Well currently it is the best option available, but not for long. It's more efficient, safer big sister Nuclear Fusion will replace it. Nuclear Fusion, has all the benefits that Nuclear Fission that is currently in use. Without all the negative downsides, like producing highly radioactive material in fact it's not really radioactive at all. But as per why, people hate on Nuclear power even though I personally find it stupid. It's for three reasons one the irrational fear that Nuclear Power plants could explode like Nuclear Bombs. Two, is because of the fairly rational fear of the nuclear meltdown events like Chernobyl, 3 mile island and The one in Japan, despite technology development making Nuclear power plants extremely safe. And lastly what you do with the radioactive waste material produced by Nuclear power plants. And lastly because people are highly misinformed about Nuclear power, they only heard about extremely scary boogyman propaganda about nuclear power. In my opinion if you want Green energy, Nuclear power is the absolute best option available. Without it in consideration you are not serious about green energy it is by far the best source of energy that mankind has created. And other forms of green energy don't even come close to competing.
Sir your right but also very expensive to maintain and establish And safety nuclear power plant needs cooling system to cool them Example Japanese nuclear power plant disaster Im not very knowledgeable person but There are strict rules on nuclear use And the nuclear power plant needs to near big water body to function well And world government had strict standards to have nuclear power plant because in wrong hand it my be worst scenario
@@gagand.u2463 Not expensive to maintain. The cost is primarily upfront. Most reactor design currently would be in the green after 8-10 years. The Japanese plant was a catastrophic failure based on a combination of things going wrong. This is not something that would be a problem for the US anywhere but the west coast, and even then, highly unlikely. Most current reactor designs do not use material that can be used in weapons, nor can the waste they produce. Though the waste IS dangerous, most methods involve storage on site, as that is the cheapest and safest option, barring using the waste material in additional process to enrich it to a usable state, which can generally only be done once or twice. Also, it doesn't HAVE to be near a body of water. Some designs have solid coolant, molten salt, for example, which is safer than liquids, since it doesn't phase into a gas until 1400 degrees.
@@noticedruid4985 but there are still massive issues. For example there's not much tritium or helium 3 here on earth which are literally fuel for Nuclear Fusion. There's a lot of Helium 3 in lunar dust so we should start collecting the dust from the moon and send it back to earth. It's gonna be incredibly expensive but if successful it'll supply Earth with basically unlimited energy.
And if you can't get rid of the radioactive waste you just need to store it for 30.000 years having to build a new storage facility each 50 years or so..
@@Justin-fl1nvthere is, LLW needs to be stored 100-300 years at most, HLW can be stored in deep geological repositories which will get sealed after filled, which is a waste or get recycled first to further reduce volume. It also depends on how you recycle it, if you and put the depleted uranium and higher acnidites in fast reactors you greatly reduce the volume, even better if you use MOX fuel. Russia is currently building a fully closed plant that will be basically left with only the totally “useless” stuff.
@@Justin-fl1nv hope you know nuclear waste can recycled Insane the amount of times you can recycle nuclear waste back into nuclear fuel the rest of the world actually do this and it works and also a plus side nuclear waste is in solid form you can store it and unlike carbon emissions.
That was because it used the inherently less stable/safe RBMK reactor design. problem 1 when reactor temp increased reactivity increased. Problem 2 the graphite tipped rods, which were used so that the reactor could run off of cheaper fuel w/ less U235 content, the problem with the graphite tipped control rods that was one of the largest factors in the incident was already known at the time but was classified and held out of reach of the operators who most needed it, like what happened with mcas more recently. Problem 3 the reactor had no shielding built around the core like the massive concrete bunkers that are built around every active plant now so that any breach of the reactor containment vessel is still contained within the facility preventing any core material from being ejected. So it was a dumb design being operated by nuclear scientists running the reactor with the kind of Louis slotten cowboy nuclear physics who didn't know how dangerous the graphite tipped rods were.
While it's a very sustainable source of energy, storing nuclear waste is the problem. Australia is having a really big argument about Nuclear energy right now for that very reason.
Fossil fuel companies in response: *Say no to nuclear energy! We don't want glowing green barrels of nuclear waste everywhere! Support us and our constant incomparable pollution because we need your money to buy sport cars!*
Fun fact the Okinawa power plant was hit even harder by the tsunami but was fine and even at one point was a refugee shelter because unlike the licensed GE design that Fukushima used the generators weren't placed below ground level and thus susceptible to flooding.
@@RindangSawungPerkasaFun fact the Okinawa power plant was hit even harder by the tsunami but was fine and even at one point was a refugee shelter because unlike the licensed GE design that Fukushima used the generators weren't placed below ground level and thus susceptible to flooding.
Wow, there are a whole lot of people that know jack about how nuclear energy works, and the myriad of improvements and methods available to us these days.
Nuclear power plant safety is much more safer nowadays. Also there is nuclear reactor called "European Pressurized Reactor (EPR)" And "Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR)" Which is much more safer than their predecessor called "Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)" If I am right
If you pay attention to it you would know that it was a mix of everything (design issues human error etc…) and if you know at least a smidge about nuclear reactors you would know that it’s litteraly impossible for a modern reactor to explode like that since the water coolant act as a moderator as well. So please don’t talk about things you don’t know spreading misinformation
@@mattepanda15 I know that, I was making a joke since I got this not even 10 minutes after finishing it. Chernobyl exploded due to the soviets who weren’t able to admit they were wrong so they hid the facts from the worker’s and the man running the test that night was pushing the machine to its limits. And it was just that RBMKs reactors were made with graphite tips at the time
@@kingcash955 "In RBMK reactors, an increase in steam, or "void," in the core increases the reactor's reactivity. This is the opposite of most Western reactors, which have a negative void coefficient and decrease in reactivity when there's more steam. *_Consequences_* RBMK reactors' positive void coefficient allowed them to run on unenriched uranium and produce weapons-grade plutonium. However, *_this made them dangerously unstable._* After the Chernobyl accident, the positive void coefficient was lowered to make the reactors safe enough to remain in service." (Google AI) "The most important characteristic of the RBMK reactor is that it possesses a "positive void coefficient"." (OECD)
Cough stupid design run by stupid people cough cough nuclear reactors are so much safer now cough cough in comparison 3 mile island and Fukushima the 2 most recent were far more contained.
You are small, but your grid is big. Fossil fuels are bigger, and your grid has to get bigger. You are small, but millions and millions and millions of miles of grid are big. Grid blindness is widespread. Even small nuclear people can not see the grid. Small nuclear people are like children who have no idea. Like the small boy who told his dad that he would pay, his dad just had to "give him the money." 😅😅😊
I have been a fan of Nuclear Energy since first learning about it. it just seems simple to use a fuel that doesn't produce emissions. However you bring yet another thing forward that I hadn't seemed to understand as much. The grid is huge, and localized energy is needed for their expanding use, and energy loss over cables and more. The cost of making nuclear energy is one of the major hurdles to cross, being modern ones need billions of dollars to make and take near a decade for some ton build. The radioactive material is very difficult to work around, but we have pretty safe measures for storage, although they will be in storage for generations to come. Even with these points being a few, but major problems to combat. Moving to Nuclear is going to be necessary at some point, energy consumption is ever expanding with technology use. So if we begin to build them now, it will be major for the future. Current technology in China, India, Netherlands, France, and US are developing new Thorium reactor technologies to make safer, cheaper, and more compact reactors that could really give us a push forward in better energy sectors.
@christiangable7473, yes, small projects, $1billion plants but the grid is $TRILLIONS. Grid is not sexy. But grid economics will break generation economics. No fossil fueled future but electricity future is not grid electricity future. The existing national grid is so special that it has to be protected from all centralised electricity generation including distant renewables that have to have transmission lines into the grid centres. Dispersed rooftop PV and V2G BVs oversized battery can unload millions and millions of customers load and also the millions and millions of independent customers can be the supplier of electric power to the grid. It is a totally different way to clean up the energy sector. Nuclear promoters hate millions and millions of self funded customers now being able to supply the grid. No government taxpayers money and no customers money. 😮😮😮😮
@@ChrisPasch-so1fy Chernobyl won’t happen again. It happened before two main reasons one the safety instructor that was there wanted to get his checking over with as soon as possible so he rushed it. He ignored the alarms, even when they went off. 2 the control rods had graphite tips, which increased the decay process of the uranium and caused it to spike and go out of control.
Guys it's not even close to any of that. It won't destroy an entire state or anything of the sort. Not only do Nuclear power plants have an extremely safe track record. But this is not the 1970s anymore, technology has developed making Nuclear power plants extremely safe even in the event of a meltdown, which is extremely unlikely. They also have a safer track record than other forms of energy production.
There have been three nuclear meltdowns 1. There mile island 2. Chernobyl 3. Fukushima Out of the three only one of those places is unlivable and resulted in deaths as a direct result of the meltdown
unbelievable there are people hating on nuclear energy. Literally the best option by far
Well currently it is the best option available, but not for long. It's more efficient, safer big sister Nuclear Fusion will replace it.
Nuclear Fusion, has all the benefits that Nuclear Fission that is currently in use. Without all the negative downsides, like producing highly radioactive material in fact it's not really radioactive at all.
But as per why, people hate on Nuclear power even though I personally find it stupid. It's for three reasons one the irrational fear that Nuclear Power plants could explode like Nuclear Bombs. Two, is because of the fairly rational fear of the nuclear meltdown events like Chernobyl, 3 mile island and The one in Japan, despite technology development making Nuclear power plants extremely safe.
And lastly what you do with the radioactive waste material produced by Nuclear power plants.
And lastly because people are highly misinformed about Nuclear power, they only heard about extremely scary boogyman propaganda about nuclear power. In my opinion if you want Green energy, Nuclear power is the absolute best option available. Without it in consideration you are not serious about green energy it is by far the best source of energy that mankind has created. And other forms of green energy don't even come close to competing.
Sir your right but also very expensive to maintain and establish
And safety nuclear power plant needs cooling system to cool them
Example Japanese nuclear power plant disaster
Im not very knowledgeable person but
There are strict rules on nuclear use
And the nuclear power plant needs to near big water body to function well
And world government had strict standards to have nuclear power plant because in wrong hand it my be worst scenario
@@gagand.u2463 Not expensive to maintain. The cost is primarily upfront. Most reactor design currently would be in the green after 8-10 years.
The Japanese plant was a catastrophic failure based on a combination of things going wrong. This is not something that would be a problem for the US anywhere but the west coast, and even then, highly unlikely.
Most current reactor designs do not use material that can be used in weapons, nor can the waste they produce. Though the waste IS dangerous, most methods involve storage on site, as that is the cheapest and safest option, barring using the waste material in additional process to enrich it to a usable state, which can generally only be done once or twice.
Also, it doesn't HAVE to be near a body of water. Some designs have solid coolant, molten salt, for example, which is safer than liquids, since it doesn't phase into a gas until 1400 degrees.
@@noticedruid4985 but there are still massive issues. For example there's not much tritium or helium 3 here on earth which are literally fuel for Nuclear Fusion. There's a lot of Helium 3 in lunar dust so we should start collecting the dust from the moon and send it back to earth. It's gonna be incredibly expensive but if successful it'll supply Earth with basically unlimited energy.
Lowest deaths per kw/h of any energy source very demure
That goes to solar but it’s like 0.01 deaths/twatt difference. Very harmless, very demure.
@@redmenace8194wind is the same, cats alone have a factor of 100 difference in bird deaths.
I have no idea what that means very stupid of me very ✨ ~demur~ ✨
And if you can't get rid of the radioactive waste you just need to store it for 30.000 years having to build a new storage facility each 50 years or so..
Ok big fossil fuel
if you use carbon u get ♋
I'm actually pro nuclear, but this is a legitimate question? Right now, there is no option for the low-level waste, let alone the high-level stuff.
@@Justin-fl1nvthere is, LLW needs to be stored 100-300 years at most, HLW can be stored in deep geological repositories which will get sealed after filled, which is a waste or get recycled first to further reduce volume. It also depends on how you recycle it, if you and put the depleted uranium and higher acnidites in fast reactors you greatly reduce the volume, even better if you use MOX fuel. Russia is currently building a fully closed plant that will be basically left with only the totally “useless” stuff.
@@Justin-fl1nv hope you know nuclear waste can recycled Insane the amount of times you can recycle nuclear waste back into nuclear fuel the rest of the world actually do this and it works and also a plus side nuclear waste is in solid form you can store it and unlike carbon emissions.
Anti nuclear nerds after learning that nuclear reactors are just glorified steam engines
Love the creativity!
Chernobyl:
I am very big
I am dem- *fucking explodes*
That was because it used the inherently less stable/safe RBMK reactor design. problem 1 when reactor temp increased reactivity increased. Problem 2 the graphite tipped rods, which were used so that the reactor could run off of cheaper fuel w/ less U235 content, the problem with the graphite tipped control rods that was one of the largest factors in the incident was already known at the time but was classified and held out of reach of the operators who most needed it, like what happened with mcas more recently. Problem 3 the reactor had no shielding built around the core like the massive concrete bunkers that are built around every active plant now so that any breach of the reactor containment vessel is still contained within the facility preventing any core material from being ejected. So it was a dumb design being operated by nuclear scientists running the reactor with the kind of Louis slotten cowboy nuclear physics who didn't know how dangerous the graphite tipped rods were.
@@nicholasm5184ok thanks for information if i was others i would spam with "🤓🤓👆👆👆👆"
But nonono i wont type that because i am respectful
@billy54441good
While it's a very sustainable source of energy, storing nuclear waste is the problem. Australia is having a really big argument about Nuclear energy right now for that very reason.
Then it’s people arguing the problem, not storing the waste itself because it’s already been solved
Short run: *_dry cask._*
Long run: *_Deep Isolation._*
Wow i think i understand how demure this is now
Boom
You realise demure means quiet and shy, reserved, right?
This is a trend on TikTok so they don't alway make the most sense :)
Fossil fuel companies in response: *Say no to nuclear energy! We don't want glowing green barrels of nuclear waste everywhere! Support us and our constant incomparable pollution because we need your money to buy sport cars!*
WHAT DOES DEMURE MEAN I HAVE BEEN SEEING THIS WORD ALL OVER I HSVE BO IDEA WHAT IT MEANS PLEASE HELP
Describes a person as reserved or modest.
Why is it being so overused? No idea.
@@whiteflagstoo Very peculiar. Very demure.
The demure trend typically doesn't use the word correctly but hey it's fun 😄
Chernobyl ? Fukushima ?
Fukushima got hit by an earthquake and tsunami. What did you expect to happen?
İ know
İts a only joke
Fun fact the Okinawa power plant was hit even harder by the tsunami but was fine and even at one point was a refugee shelter because unlike the licensed GE design that Fukushima used the generators weren't placed below ground level and thus susceptible to flooding.
@@RindangSawungPerkasaFun fact the Okinawa power plant was hit even harder by the tsunami but was fine and even at one point was a refugee shelter because unlike the licensed GE design that Fukushima used the generators weren't placed below ground level and thus susceptible to flooding.
Yeah but... But... But... What if it explodes!!!!!1!!1!1!
they won't
wil your kettle eploxde?
Chernobyl be like now fe
Until someone puts me in or out of water for a few seconds too long
see how the japan nuclear plant handled the tsunami, very demure.
Wow, there are a whole lot of people that know jack about how nuclear energy works, and the myriad of improvements and methods available to us these days.
I don't think that power plant knows what the word demure means.
Nuclear is the best up until its the worst
Having a meltdown, not very demure
Nuclear power plant safety is much more safer nowadays.
Also there is nuclear reactor called "European Pressurized Reactor (EPR)"
And
"Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (APWR)"
Which is much more safer than their predecessor called
"Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)" If I am right
Bro I just watch the show about Chernobyl 💀
cool, cause we still use tech from 60 years ago in Nuclear power. and before anyone says anything, yes I know the plant was built in 78 (
If you pay attention to it you would know that it was a mix of everything (design issues human error etc…) and if you know at least a smidge about nuclear reactors you would know that it’s litteraly impossible for a modern reactor to explode like that since the water coolant act as a moderator as well.
So please don’t talk about things you don’t know spreading misinformation
@@mattepanda15 I know that, I was making a joke since I got this not even 10 minutes after finishing it. Chernobyl exploded due to the soviets who weren’t able to admit they were wrong so they hid the facts from the worker’s and the man running the test that night was pushing the machine to its limits. And it was just that RBMKs reactors were made with graphite tips at the time
@@kingcash955 "In RBMK reactors, an increase in steam, or "void," in the core increases the reactor's reactivity. This is the opposite of most Western reactors, which have a negative void coefficient and decrease in reactivity when there's more steam.
*_Consequences_*
RBMK reactors' positive void coefficient allowed them to run on unenriched uranium and produce weapons-grade plutonium. However, *_this made them dangerously unstable._* After the Chernobyl accident, the positive void coefficient was lowered to make the reactors safe enough to remain in service." (Google AI)
"The most important characteristic of the RBMK reactor is that it possesses a "positive void coefficient"." (OECD)
*cough* Chernobyl *cough*
Cough stupid design run by stupid people cough cough nuclear reactors are so much safer now cough cough in comparison 3 mile island and Fukushima the 2 most recent were far more contained.
Because we all know Russia cares enough about their people and Land to build the most modern and safe reactors. Im being sarcastic.
@@josephivan5094oh hey himler is that you? Still as racist as ever I see
*points at millions dead from constant fossil fuel pollution* and what do you say about that?
I swear this is propaganda
How so?
You are small, but your grid is big.
Fossil fuels are bigger, and your grid has to get bigger.
You are small, but millions and millions and millions of miles of grid are big.
Grid blindness is widespread.
Even small nuclear people can not see the grid.
Small nuclear people are like children who have no idea.
Like the small boy who told his dad that he would pay, his dad just had to "give him the money." 😅😅😊
I have been a fan of Nuclear Energy since first learning about it. it just seems simple to use a fuel that doesn't produce emissions. However you bring yet another thing forward that I hadn't seemed to understand as much.
The grid is huge, and localized energy is needed for their expanding use, and energy loss over cables and more.
The cost of making nuclear energy is one of the major hurdles to cross, being modern ones need billions of dollars to make and take near a decade for some ton build.
The radioactive material is very difficult to work around, but we have pretty safe measures for storage, although they will be in storage for generations to come.
Even with these points being a few, but major problems to combat. Moving to Nuclear is going to be necessary at some point, energy consumption is ever expanding with technology use. So if we begin to build them now, it will be major for the future.
Current technology in China, India, Netherlands, France, and US are developing new Thorium reactor technologies to make safer, cheaper, and more compact reactors that could really give us a push forward in better energy sectors.
@christiangable7473, yes, small projects, $1billion plants but the grid is $TRILLIONS.
Grid is not sexy. But grid economics will break generation economics.
No fossil fueled future but electricity future is not grid electricity future.
The existing national grid is so special that it has to be protected from all centralised electricity generation including distant renewables that have to have transmission lines into the grid centres.
Dispersed rooftop PV and V2G BVs oversized battery can unload millions and millions of customers load and also the millions and millions of independent customers can be the supplier of electric power to the grid.
It is a totally different way to clean up the energy sector.
Nuclear promoters hate millions and millions of self funded customers now being able to supply the grid.
No government taxpayers money and no customers money. 😮😮😮😮
I thought it woud be funny, its just kind of cringe
...and let's talk about nuclear waste. No country has solved that problem yet. I wouldn't want to live near a nuclear waste storage facility.
Or a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl
France is recycling some nuclear waste, and putting nuclear waste underground isn’t a problem because you get the materials from underground anyways.
@@ChrisPasch-so1fy Chernobyl won’t happen again. It happened before two main reasons one the safety instructor that was there wanted to get his checking over with as soon as possible so he rushed it. He ignored the alarms, even when they went off. 2 the control rods had graphite tips, which increased the decay process of the uranium and caused it to spike and go out of control.
Giant Concreate box under ground. The time it takes to become a problem is after fossil fuels kill a ton of people.
Well yeah nobody lives near a nuclear waste facility. America has tons of open space and we keep it far underground on top of that
See how if I accidentally melt down? I can destroy an entire state very cutesie very demure
It’s be more like 3-4 states
Guys it's not even close to any of that. It won't destroy an entire state or anything of the sort. Not only do Nuclear power plants have an extremely safe track record. But this is not the 1970s anymore, technology has developed making Nuclear power plants extremely safe even in the event of a meltdown, which is extremely unlikely. They also have a safer track record than other forms of energy production.
PoV: You have no clue what youre talking about, and refuse to do research
@@macewindow149nice one
There have been three nuclear meltdowns
1. There mile island
2. Chernobyl
3. Fukushima
Out of the three only one of those places is unlivable and resulted in deaths as a direct result of the meltdown
You're using that word wrong.
It's a TikTok trend. They typically don't use terminology right 😂
Wtf is this annoying orange sequel shit
🤣
Coal and oil baby