power source. Same applies when comparing traditional engine vs electrical cars, e-cars don’t generate pollution themselves, but batteries do, also they may get charged with electricity generated by coal...
My lifetime has been spent working in energy and water infrastructure facilities. I started in 1979, at a new nuclear power station, working on the containment vessel, the reactor and the refueling building. I ended my career working at a coal fired power plant cleaning up the toxic waste around the mine that provided fuel for it. In the decades between, I worked on multiple facilities, everything from drilling modules at the North Slope in Alaska to water treatment at a holiday water park. The next generation of craftspersons will be installing wind turbines, solar arrays and other types of clean power solutions. I only wish I had another 40 years to work on those projects.
Nuclear is the fuel of the future. Hydro and geothermal are great where they can be done,. Wind and solar are nice supplementary sources. I am excited to see where technology goes next!
Right now, the up and coming technology needed most, is efficient, cost effective grid scale electrical energy storage, that can be installed anywhere. energy storage can be used for load leveling for base load generation(nuclear, geothermal) and storage and dispatching energy from intermittent renewable sources.(wind, solar, hydro, wave, tidal)
Would it be possible to have the sources of the numbers you give at 2:18? I've always seen that nuclear kills less than solar, wind and hydro. Also, the g CO2/kWh look extremely low for solar, wind and nuclear (respectively 5, 4 and 3 g CO2/kWh) compared to the numbers presented by the IPCC (respectively 48, 11 and 12 g CO2/kWh). About prices, I'm also curious as if storage is included in prices of solar and wind (as we need to compare things which are comparable) or if it's just the market price. Thank you :)
I remember loosing a whole day trying to look into these numbers a while ago. The vast majority you find online about it is total rubbish and outright propaganda e.g. taking CO2 emission and deaths into account for construction of one kind of power source and ignoring it for the other. Some were comparing numbers from US only for one power source with some random selection of others in third world countries and so on.
I feel that the numbers need a lot more clarifications, given the approximate electricity production in the world (~25PWh) and about 10% of that being nuclear (grabbed from wikipedia so take it for what it's worth )that would yield 2.5PWh of nuclear generated energy = 2500*0.07 = 175 average deaths due to nuclear power per year. Given the widely varying and hard to measure number of actual deaths caused by the Chernobyl disaster I find this number to be plausible with the vast majority of these being in the immediately affected area. My gut feeling is that the number given for deaths due to hydro may be a bit on the low side, given the magnitude of the Banqiao dam failure that would alone give about the same number of yearly deaths if averaged over 100 years, but given the larger proportion of hydro power to nuclear the deaths/TWh would still be lower, but definitely above the 0.002. I would also like some clarification of how you reach the CO2 emissions of hydro given that the vast majority of those would be during the construction phase earthworks, concrete, flooding forested areas etc, the running should be almost zero, compare this to nuclear that still require lots of construction and concrete, though probably not as much, but then have an ongoing cost for mining and refining. as a whole it seems a bit off.
CO2/kWh is a bit higher for nuclear than renewable sources if you include everything, like building the power plant, Uranium mining, decommissioning, waste management, etc. Especially Uranium mining is often ignored in this calculations, which is strange, as it is the biggest contributor to pollution in nuclear energy.
That calculation isn't wrong, but it's kinda stupid: It doesn't include the fact, that actually only 0.7% of natural Uranium is fissile and also ignores, that Uranium doesn't occur in a pure form (unlike coal) and that mining is very energy intense compared to coal. If you include all that in a calculation of how much net energy you get from a kg of material mined, of course Uranium is still way in front of coal, but not any more by 9 orders of magnitude.
On the green part, They say it's not really toxic as those extreme anti-nuclear people claim. And I believe that. BUT mining Uranium is very very toxic to local people and animals who live there. They use very toxic chemicals to mine Uranium and that causes SERIOUS problem to the environment. And locals think that it's caused by radioactive and goes against it, while miners check sample from them in labs and BAM no radioactive. (of course there would be no radioactive) But they hide the fact that problems are caused by CHEMICALS not radioactives. Also nuclear waste is still the main problem. You know you can store coal ash outside on your lawn with no harm except it would make your lawn look dirty and it's dangerious if you inhale a lot of it directly. You can't say same to nuclear waste.
@@bxyhxyh I disagree about the nuclear waste. First of all, if we actually invested in proper technology for nuclear (like France did) we would create much less waste, like much much less. Some designs are zero waste. And especially in America, we have sooooo much worthless open space. Step one, make a giant, thick-walled lead box, step two fill it with waste, step three toss it in the Mojave. People imagine billions of pounds of the stuff but all the waste in the world makes up a very tiny amount of water/material compared to other forms of heat generation. Can't argue about mining it though. That shit sucks
HalfLanding Oh yes. Nuclear reactors are a lot more expensive for what they put out on a short term scale. Which is why investors usually don’t invest in nuclear technology and reactors since you only get money off of it if you use it for a long time
I live in Pennsylvania, and coal is pretty much just everywhere around here. You can just walk up to the area surrounding a breaker or mine entrance and find loose coal just lying on the ground.
I had to do a paper on this for school, and it appears we came to the same conclusion of 'It'll go away, just not anytime soon since we still need time for the new energy sources to grow.'
@@vaclavzajac214 Oh yea! Now I have a purpose to not get rid of that box in my garage my 2646 lbs of americium (element with the closest density to uranium) came in!!!
If you're reading this comment when nuclear fusion is finally used for creating energy, uranium reactors were probably just a thing in the past, only if youtube had passed the invasion of coppa and other things that are going to happen in the future.
I know there are some alternatives for coal in the steel industry, but most of those are derived from coal. It is just a great source of C for the process. Any thoughts on a new source in this case?
I assume that this takes into account the building of the dams necessary for hydroelectricity (distributed over their lifetime). Concrete production is a heavy CO2 emitter and there is a lot of concrete in a dam.
I think it's because a new damn will form a basin to hold the water inundating a large area. That will then lead to organic matter that's left underwater to break down in anoxic conditions producing methane. It may also change nutrient balance downstream which can affect how much those waters absorb or emit greenhouse gases. To my understanding, the emissions are worst soon after construction and go down over time. The number given is probably not literally carbon dioxide but rather the carbon dioxide equivalent of the global warming potential of hydroelectric dams.
That's like saying, tackle crime by asking people to do less crimes. Not disagreeing about wind and solar, but our population keeps growing more and more, requiring more power. We need a heavy solution IMO
Using less energy isn't just about personal will, you're right. But public investments in thermal isolations for buildings, free and wide range busses and trains, heavy taxation on planes, carbon taxes, incentives for low energy farms, etc are as many measures that will decrease the use of energy without relying on good will of the individuals
@@Enden31 Yeah. That's a tough sell here in America though. I'm not sure what it would take to make that kind of thing happen. Maybe once New Orleans is under a foot of water, idk
2:17 they even put it in green text as if they were trying to fool people. Really unnecessary, price isn't supposed to be the only thing that matters, things aren't black & white, more expensive options can still be better.
My home country (the UK) hasn't used coal for 2 months. And there are many countries that burn very little or no coal, like Iceland, France, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway etc...
At least, theoretically, the carbon goes into the steel, rather into the air. With today's manufacturing, the anthracite coking coal is also used as the heat source for the steel, in which, it is used as fuel, exhausting carbon dioxide into the air. With technology and renewable energy, it can be used more like an "ingredient" and much less like a fuel. That would mean using less than 1/10 the amount of coal per ton of steel.
Sorry, wind and solar are NOT more efficient than coal, otherwise people would use it. Wind not even produce more energy than the amount spent to build and maintain its huge structure. But yes, hydro and nuclear are way better
That's changing: The cost per installed watt is becoming so low, that it's now cheaper to develop new wind and solar, than new coal. It's reaching a point, where it will be cheaper, than maintaining and fueling existing coal. In Iowa and California, they've already reached that point. Coal is becoming more expensive, as renewable technology is becoming less expensive. I give it a decade. The ONLY thing keeping coal relevant, is the intermittent nature of wind and solar, which will be solved, when we come up with a good electrical energy storage solution. For now, where there needs to be power generation to fill in the gaps caused by intermittency, Natural Gas is filling that role, for now. Coal plants have a very hard time coping with varying demand, where natural gas peaker plants to much better. UK hasn't used coal in the last 2 months, (mid April to mid June, 2020) owing to natural gas taking the place of coal. Natural gas costs less per BTU/Kilocalorie than coal in UK and USA.
And we're even starting them up AFTER the transition to green energy went through legislation... Well, I guess if some of the older (dirtier, less efficient) power plants were being *replaced,* that would be ok, but I doubt that anything is going to be shut down in exchange for the new one any time soon.
Getting rid of fossil fuels should be humanity's top priority; climate change is one the biggest threats that we face and fossil fuels are one of the main causes.
I've read regularly that Nuclear energy releases much more energy per gram than coal, it also uses turbines that are turned by water vapour/heavy water. Yet in the chart it says that it costs more per to produce per unit of energy. Is this as a result of the cost of nuclear plants, actually getting the radioactive material or storing waste products? Because I've been told that it's cheaper than coal.
The dam will form an artificial lake behind it inundating a large area. The organic matter left underwater will break down in anoxic conditions thus emitting methane which is a powerful greenhouse gas.
@@rfvtgbzhn I don't really know so I can only guess. One possibility is that they've compared the cumulative production of electricity so far to cumulative generated emissions so far. Another possibility is that they choose a certain time frame from the dam's inception, such as 100 years. I think when comparing the greenhouse potential of carbon dioxide and methane, usually a time horizon of 100 years is used (and on that time frame, methane is more than 20x stronger).
Minute earth: coal pollutes water and air. Me: gas pollutes the underground places from where we get oil.( well not really POLLUTE, but you get what I mean).
@@MrUhlus What do you mean hovering? They are all falling at the same rate, it's just that we're watching from their perspective, so they don't look like falling.
One wouldn't want to get rid of burning coal completely; just nearly completely. The world wouldn't be as happy a place without heritage steam trains and other such minor recreational uses.
I assume it's because hydroelectric plants use dams which are typically made out of concrete which itself releases lots of CO2 (see a different video on this channel). Edit: But I could be sprouting nonsense as nuculear reactors need cooling towers, also made out of concrete.
Solar and nuclear are the best energy sources : every source of enegy we use today relies on the sun , and solar is the most efficent way to gather energy from the sun , All of them exept for nuclear , nuclear relies on weak nuclear force which works everywere in the universe ,as far as we know , and is fucking powerful and cheap given how efficiently it stores energy ...
![Gucci Mane & Sexyy Red - You Don't Love Me [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j7IBqyFKT4c/mqdefault.jpg)
Our supportive viewers are the coal-est, you all rock! Want to become our Patreon or member on RUclips? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
MinuteEarth hello
Hi
:(
@MinuteEarth The energy content of coal is ~30,000 kilojoule/kg or ~30 MJ/kg, NOT 30,000 joule/kg. It is off by a factor of 1000.
Rock rockyyyy!!!
I love how the coal is still smiling whilst being set on firr
That's because he's lit 😏
I want a pet coal
This coal is on FYAH!🔥🔥🔥
@@alexricky87 OMG u r a genious
Fire
Minute Earth has been talking a lot about poop lately I genuinely thought it was poop on the thumbnail.
same😂
coal is basically poop
looked like potato
This is Patrick me too
@@shim2dawg its earths poop
Thank you for keeping nuclear on your list of good alternatives. Way too often people try to lump it in with our sootier options.
If you don’t mess it up, it’s pretty safe
@@fence03Even with the few mess-ups in history, it has a better track record than everything else - according to those who actually bother to do the math
Honest question - but what about the waste? Is it sustainable?
@@factorfitness3713 Spent uranium can be recycled for use in reactors designed for such fuel. Useful isotopes such as cobalt-60, which has medical and industrial applications, can be produced in nuclear reactors as well.
It's at least sustainable enough to get us to commercially viable fusion power. Then all of this becomes largely moot, because hydrogen is the single most abundant element in the universe.
@factorfitness3713 Nuclear power produces less radioactive waste than rare earth mining (which wind and solar could well depend on). If you were to take *all* the spent fuel from all commercial reactors *ever* used in the US, it would all fit on just one gridiron football field if stacked 40 feet (~12 metres) high. Just the 3 blades of a *single* wind turbine (which wear out after only 25 years) fill up roughly the same volume. Granted, these blades aren't toxic (unless you incinerate them - which we sometimes do), but they have to go *somewhere* and we'll eventually run out of space to bury 'em all (unless we burn it).
As zsheets noted, it could be reprocessed into MOX, or fed into a breeder reactor, effectively recycling it. It's estimated that if a sufficient number of breeders were built, then that "spent" fuel could provide *all* of the United States' electricity for the next 150 years (at current consumption rates).
Lastly, it's worth mentioning that the industry treats spent fuel (even after its cooled off and had its harmfulness reduced by decades of radioactive decay) as if it's the most dangerous yet worthless thing on the planet (it's neither). Meanwhile, huge quantities of solar panels are left to rot in landfills where the trace amounts of lead contained therein will eventually leach into the environment (lead, of course, has no half-life - it's toxic forever and will never become any less toxic, unlike radiotoxins, which decrease radioactivity at an *exponential* rate). We can afford to have so much security for nuclear waste because there's so little of it - nuclear power is just absurdly efficient.
So yeah, nuclear waste is the most sustainable toxic waste there is.
Im glad that there are finally a few videos that talk about alternatives to things like fossil fuels WITHOUT demonizing Nuclear power. I never understood how so many groups can be against fossil fuels and then push so hard against one of the best alternatives because they dont properly understand it. Its refreshing to see education channels open to the idea of nuclear as just one of many tools to help fight against fossil fuels.
Yeah it was nice to see them not succumb to the same old fear-mongering 😄
@@firstname405 definitely 👍
Yeah Real Engineering did a video on it in case you haven't seen it. ruclips.net/video/UC_BCz0pzMw/видео.html
The issue is that it is only successful in the long term, so neither a politician or an investment business would consider it worth their time.
"I never understood" There is an explanation circulating in more right wing circles, that's not about actual ecology but about feeling morally superior (for an average supporter) or getting political power (for the top).
Too cynical and exaggerated? Maybe for approach towards nuclear power indeed, but matches in cases like Green New Deal, which is mostly even barely about ecology.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 Yes. People are basically brainwashed by both politicians and oil barons to believing that we'll all die of another Fukushima if we switch over to nuclear.
Making the coal look so animated and adorable really had me conflicted and I’m an environmental major ...
really? why?
Don't let them burn the sweet baby rock then!
@@iamrsableye3498 But look how happy it is when burning!
@@theviniso he's finding his true purpose
Literally same
that nuclear high cost is because of stupid regulations and not allowing new gen iv reactors.
I hate when underfunded technology gets pigeonholed as expensive. Hell look at LED's, them shits was mad expensive 20 years ago. Now they practically give them away.
Does the price include the total cost of stopping people or the environment from getting harmed by the radioactive waste until the waste is no longer dangerous to anything?
@@eltimbalino Interestingly enough, The full cost of disposal of Nuclear Waste is covered by the cost of the Power
Stupid regulations are to avoid nuclear accident
@@infinitefire77yes81 yeah I wish we had regulated the initial steam engine and internal cumbustion engine with the same strictness as we do nuclear. Which makes me wonder would those engines have advanced in their design and working under such strict regulation.
Coal pollutes the air and water
Me: playing satisfactory with 14 coal generators
Same here but Factorio instead of Satisfactory.
Welp, time to watch Let's Game it Out desecrate an entire virtual landscape for his own personal amusement.
@@Aelfraed26 the factory must grow
hey at least it's not me playing stellaris...
every single planet must be turned into a tomb world! there can only be ONE surviving race!
i uhhh, may have a bit too much fun playing actual space hitler in that game.
Hey satisfactory doesn't happen on earth. Who knows, maybe you are saving the ecosystem by adding Co2 to the atmosphere! Pollute away!
I'm glad that they mentioned nuclear energy. Unfortunately, it seems to be forbidden to discuss these days. Hydro has some real potential in select areas. Wind and Solar simply are not reliable enough and require too much land to be realistically viable. En masse, they also can wreak havoc on their local ecosystems. The same goes for bio fuels. Nuclear is the only viable solution that we currently have if we're really serious about ending carbon emissions. Including liquid thorium reactors and waste scrubbing, there's still a lot of real potential to be unlocked.
Could you do a video on burying pollution? I’ve never heard of that before, and would love to hear some more about it.
They're talking about carbon sequestration. You can do things like pump the C02 into an old abandoned mine or something, then seal it off. You can also attempt to convert the C02 back into rock form, but this is energy intensive, and if you're going to do this then you shouldn't have burnt the coal in the first place. You'll spend more energy converting the C02 to rock than you will get out of the coal.
It's a scam pushed by the coal and wider fossil fuel industry. The energy requirements to sequester CO2 are enormous and economically unviable.
@@mlc4495 That's what I was figuring. I also thought, yeah ok well of it's that easy why haven't we done it?
You can filter coal fumes to remove harmful chemicals and soot, but co2 itself is very energy intensive to collect. As far as climate change is concerned, coal just isn't viable.
When you ask yourself during the whole video : "what's the pun gonna be?"
It's 'coal turkey'
That is, unless you're in a video game where pretty much everything is cubical.
Maximal's Personal Profile wait blaze rods are fuel in Minecraft?
@Maximal's Personal Profile Yeah, but then, we'll have to go to the underworld.
If you're technology is developed enough, you'll find blaze rods and dried kelp much better than coal, as you're normally collecting them in a renewable way.
AwesomeGuy69: Pure Awesomeness honestly the nether is easy, the new update changes it tho so it's harder/easier
Burn blocks of coal
Nuclear yes finally! it is THE clean solution, but I think the issue people have with nuclear is due to a branding issue... "Nuclear" unfortunately makes people think of "nukes", perhaps re-branding it as "atomic energy" or "fission power" would distance it from the past
@Daniel von Strangle Fission bomb
Or maybe "Radioactive Waste Maker"
The new types of nuclear reactors like thorium salt reactors don’t produce waste that take thousands of years to break down.
@@eltimbalino what the hells wrong with you dude, your not comparing it to coal, coal kills MORE people than nuclear does per energy generated, it may cost more but the plants we are currently using are freaking 70 years old cold war technology, or even older
@@andrasfogarasi5014 So, how about Big Sciency Reactor?
Video: *Today*
Minute Earth’s Comment: *6 Days Ago*
How!!!
@@dr.sajidmadethisaccount579 unlisted
Yes.
@@datblue1104 either that or patreon
time travel
1:16 Oh, I see, when Elizabeth II was just a teenager.
I'm very happy that MinuteEarth included nuclear as an acceptable "green" replacement for coal. It gets a bad rap despite how safe it actually is. More research funding should be put into nuclear fusion so we can reap the benefits of unlimited energy with next to no downsides.
As long as we don't toss the nuclear waste into the ocean and then shoot the barrels when they don't sink (yes, we used to do this), yes I agree.
Yeah. Solar, Wind, Geo and Nuclear are my favourite energy sources. Every energy source has it's ups and downs, but these have the least cons, and some good benefits too.
*Coal*d Turkey
Clever...
2:17 why is nuclear power price is in green while being *higher* then coal price which is red? I like and agree with the general message you gave but I feel like that design choice makes it look way more black and white then it is, bordering on misleading.
The price for renewables is in reality much higher too. I don't want to offend anyone, but it is easier to say something that isn't entirely to a less educated person that to try to explain it with the complex scientific method. This is why you learn a Rutherford type atom instead of the quantum model, it's just much easier and am average won't use it anyway
You can say the same about wearing face masks for example.
@@vaclavzajac214 Not all renewables are that expensive really, solar power is getting really cheap.
Nuclear is cheaper, safer, and can actually be cheaper than coal beyond the cost of the plant. It is literally better but stopped being used because of the cold war, Fukushima and Chernobyl, and environmentalists who can't understand that Nuclear is a better alternative to coal.
@@theawecat27 And not produce when we needed...
I'm just confused trying to comprehend what the colors mean on that line ($/MWh). The way I see it, it seems that they colored just by column, instead of row.
“It’s high time we try to go coal turkey.”
Me: nice pun, but WHY IS THE COAL NOT IN THE SHAPE OF A TURKEY!?!?
MinuteEarth: Best energy source
USA: *Oil*
Kim Jong-un: *nuclear*
bananya lol
Greetings, dear leader! Happy to see you alive and well!
The US only uses 0.5% oil for Electricity Generation. 38% from Gas, and followed by coal with 23%. Followed by Nuclear 17%
The rest of the world: It's a good idea for everyone to have electricity
North Korea: no it's not important
Props for including nuclear!
Btw, the third number, $/MWh is "with current regulations" Not "with appropriate regulations". The NRC is the biggest polluter in the country due to how it overregulates and thus artificially raises the cost of nuclear power.
Obviously instead of burning coal we should be syphoning energy from Hell on Mars. Dr. Samuel Hayden has assured the world that nothing can possibly go wro- aaAAAHHhaAJkkahjahkAAAAAA...
*ahem*
"For ONLY over a hundred years"
Yeah like that's only 3~5 generations, idk why they worded it like that
150 years that we know of. There is probably much more. And as technology improves and types like solar and wind become better supplements coal resources will probably end up lasting longer than needed.
Much like peak oil became a joke and now they are not worried about running out of supply but instead worried about running out of demand.
Assuming energy consumption stays at the current level, which it does not.
@@Aaron.Reichert There's also the possibility of oil extraction becoming more expensive than consumers can afford, since easy sources of oil are becoming rather scarce.
@@juliasteam2077 I doubt that, it's not just in the last few decades that human energy consumption has risen but it's been a trend throughout all of human history. It's a very safe prediction to say that energy consumption will continue to rise, probably forever. While yes some devices get more efficient at doing what they do we also do those things more (a modern graphics card uses a fraction of the power UNIVAC and is many times more powerful but now every computer has one whereas only big institutions had mainframes like UNIVAC) and this is also helped by population growth. However it's not just that a lot of the rise in consumption is also gonna come from more people getting access to reliable power, 20 years ago the majority of the world did not have reliable power, but now massive infrastructure projects have brought Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and rural areas online. So yes I do really think that I can predict anything about the energy consumption of the future, in fact I think I can predict a lot about it and I'm willing to bet actual money on it because it'd be probably the safest bet ever made. The developments you mention are barely factors in the face of constantly rising production and consumption and it would probably be impossible to find any engineer or economist who does not predict that power consumption will continue to rise. Just the fact that even developed countries are constantly expanding their infrastructure and strengthening it should be a clear sign that this isn't a trend that's gonna end any time soon.
We've always asked what coal does when it's lit on fire, but never asked _how it feels_ to be lit on fire. Does it feel like it's burning bright or like it's just a flaming heap?
There's also the upfront cost of coal that is cheaper. A coal power plant is cheap to build compared to hydro, solar or wind power plant. That's why rapidly developing nations will still chose coal to answer to the demand.
This is completely incorrect, wind is easily the least expensive way to create new power today. Coal has become one of the most expensive ways, hence it's significant decline in the past decade.
@@GregHassler as with all things, it depends.
You're right that a wind project is cheaper per MWh with newer tech if you have a good spot for windmills. Sadly cheap coal plants without good pollution control is cheaper and easier to build for developing countries.
I'm 100% for clean energy because with fossil fuels, you always pay the price in the future with the cleanups, health issues and global warming.
@@GregHassler Wind is cheap to operate, not cheap to build.
@@seneca983 sorry that's incorrect, it's cheap to build and operate. On a per kWh basis. Nuclear is the one that's super expensive to build up front and then pays back generously after 12-15 years, but nobody is willing to wait that long anymore. Coal is expensive and has a long lead time to build. Wind is quick and quite cheap. Nat Gas might be the closest thing to it.
Wind may be cheap but its very weather dependant, so it needs a lot of investment in whole system to work sustainably. For example solar power is much better in that regard. Although it is also very weather dependant, it also has correlation between pick production and pick usage in the grid in countries that use air conditioners a lot.
If stress was electricity, I can power the entire globe
Underrated
Whenever I decide to read, RUclips decides to post a new video for me. Every five minutes.
Same :(
I read any ways.
turn off all notifications
You're still is reading. Educating yourself.
*Stay Safe Everyone!* 😷
Remember: the videos will still be here later! Often with great comments left by the early birds.
The coal's face is like "Thats a TERRIBLE joke" on 2:27
How did you calculate those numbers for nuclear power? It would be nice to also explain the whole chain for all sources - e.g. solar cells are only clean energy after you buy them and until you need to replace them (producing a lot of toxic waste during productions and when thrown away).
West Virginia is known for their coal industry. Mountain Mama loves coal
They used and mined coal even before those Country Roads were built
Also It’s the 2nd most unhappy state in the US due to the obsolete and perniciousness nature of the coal industry. Big energy companies don’t care about unskilled miners leading to them being subjected to abysmal conditions for minimal pay. And many are left destitute when coal mines go dry
I love how the coal is still smiling whilst being set on fire
Coal: I am your friend
Humans: yay
Coal like so many years later: I lied
Based on title and image i tought poop was the energy source :P
Anyway, nucleat energy is a lot cleaner.
Not poop but Methane gas is a pretty good energy source. And we get it "naturally" from waste and also poop. Maybe not the best source but a working one.
Me too! I thought it was a pile of manure, but apparently coal looks a lot like it 💩
They also have a video on poop as an energy source:
ruclips.net/video/JYda2v94dgc/видео.html
Clean yes, but you might have noticed on their comparison chart that it's also far more expensive than all the other options
Nuclear Gang
thanks for mentioning nuclear among the alternatives, it's infuriating to see the irrational way people tend to talk about it
Just a puntualization from the sources you provided.
From ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy it states that the 0.02 deaths/TW from nuclear is likely to be lower than that, since the method used for calculating indirect number of deaths "likely overstates the number of potential cancer cases and deaths which result from low-level radiation exposure".
How about the price?, I think the nuclear is way cheaper than the other sources
Its time for Nuclear POWER!
Yay, AlmostThreeMinutesEarth just posted a video!
The comparison to quitting cold turkey is actually quite apt. We've got a massive population, and prosperity that goes beyond compare, nix the last couple of months for the poor fools who were locked down and forced to congregate into only a few shops, spreading the disease with vigor.
Quitting fossil fuels means: No delivery trucks for the vast majority of people. This means no food deliveries, unless you're paying top dollar. It means you have to live near enough to a farm that hauling the food with your dinky little bike isn't going to take more than half your day. It means starvation for the majority, despite having abundant food. It means having food devoured by insects.
Frankly, the transition is going smoothly as new sources of power are being brought online and slowly begins to out compete the primary sources of power. Electric cars are slowly making their way into the hands of even relatively normal people. And mass land transport, via automated electric haulers is becoming a thing. Things are progressing and getting better, but rushing ahead isn't a smart idea. But hey? You want to help push it along? Go out and buy the alternatives yourself. Show your monetary support.
"Money talks. Bullshit walks." Which is an odd phrase. As the bullshit seems to talk an awful lot.It's those that have made themselves valuable to others, and then pledged that value to others who actually get things done.
Lower crop harvest? I tought plants love CO2
At least they were honest in this video when talking about the need for nuclear to maintain a base load. The only reason we can utilize all the new renewable energy resources is because nuclear and coal can be utilized at any time to make up for the lack when there is little sun, little wind, or hydro isn't an option. The book "Lights Out" goes into detail about this and how the need to eliminate the moratorium on new nuclear power plants.
That is not what base load is and in fact solar and wind are pretty much perfect for base load. Base load refers to what the demand is at it's lowest, ie the base you need to cover without considering peaks. It's the peaks that are the issue however it is also wrong to say that nuclear and coal are great for those either, especially nuclear. A nuclear power plant is also best at covering base loads and it is slow to increase production and is at it's most efficient when producing a constant amount of power. You can do it but it'll be less efficient and really nuclear is at it's best when it's at peak efficiency. Coal is similar, it takes a long time to start up a coal power plant so it's not quick to respond to sudden demands but the demand curves usually are gentle enough that coal can keep up. But still usually it's most efficient when running at a constant load where the furnace is basically lit from when the plant is inaugurated till it's shut down.
However any sort of turbine power is in generally better at dealing with demand curves because of the resistance naturally induced when there's more supply than demand. Obviously though you can't rely too much on that or you'd risk fire.
But this is why Britain while using coal and nuclear still had to build a pumped storage battery, coal and nuclear simply couldn't respond to the sharp peaks in British demand.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Nuclear Power are way cheaper than Coal.
**shows Nuclear as 155 and Coal as 109**
Edit: Woah I just realized that MinuteEarth replied on this comment
We said " *on the whole* , way cheaper."
And unfortunately, the total price of coal is not paid by the coal companies, so it remains a profitable investment.
The Gates Foundation makes money by donating just over 10% of its funds to efforts like renewable energy research, to remain tax exempt, while investing the other 90% in whatever is most profitable. Bill Gates has said himself that he thinks fossil fuel divestment has zero impact on emissions.
Any study on the cost and pollution on solar panel creation? What about the the cost of processing them once they become garbage? I am interested to know if it is still overall an cost effective power source. Same applies when comparing traditional engine vs electrical cars, e-cars don’t generate pollution themselves, but batteries do, also they may get charged with electricity generated by coal...
Soon we'll realize the best energy source was inside us the whole time: human souls * cue me smiling holding a philosopher stone *
What
*Clap the hands with epic music*
“Find the truth within the truth”
Ed...ward...ni...san
I'm so glad I get this reference now. (Fullmetal Alchemist)
You'll NEVER TAKE MY BARBIES! *furiously starts roasting chicken*
Literally nobody
Americans: Climate change is not real😂
My lifetime has been spent working in energy and water infrastructure facilities. I started in 1979, at a new nuclear power station, working on the containment vessel, the reactor and the refueling building.
I ended my career working at a coal fired power plant cleaning up the toxic waste around the mine that provided fuel for it. In the decades between, I worked on multiple facilities, everything from drilling modules at the North Slope in Alaska to water treatment at a holiday water park.
The next generation of craftspersons will be installing wind turbines, solar arrays and other types of clean power solutions. I only wish I had another 40 years to work on those projects.
Here's a (to be) wind turbine engineer thanking you for being a part of the giant I'm climbing to reach my goals!
Nuclear is the fuel of the future.
Hydro and geothermal are great where they can be done,. Wind and solar are nice supplementary sources.
I am excited to see where technology goes next!
Right now, the up and coming technology needed most, is efficient, cost effective grid scale electrical energy storage, that can be installed anywhere. energy storage can be used for load leveling for base load generation(nuclear, geothermal) and storage and dispatching energy from intermittent renewable sources.(wind, solar, hydro, wave, tidal)
Just youtube notified me this recommendation
I edited this so people don’t know how this got so many likes
I though you Said Cool
Cool
*Set it on fire.*
*hmm, been naughty recently am I right?*
Yeah I find it on the surface too
@@loljay3281 can't get the reference
"way cheaper"
Nuclear: $155
Coal: $109
*confused confusion intensifies*
the “on average” is an important part of that sentence.
@@MinuteEarth oooooh. sorry, must've missed that 😅
Would it be possible to have the sources of the numbers you give at 2:18?
I've always seen that nuclear kills less than solar, wind and hydro. Also, the g CO2/kWh look extremely low for solar, wind and nuclear (respectively 5, 4 and 3 g CO2/kWh) compared to the numbers presented by the IPCC (respectively 48, 11 and 12 g CO2/kWh).
About prices, I'm also curious as if storage is included in prices of solar and wind (as we need to compare things which are comparable) or if it's just the market price.
Thank you :)
I remember loosing a whole day trying to look into these numbers a while ago. The vast majority you find online about it is total rubbish and outright propaganda e.g. taking CO2 emission and deaths into account for construction of one kind of power source and ignoring it for the other. Some were comparing numbers from US only for one power source with some random selection of others in third world countries and so on.
I feel that the numbers need a lot more clarifications, given the approximate electricity production in the world (~25PWh) and about 10% of that being nuclear (grabbed from wikipedia so take it for what it's worth )that would yield 2.5PWh of nuclear generated energy = 2500*0.07 = 175 average deaths due to nuclear power per year. Given the widely varying and hard to measure number of actual deaths caused by the Chernobyl disaster I find this number to be plausible with the vast majority of these being in the immediately affected area. My gut feeling is that the number given for deaths due to hydro may be a bit on the low side, given the magnitude of the Banqiao dam failure that would alone give about the same number of yearly deaths if averaged over 100 years, but given the larger proportion of hydro power to nuclear the deaths/TWh would still be lower, but definitely above the 0.002. I would also like some clarification of how you reach the CO2 emissions of hydro given that the vast majority of those would be during the construction phase earthworks, concrete, flooding forested areas etc, the running should be almost zero, compare this to nuclear that still require lots of construction and concrete, though probably not as much, but then have an ongoing cost for mining and refining. as a whole it seems a bit off.
CO2/kWh is a bit higher for nuclear than renewable sources if you include everything, like building the power plant, Uranium mining, decommissioning, waste management, etc. Especially Uranium mining is often ignored in this calculations, which is strange, as it is the biggest contributor to pollution in nuclear energy.
@@terjethornqvist4361 There are probably also deaths associated to nuclear power because of Uranium mining.
30 kJ/kg?
Uranium: _laughs in 82 TJ/kg_
That calculation isn't wrong, but it's kinda stupid: It doesn't include the fact, that actually only 0.7% of natural Uranium is fissile and also ignores, that Uranium
doesn't occur in a pure form (unlike coal) and that mining is very energy intense compared to coal. If you include all that in a calculation of how much net energy you get from a kg of material mined, of course Uranium is still way in front of coal, but not any more by 9 orders of magnitude.
"on the whole, way cheaper" - shows nuclear energy as nearly 1.5 times as expensive , yet still in green...
On the green part,
They say it's not really toxic as those extreme anti-nuclear people claim. And I believe that.
BUT mining Uranium is very very toxic to local people and animals who live there.
They use very toxic chemicals to mine Uranium and that causes SERIOUS problem to the environment.
And locals think that it's caused by radioactive and goes against it, while miners check sample from them in labs and BAM no radioactive. (of course there would be no radioactive)
But they hide the fact that problems are caused by CHEMICALS not radioactives.
Also nuclear waste is still the main problem.
You know you can store coal ash outside on your lawn with no harm except it would make your lawn look dirty and it's dangerious if you inhale a lot of it directly.
You can't say same to nuclear waste.
bxyhxyh oh definitely do not store coal ash on your lawn that is a 2/10 very very bad idea. One rainstorm and all that goes into the water supply.
bxyhxyh you're talking about acid run off from heap leaching. That is a problem from the mining industry not the nuclear industry.
@@52flyingbicycles Wait where do the points for the "2/10" come from? Being easy? 😂
@@bxyhxyh I disagree about the nuclear waste. First of all, if we actually invested in proper technology for nuclear (like France did) we would create much less waste, like much much less. Some designs are zero waste. And especially in America, we have sooooo much worthless open space. Step one, make a giant, thick-walled lead box, step two fill it with waste, step three toss it in the Mojave. People imagine billions of pounds of the stuff but all the waste in the world makes up a very tiny amount of water/material compared to other forms of heat generation.
Can't argue about mining it though. That shit sucks
0:18 Minecraft: I second that
"Way Cheaper" - Shows a higher than coal price for nucular.
Order of Azarath
Yeah but that’s for our pretty old style nuclear reactors and current tech though hopefully it and fusion energy will become cheaper
Notice how they say on the whole
HalfLanding
Oh yes. Nuclear reactors are a lot more expensive for what they put out on a short term scale. Which is why investors usually don’t invest in nuclear technology and reactors since you only get money off of it if you use it for a long time
2:09 - EROI? No, not heard
When you don't want to do school work so you watch minute earth for your subjects. 😐
I live in Pennsylvania, and coal is pretty much just everywhere around here. You can just walk up to the area surrounding a breaker or mine entrance and find loose coal just lying on the ground.
The coal looked really cute in this video. ☺️
I had to do a paper on this for school, and it appears we came to the same conclusion of 'It'll go away, just not anytime soon since we still need time for the new energy sources to grow.'
I’ve been watching Minute Earth for a while. I liked their content! So I made my own sci-fi/futurist channel!!
Thanks for the great, informative vid minute earth! Great as always!
You can store uranium in a box...
Not after it’s been enriched, unless you don’t mind your box reaching the temperature of the sun
@@spacemanspiff2137 box of low enriched Uranium needs around 1 200 kilograms to start fission, good luck with finding box that's that big
@@spacemanspiff2137
That's not even partially true...it doesn't even make sense.
@@vaclavzajac214 Oh yea! Now I have a purpose to not get rid of that box in my garage my 2646 lbs of americium (element with the closest density to uranium) came in!!!
If you're reading this comment when nuclear fusion is finally used for creating energy, uranium reactors were probably just a thing in the past, only if youtube had passed the invasion of coppa and other things that are going to happen in the future.
I know there are some alternatives for coal in the steel industry, but most of those are derived from coal. It is just a great source of C for the process. Any thoughts on a new source in this case?
2:17 why Hydroelectrics generates that much CO2? I thought it would produce almost nothing
I assume that this takes into account the building of the dams necessary for hydroelectricity (distributed over their lifetime). Concrete production is a heavy CO2 emitter and there is a lot of concrete in a dam.
I think it's because a new damn will form a basin to hold the water inundating a large area. That will then lead to organic matter that's left underwater to break down in anoxic conditions producing methane. It may also change nutrient balance downstream which can affect how much those waters absorb or emit greenhouse gases. To my understanding, the emissions are worst soon after construction and go down over time. The number given is probably not literally carbon dioxide but rather the carbon dioxide equivalent of the global warming potential of hydroelectric dams.
@@seneca983 would be interesting what life time they assume. Some dams are now operating since more than 100 years.
I'm really happy that you guys are teaching us these things. Thanks
I came here at the speed of an Android XD
I’m such a liar, I don’t have an Android :P
Okay lol
Really slow and buggy?
E Rod
iPhone :𝙿
chicken nougats
Yes. Very.
Coal is the best way source of energy!
Coal: Yes, but actually *no*
Renewable energies such as solar or wind are not sufficient to tackle CO2 emissions.
We have to reduce our overall use of energy as a whole
That's like saying, tackle crime by asking people to do less crimes. Not disagreeing about wind and solar, but our population keeps growing more and more, requiring more power. We need a heavy solution IMO
Using less energy isn't just about personal will, you're right.
But public investments in thermal isolations for buildings, free and wide range busses and trains, heavy taxation on planes, carbon taxes, incentives for low energy farms, etc are as many measures that will decrease the use of energy without relying on good will of the individuals
@@Enden31 Yeah. That's a tough sell here in America though. I'm not sure what it would take to make that kind of thing happen. Maybe once New Orleans is under a foot of water, idk
I like how they explain all it in big words then use there drawing skills to make it more understandable
MinuteEarth: alternative energy sources are way cheaper
Also MinuteEarth: nuclear energy costs $155/MWh, compared to coal's $109/MWh
2:17 they even put it in green text as if they were trying to fool people. Really unnecessary, price isn't supposed to be the only thing that matters, things aren't black & white, more expensive options can still be better.
If you average the prices of the alternatives listed, you get $71.75/MWh, which is still significantly cheaper than using coal.
"On the whole, way cheaper" is an important distinction.
My home country (the UK) hasn't used coal for 2 months. And there are many countries that burn very little or no coal, like Iceland, France, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway etc...
time to get buired in the comments
Coal does have another use beyond energy: as a carbon source for steel. But that can be managed and approached more sustainably, certainly.
At least, theoretically, the carbon goes into the steel, rather into the air. With today's manufacturing, the anthracite coking coal is also used as the heat source for the steel, in which, it is used as fuel, exhausting carbon dioxide into the air. With technology and renewable energy, it can be used more like an "ingredient" and much less like a fuel. That would mean using less than 1/10 the amount of coal per ton of steel.
We gonna ignore the fact that he made this video in partnership with Bill Gates
Ye they be doing this for a while now
.. and?
I heard you can use poop as an alternative to coal! the only down side is you have to heat it up and you probably have to use coal
Sorry, wind and solar are NOT more efficient than coal, otherwise people would use it.
Wind not even produce more energy than the amount spent to build and maintain its huge structure.
But yes, hydro and nuclear are way better
That's changing: The cost per installed watt is becoming so low, that it's now cheaper to develop new wind and solar, than new coal. It's reaching a point, where it will be cheaper, than maintaining and fueling existing coal. In Iowa and California, they've already reached that point. Coal is becoming more expensive, as renewable technology is becoming less expensive. I give it a decade. The ONLY thing keeping coal relevant, is the intermittent nature of wind and solar, which will be solved, when we come up with a good electrical energy storage solution. For now, where there needs to be power generation to fill in the gaps caused by intermittency, Natural Gas is filling that role, for now. Coal plants have a very hard time coping with varying demand, where natural gas peaker plants to much better. UK hasn't used coal in the last 2 months, (mid April to mid June, 2020) owing to natural gas taking the place of coal. Natural gas costs less per BTU/Kilocalorie than coal in UK and USA.
How is 155$/MWh of Nuclear cheaper than 109$/MWh of coal 💀🤧
2:18 Nuclear is not cheap.
That coal is awfully happy about Incineration
It kind of reminds me of the old Starkist Tuna commercials, where they feel honored to be the most edible tuna!
2:17 “way cheaper” *laughs in nuclear
thanks! I like those kinds of minuteEarth videos
2:17 ...way cheaper, yet shows nuclear power as more expensive.
Is there something I'm missing or is the video wrong with coloring nuclear green?
Yeah, its time to replace it....
except in germany, where they are still building more coal powerplants ;P
And we're even starting them up AFTER the transition to green energy went through legislation...
Well, I guess if some of the older (dirtier, less efficient) power plants were being *replaced,* that would be ok, but I doubt that anything is going to be shut down in exchange for the new one any time soon.
Getting rid of fossil fuels should be humanity's top priority; climate change is one the biggest threats that we face and fossil fuels are one of the main causes.
I've read regularly that Nuclear energy releases much more energy per gram than coal, it also uses turbines that are turned by water vapour/heavy water. Yet in the chart it says that it costs more per to produce per unit of energy. Is this as a result of the cost of nuclear plants, actually getting the radioactive material or storing waste products? Because I've been told that it's cheaper than coal.
Thanks for including nuclear
Coal's that friend that you like because they give you things but it's also the friend that actively hurts you
I like how you used two unstable sources of renewable energy with two sustainable sources.
Why do the water generators produce 10 times more CO2 than the other power generating methods? 2:15
The dam will form an artificial lake behind it inundating a large area. The organic matter left underwater will break down in anoxic conditions thus emitting methane which is a powerful greenhouse gas.
@@seneca983 would be interesting what life time they assume. Some dams are now operating since more than 100 years.
@@rfvtgbzhn I don't really know so I can only guess. One possibility is that they've compared the cumulative production of electricity so far to cumulative generated emissions so far. Another possibility is that they choose a certain time frame from the dam's inception, such as 100 years. I think when comparing the greenhouse potential of carbon dioxide and methane, usually a time horizon of 100 years is used (and on that time frame, methane is more than 20x stronger).
Minute earth: coal pollutes water and air.
Me: gas pollutes the underground places from where we get oil.( well not really POLLUTE, but you get what I mean).
why is the person with the phone at 1:43 missing legs
Because they were lost in a car accident
And here I was, thinking that he simply grew out of the girl's head, like a pot plant!
@@micaelgarcia1576 why are they hovering then. they are not standing on anything
@@MrUhlus
What do you mean hovering?
They are all falling at the same rate, it's just that we're watching from their perspective, so they don't look like falling.
That also explains the white background; they live in an unlimited universe, and are probably falling to the nearest star.
One wouldn't want to get rid of burning coal completely; just nearly completely. The world wouldn't be as happy a place without heritage steam trains and other such minor recreational uses.
I'm very familiar with this, living and growing up in West Virginia.
My Chest started hurting when Alex says that coal leaves a layer of (Soot? or Sut?) in your lungs!
Can you talk about flora foam,how it make it
Why does hydroelectric produce so much CO2? It's 7 to 12 times higher than the other alternatives.
I assume it's because hydroelectric plants use dams which are typically made out of concrete which itself releases lots of CO2 (see a different video on this channel).
Edit: But I could be sprouting nonsense as nuculear reactors need cooling towers, also made out of concrete.
Solar and nuclear are the best energy sources : every source of enegy we use today relies on the sun , and solar is the most efficent way to gather energy from the sun ,
All of them exept for nuclear , nuclear relies on weak nuclear force which works everywere in the universe ,as far as we know , and is fucking powerful and cheap given how efficiently it stores energy ...
The burning coal kinda looks like Darwin from The Amazing World of Gumball
That last comment fuckin killed me