Shame on Germany. Their anti-nuclear stance ended up prolonging the use of coal. Their anti-nuclear stance caused them to buy fossil fuel from Russia and funded Russia's warmachine. Sure they talk a lot about how renewable is better, but they still ended up a friend of fossil fuel interests and Russia. Shame on Germany.
Shame on math. If you want to reduce fuel burn quickly and you can do it with wind ~5x faster for 1/5th the cost would that not be the route you take because numbers?
Don't worry Germany, nuclear bombs going off is much better for the human race than long term, safe storage of spent fuel rods 🤣 Thanks for funding Putin.
How is being dependent on russian nuclear fuel better than being dependent on fossil fuel? We still pay for the russian war machine but additionally they would also be able to blackmail us with bombing the reactors..? Not a great deal.
@@nbgoodiscore1303 Schroeder was from western and look at him now. Being corrupt politician not depends where you from absolutely, only accelerates some weaknesses. Or look at Trump who believes to putin more than to own intelligence.
Phasing out old designs that have proven to be problematic is not an unreasonable thing to do, rather issue was that people that didn't(and still don't) know any better decided that all nuclear is bad. Or take Pittels statement here that nuclear isn't green. Sure, fission isn't completely clean, though it can be made cleaner by using designs that can use refurbished rods that in turn helps minimize waste. But fusion is absolutely clean, indeed cleaner than solar.
"The nuclear power plant has never met western safety standards" - this is BS. The State Office for Nuclear Safety is a respected institution and the plants & their ops are reviewed by IAEA. Although there were some unscheduled shutdowns, it's common for all plants. The current French shutdowns seem to be much worse for instance. Nuclear power is statistically the safest and least environmentally intense per energy unit. Btw. I'm also a big fan of renewables. :)
There is number of inaccuracies in this video, as mentioned by Martin above but also, the plans of building new reactors (not new nuclear power plants).
Depends, better get them thorium reactors and not uranium reactors or the amount of nuclear weapons will rise to 25000... just enough to blow up 3 earthsized planets.
We wouldn't even _be_ in this ridiculous situation of having to chose between funding Russia or the Saudis if we had built enough nuclear power plants in the last 40 years and moved to solar/wind/hydro at leisure instead of this mad scramble now to try to avert the absolute worst of climate change.
I'll tell you a secret Russia is the only country in the world that has the technology of recycling and reuse of nuclear waste.Where will you put the waste? you will pay to Russia (rubles) to have a light on in my room.Thank you, fool!
As Austrian, I find it shameful how scientific data is being ignored when Austria and Germany in particular try to bad-mouth nuclear energy. I'd rather want an intact planet with the occasional nuclear breach instead of a post-apocalyptic wasteland with great radiation levels
The coming Molten Salt Reactors will use today's facilities spent fuel as fuel feedstock. Sadly, security concern's, or some other concern, never allowed today's facilities spent fuel to be used to power city thermal plants. The spent fuel kept in cooling pools has the capacity to throw off lots of thermal energy. ie: Fukushima Daiichi is an example of the amount of energy that is being thrown off into spent fuel pools; all while configured to cool-off.
Not only that. Both countries are nagging their neighbours about existing and/or planned nuclear reactors. Pathetic. They can burn coal instaed, its green:))
4:00 Safety: Germany is replacing one of the safest technology (nuclear) with brown coal (which is the worst of the worst not just for the climate but for the health of their own citizens) and Russian gas. 4:15 Storage: first keep in under water for 2-5 years, then put in a steel container surrounded by reinforced concrete and let it be. The great thing about nuclear waste that it is getting less harmful as time passing by. You can also re-process it like they do it in France and then you really have only the fission products left what you can dig deep under ground. 4th gen reactors like Moltex Energy's Wasteburner (SSR-W) will be able to close the fuel cycle. 4:25 renewable become so much cheaper. Yes and no. Germany about uses 60 GW of electricity. They built more than 120 GW capacity of wind and solar but still they are burning gas and coal as there is no tomorrow. Their KWh electricity generation emits 4-5 times more CO2 than France. With the weather dependent energy sources you need to overbuild the capacity multiple times. If electricity from solar is half the price than from nuclear but you need 5 times more solar capacity and batteries and complex grid and more interconnection, the total cost will be way higher than if you just built nuclear. It is estimated that by 2025, the cost of "Energiewende" will reach 520 billion euros. That's about the same as 18 Hinkley Point C. (maybe more due to economy of scale) That could provide Germany 58GW carbon free electricity 24/7/365. No windmills, no farmlands turned to giant solar fields, no air pollution due to burning coal, no Russian gas no deforestation in the name of biomassa. And those plants can run for 60 to 80 years, while solar and wind needs to be replaced about every 25 years. (offshore wind is about 15 years). 5:55 Nuclear is greener than solar and wind. Sun and wind are renewable, but solar panels and wind turbine blades are not. They produce significantly larger amount of waste, take significantly more space, need significantly more raw materials to mine and I did not even mention all the extra batteries, grid connections etc to try to keep it running. And you still need fossil fuels for the winter, when the sun hardly shines. 6:50 Nuclear power plant took 4-5 years to build in the past. China can still do this, Korea can do in 7-8 years. France struggles, because they did not build for decades, and they did not had the experience anymore plus politicians and the public is blocking it wherever they can. SMRs like BWRX-300 or Nuscale's reactor will take 2-3 years to build. 6:58 Building the reactors are not cheap, but running them is. Once it has been built, it is very cheap. If you want to decarbonise, the steps are the following: 1, close all coal plants 2, close all biomassa power plants 3, close all natural gas power plants 4, remove all solar panels (they lifecycle emission per KWh is 4 times as much as hydro, wind or nuclear) 5, if you have still reliable surplus energy you can start closing nuclear power plants. The science on this is simple. If you cannot have the majority of your electricity from hydro like Norway, Austria or Iceland your second best bet is nuclear. DW, please....
The funniest thing is that the woman towards the end who said "safety" was even a concern for nuclear. Germany? Do you only know about nuclear technology from the Cold War?! Modern nuclear reactors are INCAPABLE of fallout and meltdown in general. It is a physical impossibility for modern nuclear technology and as far as storage is concerned... That's how I know she's just being pedantic. How mind numbingly dumb.
Why do you invite people like this? She is clearly just repeating the talking points, chilling for the anti-nuclear agenda. Invite people that actually know about benefits of nuclear for a change
western countries lost their nuclear technologies so they do not have competent people in this field. If you wanna learn about contemporary nuclear technologies you have to learn Russian first
Who is going to buy the overpriced electricity from these things in 2040 or 2050? By the time any new ones are finished they will never be started because nobody will be willing to buy from them. The time to build new nuclear plants was 25 years ago so they where running today. Today they window has closed. All they will be are big money pits.
Well, formally energy was a byproduct of nuclear weapon development. Yet it doesn't matter now. We can use clean, CO2 free, independent from Russia energy source .
If only in the 1950's there had been more information made available about the idea of Molten Salt Reactors. The idea and research had almost been forgotten/lost when revived. The primary reason for dropping it may have been that harvesting plutonium for production of nuclear weapons is more difficult with a MSR than with the Pressurized Water Reactor design.
@@rustyyb8450 Not really, MSR's are still breeders and can be designed so they'd produce plenty for weapons programs, just up to the specific design. Rather the by that point already fairly decently established nuclear industry didn't want to go through the costs of investments needed to shift to yet newer designs, while the investments of the older designs hadn't even been recouped yet. So they lobbied it into virtual non-existence.
@@Megalomaniakaal The intent of an MSR is to add fuel when needed and eventually cleanse the salty mix. Not a possible operational scheme in a traditional reactor where renewing the fuel requires removing a plutonium rich fuel assembly.
1:20 - Temelín was finished in 2002, it's not that old, some people say that it's one of the most modern nuclear power plants in Europe, that about safety standards is not true, it has the best safety features, Czechoslovakia wanted similar reactors as in west, it's more like eastern block copy of western reactors
Temelín had plenty of issues with turbine ant it wore some equipment down, I have heard that even significantly, due to frequent shutdowns in early 2000's. Dukovany do not have containment buildings for reactors, so that could be the reason why they do not fit current standards. EDIT: I have as well heard that Czechoslovakia had copied some regulations from the West )USA precisely) and that the projects were modified to fit those standards.
While I understand why nuclear power is "controversial" as there is a ton of misinformation out there and the stereotypes about it hurt it tremendously. I've never understood why technologies like batteries and even solar panels seem to get this complete pass with the hazardous chemicals used in their production (not to mention their disposal). Those hazardous chemicals NEVER decay and are an absolute nightmare in regards to the environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti" any technology that helps reduce climate change, but we need more nuclear power NOW there is just no other way around it. The worlds energy demands are far too great, and renewables just currently aren't up to the task of handling it all.
I suppose nuclear power is always going to be problematic if the risk of meltdowns isn't zero. Use them for long enough, say a couple hundred years, and meltdowns will happen from time to time. That might not matter so much if we use them for another decade or two, and neither does it matter as much on a global scale but for individual countries it can be devestating to loose entire regions. Using sources that have less extreme side effects might be more mangable for those countries, even if those side effects are also problematic.
Nuclear power is devastating when there is an accident. And some nuclear waste takes millions of years to decay. There is no research on how to make it decay faster or recycle it. The cost of nuclear energy is very high upfront. Last but not least, nuclear power plants can become targets during wars. The look of the water in rivers used to clean radioactive waste, close to nuclear power, plants is shocking. I have seen it personally and engineers of the plant confirmed to me that there was no research on how to handle the waste. I understand your points about other energy sources being toxic as well. But it should be easier to manage. Radioactive waste is not. My conclusion is: we have to learn to consume less of what is not vital for us. Do we really need 1000s of TV channels? It is just an example.
@@SB-sh4oe The longer it takes for the waste to decay, the less harmful the radiation, furthermore, the waste is no more dangerous than the minerals that the fuel was made from. Deaths from oil drilling, coal mining kill in one day than all that Nuclear killed in a year.
@@jadoei13 Except that they are never used for hundreds of years, they are usually decomissioned after 40 years of use, the dangers of nuclear radiation are hyped up by the media anyway, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still thriving cities to this day.
@@Inaf1987 If you have reliable sources on the decay of radioactive waste, please share it with us. Deaths from drilling and mining should be prevented. Maybe what is necessary is not done and that is not acceptable. It is not possible to prevent accidents in nuclear plants 100%. They are bound to happen and they are devastating. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not destroyed by a nuclear power plant accident but by a nuclear bomb.
Instead of just taking this talking head at face value, what about considering the following: 1. One of the big things to plague Germany over the years is the lack of fossil fuels inside of German borders. Germany has had to import its energy during the entire modern era. 2. Germany has 3 nuclear power plants that are operational. It takes a certain supply and maintenance chain to keep a nuclear power plant safely operating. Get this supply chain in order and these plants can either continue running or only briefly shutdown as the supply and maintenance chain is ramped up. 3. Most of Germany's nuclear power plants were only recently shut down. You don't have to build new ones. You can work on turning existing ones back on in short order. This is more defeatist speak ignoring the existence of these power plants and claiming new ones have to be built. 4. In the long term there are much better options than light water nuclear reactors. Even with light water reactors, you can and should reprocess the fuel. Stopping this reprocessing has been a harmful political stunt committed by anti-nuclear activist politicians over the years. When you get into molten salt / thorium / LFTR reactors, you end up with a very inherently safe, compact, efficient, and cheap design where all of the fuel is burned. The problem with light water is by default only ~5% of the uranium fuel is burned. It is the other 95% that stays radioactive for a very long time as it slowly decays. Learn a little about this. There is a reason Earth is not super radioactive despite being composed of once highly radioactive stardust. Everything on Earth except for some materials such as U-235 rapidly decayed into a safe, stable state. U-235 on the other hand has been slowly decaying into other materials, which is why it is so rare and valuable as a material, but this is also why it is one of the few natural radioactive materials on Earth. The decay rates of the other radioactive isotopes is quick enough to make nuclear reasonable enough to manage in the long term. 4a. To re-emphasis, something like a LFTR (a molten salt thorium reactor) would be an excellent choice for future nuclear power plants for many reasons and it has all of the right things going for it. This was promoted by the same guy who invented the light water reactor. It was only shut down by politics, not technical capability, which is sad because we had the right answer and threw it away because others around him had a broken, backwater mindset. 4b. We are taking highly valuable 'spent' fuel rods and throwing them away instead of reprocessing them to use the other ~95% of the fuel in them. Because we don't use 95% of the fuel, they become a hazard for all time. Just crazy that we don't do the right thing with these 'spent' fuel rods. I think there is a lot that can be done besides nuclear and all options need to be properly considered to get the right mix of energy sources. Some extra non-nuclear things to also consider: 5. As we get into higher temperature superconductors (HTSC) and already transmit power long distance through HVDC (high voltage direct current) and superconducting power lines can be built as a coaxial pipeline with zero external EMF like what happens when we use coax cable (anybody who has taken the higher level electromagnetism physics course in college should understand this [and who Carl Fredrick Gauss and James Clark Maxwell are]). The term I use for this is HTSC HVDC power transmission. The thing with superconductors if you can get the problem of cooling them to an easy enough state of affairs and use economies of scale, which should help get this to an easy enough state of affairs, is maybe consider a "high temperature" (which is still quite cold) superconducting HVDC supergrid. The notion being you could do things like collect solar power in the Sahara desert and have these super power lines buried in the ground, going under waterways, and snaking through Europe in redundant loops to deliver the power. Actually consider all of the renewable sources in all of the places where they make the most sense to gather and use this supergrid to get the power to all of the major distribution hubs where conventional power transmission can take over to deliver the last mile. Major cities may even consider having smaller, shorter HTSC lines (possibly doing 3 phase AC instead of DC transmission) in order to get rid of large overhead lines, instead having a power pipeline in the ground to help distribute power to a city. 6. A big thing with renewable is storage of power. The world is just not doing enough of this and it can take many forms. So be creative and get this ramped up to maximize what renewable can do. 7. An interesting thing with carbon capture is there are processes such as the Sabatier Reaction where you can manufacture methane. As Germany looks for more methane, home grown from carbon capture projects could be an interesting solution to keeping the wheel going around. Maybe look at what your own Exytron company is doing and get their operations ramped up.
Safety was never a concern. Nuclear is among the safest form of energies. Anyone can ask their favorite search engine with "what is the safest form of energy" and find out. Also, nuclear fuel reprocessing exists and successfully recovers 96% of the mass of a spent fuel element. Germany banned reprocessing in 2002 which started the waste problem in the first place. Still, the total mass of the spent fuel in Germany according to BGE is just 20.000 tons. Compare that to the 3.2 million tons of the high-toxic chemical waste that is currently stored in Herfa-Neurode.
The result of closing nuclear plants is a major increase in coal-fired power plants and as a consequence, an increase of CO2 and mercury in the environment.
Nuclear plants might produce electricity CO2 free but they aren't green not cheap 😂. The uranium mining is very unhealthy. And the construction and transport of construction goods plus mining is very CO2 emitting. A nuclear power plant costs easily 10 billion dollars and over 10 years in time to be build. Not to mention the waste storage and demolition of existing plants already.
@@fjellyo3261 No form of energy production is completely clean. A well designed nuclear power plant can remain operational for decades producing carbon free energy.
She’s arguing nuclear energy isn’t green because it has hazardous waste, but solar panels containing lead and arsenic which will end up in landfills at the end of their lives count as green?
@@Robert-cu9bm they are now. Because there is nothing to recycle yet. Other then the odd failing pannel. Adoption only began 10 years ago. It will take another 20 for serious amounts worth recycling will become available. By that time it will become economicly viable and there will be regulation ensuring proper disposal. At least in the eu.
As a Czech, i wish we had something like 50% nuclear 40% renewable, 10% gas (its still irreplaceable in some industries). And some coal factories which would be not working, but left ready to be used in time of crisis. I hope small modular atomic reactors are the future. Maybe one day fusion energy, that would change everything.
Fusion is absolutely the future, but it's ETA is unknown. So having a diversified mix of fission and renewables(wind and solar, note: Not Natural Gas, which the pipes unavoidably leak into atmosphere) will have to do as a decent stopgap. Alas, wind and solar are not baseline and physically can't be, so fission is still necessary albeit not ideal.
I’m always amazed at how many Europeans speak English so well as a second language, Karen Pittel included. Lost in this discussion is that solar and wind installations built on a scale to meet the national needs of Germany will indeed have significant environmental impacts in terms of land use and wildlife hazards. Also not addressed in this piece is the fact that we don’t have to build old-fashioned centralized nuclear power plants any longer. There is a new wave of small pre-fabricated nuclear generators that can be operated in parallel. These small installations are much safer than older designs, and automatically limit the damage that can be done by an accident at one of the small reactors.
Renewables are only cheaper if you ignore the fact that they need a fossil backup. In France, one kWh of electricity costs 18 Cents, in Germany the price for new utility contracts is already at 50 Cents per kWh.
The video contains several informations that are NOT TRUE - The safety in both Czech nuclear power plants ,eets westers standards easily - How many shurdowns due to technology reliability were in Temelin in past 20 years? 1 or 2? NOT many. DW is a good channel and it is not worth to degrade your reputation with such statements.
Also the dependence on Russian fuel is a not true in future as new contracts with Westinghouse and Framatome for fuel are signed nowadays to prevent it. Lousy journalist work here...
A good mix is the solution. I have no idea why some in Europe are so dead set against nuclear power. Finland just figured out a way to safely store spent fuel rods. Europe doesn’t get tons of sun nor do they have lots of wind. I like the idea of renewables but in areas where is makes economic and environment sense. Forcing it only creates more pollution as making the products does have a cost. It also makes Europe even more dependent on other countries as they do have the resources or industry at the scale required. It boggles the mind when governments are listening to kids that sound the alarm of impending doom. Look at the current situation, people bought into the idea closing down everything and now they have limited options that will damage the economy of some.
They simply don't make financial sense. They should have been build 25 years ago and be running now. By the time these things are running in 25 years there are already so many cheaper options available nobody will be waiting for these things. That is the problem. We need solutions for the next 20 years. After that the transition to renewables is done and we don't need them anymore.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Maybe, but France is building 6 new plants I believe. People said the same thing 20 years ago. The idea of future renewables was what caused the problems because they were not ready yet and still aren't. I like renewables but like I said solar and wind only makes sense in a few places in Europe not everywhere. I believe Europe needs a good mix not policy based on wants. When certain technology matures maybe it will make more sense but what will they do until then? Now Germany is starting some coal plants back up which are the worst. I just think people are too easily sold on renewables without considering the issues with it. But hey, maybe the carbon removal industry will make advances to help.
@@rickjames18 they are thinking about building more. By the time the permits are ready good luck finding anyone willing to invest in them. It isn't about wanting anymore. It is all economics driven now. We need nuclear now to get us trough the transition that will take 20 years. The thing is those plants had to be started to be build 20 years ago to deliver energy now when we need it. In another 20 when the ones started now are ready to go online the transition is done and nobody will be willing to pay for it's overpriced electricity. The next 20 years are the issue. New nuclear just takes to long to jump into that gap. Germany just doesn't want to keep the ones the have going for the next 10 or 15 years to bridge the transition and is opting to fill that gap with some extra coal which will be turned off after the transition. In germany the nukes would be turned off in 20 years anyway, they where never going to build new ones. It is just a temporary solution, not a long term strategy. Would you be willing to pay 30 or 40 cents per kwh for energy from the grid 25 years from now? Ofcourse not. And so will nobody else. Instantly making them a non option. No customers means no revenue.
Nuclear certainly isn't a major part of a sustainable future. It can have a supporting and transitional role. But as a power source it has been disappointing, and that is unlikely to change. But where the alternatives are to shut down a coal power plant and a nuclear plant, shut down the former.
@@Megalomaniakaal There is no reason to believe that fusion, when or if it comes, will be either cheap or convenient. There can be niches where fusion can be most cost effective, like space probes to the outer Solar System.
Short term all I hear is: "Let's turn off all the nuclear plants and start 20+ old brown coal plants instead". That's what happened already. You can have 6 plants running for 5 more years to ease up the situation quite a bit. It's totally doable. Also it's funny how coal is never mentioned. You burn so much brown cloal it's not even funny.
The fact that nuclear has been added to the green taxonomy is the result of extensive scientific research. See: "Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)".
RTE (French electric grid authority) has calculated we need at least 25% nuclear for a good ecological transition, ideally 35%. Keep in mind you also have to electrify most energy uses (industry, transport...). Unless blessed with lots of hydro, 100% renewable is hard to do and prolongs fossil fuel dependence. People often say solar/wind is cheaper but they don’t count the need for flexibilities (for when there’s no sun, no wind), those costs increase the more solar/wind in the mix. In practice, Germany is becoming increasingly dependent on its neighbours’ nuclear plants. It can work like this I suppose, but then playing anti-nuclear choir boys is naive or hypocritical. You’ll be using nuke power one way or the other.
greatest cost of solar and wind is storage and the low efficiency and instead of opening one coal or uranium mine you are opening a hundred different mines for hundred diff things
@@siddeshnaik2296 Yeah, people keep touting solar/wind as cheaper based on numbers that ignore whole system costs, so annoying. RTE is considering a majority renewables scenario, but it still needs some 35% nuclear to minimise energy storage. Current tech batteries don’t cut it at this scale, and there’s no more time to wait for dreamtech. They want to do hydrogen storage, which means electrolysis plants, big underground gas storages, hydrogen gas powerplants, cool stuff but costs add up. Nuclear helps keep it to a reasonable amount.
Yes transition. A transition that will take 25 years to complete. After which nuclear no longer is needed. And how long does it take to build these nukes? 20 years probably more.. A bit late to the party
@@siddeshnaik2296 both storage and solar are technologies. Efficienty doubles every 10 years and production capacity grows exponentially while price keeps decreasing as production capacity grows. There is simply nothing that can compete economicly in the same ballpark. There simply will be nobody willing to pay 30 cent kwh for power from the grid 20 years from now. It just makes no sense.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Lol here we go, here is yet another one believing solar/wind is cheaper. RTE did the math, 100% renewable is more expensive than 35% nuclear, more polluting, more vulnerable to energy crises like we see right now with Russia cutting fossil gas. Technological progress and economies of scale have been taken into account.
7:00 She says it takes 10-15 years to build a new one, but how much of that is regulatory delay? 90%? And she says nuclear "costs a lot", but wait til they get the bill from Russia
Nuclear is the technology that can save the world. It is the safest, greenest, and most powerful source of power we have devised. Renewables will never be able to replace fossil fuels. We need nuclear in every country.
Nuclear power is the best clean energy, but of course it has risks if the facility gets destroyed somehow. But as long as very strict safety protocols are not ignored, they should be fine.
Again west east problem, germany see us czech republic still as east. For example never heard that our nuclear pp never reached "western standards", idk why are they still using this cold war term. I heard that our nuclear pp are one of the safest and have higher standards in every way
The lady said people are opposed to nuclear energy due to safety and what to do with the fuel rods. World Nuclear Association says this about safety: "The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided." I have read that fuel rods can be recycled because there is still a lot of energy in them. I bet a lot of Germans are having second thoughts about the nuclear thing.
It is never a people thing the lobbies fund the people just to act on streets some naive people also go along and the paid main stream media just focuses on those protests and shows it as a big movement. People in democracy believe that they have power but reality is different
I understand the worlds need for energy . I also understand the need to save our planet . Nuclear , at the moment , is the only viable form of energy that even comes close to meeting both needs .
@@Chris-ie9os The safety measures that are implemented to run these reactors adds an initial cost which is reduced as the plant has run for a number of years . Those mathematical numbers you are talking about are an initial startup . Also , if more nuclear plans start to be built those costs will be reduced significantly.
@@hotchihuahua1546 Nuclear power has a negative learning curve. We have 60 years of operating experience that has shown us what can go wrong. Should we disregard that experience and not implement design changes for the sake of making reactors cheaper and less safe?
The woman says wind and solar is green compared to nuclear? They are not, huge amounts of toxic chemicals are used in the manufacture of a processing raw materials for solar panels and wind turbines. All energy sources are somewhat dangerous to the environment, we just need to learn to balance the impact and nuclear at least does not have any surface impact.
@GN28 ? Other countries have uranium too. U dont need to buy it from russia. Yeah a Tsunami in Prag. LETS GOOOOOO. What are ur arguments. Then just dont build it near the shore.
@GN28 You can get Uranium from other parts of the world and Europe did have a big nuclear accident in the 1960 in a ramshackle Soviet reactor. Meanwhile France has been running on nuclear for quite a while without accidents
@@Tantalos79 So are Canada and Australia. I am also sure that Europe could get involved in certain regions of the Congo to build mines etc in an energy partnership with them. But do you have a better idea
@GN28 Europe's uranium sourcing is much more diversified and much less Russia-dependent than gas or even coal... As for Fukushima, it has been made habitable again already. It's not the dramatic hundreds-of-years wasteland anti-nuclear propagandists make it out to be. The same cannot be said of a fossil-fuel heavy economy, however... You're right about one thing: There have been examples of nuclear disasters, and their consequences have systematically been less negative than a single year of business-as-usual coal plants (which, reminder, kill tens of thousands of europeans every year).
Germany should stop backtracking on climate the risk to health from nuclear power is statistically much lower than the respiratory risks of coal or gas, not to mention the co2 output…
If Germany was importing uranium rather than gas from Russia, there would be 1 000 000 times less stuff to import since uranium is that much more power dense. Also you can import it from us here in Canada or from Aussies too. Also if you got in to mining thorium from coal ash piles, you could have more domestic energy from the thorium than you got from the coal in the first place. Domestic supply is always a good idea
Theres plenty of uranium throughout europe. And the French are perfectly capable of making fuel rods out of it. In truth even this doesn't necessarily have to be imported at all.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716, 10 - 12 years, if we get started now. Until then, let the Wind & Solar technologies continue to advance, but good old reliable fossil fuels will be the best way to go for sure, especially until some miraculous new tech comes into being.
@@jimmerkerlin5005 that is not answering the question. Even when started now with the peocedures the first ones will take at least 15 to 20 years before they could start running. Before a meaningful amount of them would be ready would take at least 25 to 30 years. Who is going to pay 30 or 40 cents for electricity then lol. It is just a silly idea.
Well solar and wind shouldn't be on that list either, then. Does she not realize how much toxic byproducts are created in the mining and or construction of "renewables".
How is Germany going to switch from oil based fuels to electric vehicles then? With the rise of EV's and electric heating you will need 2-3 times more electricity! Also the French have 70% of their electricity produced by nuclear fission plants and their electricity is HALF the price of German electricity! They have an energy cost & security competitive advantage over Germany!
Why is it never mention the TCO when we look at nuclear vs other fuels. We should not be building anymore hydrocarbon based power plants, the number of deaths they have cause is insane vs nuclear options. And we are going to be paying for that clean up pretty soon, if your not already..
Right now, our Uranium fed nuclear reactors use less than 5% of the actual fuel in the fuel rods, but thanks to laws passed by lobbyist action to protect the market for fuel rods in the 1970’s, re-processing those spent rods to remove the actual fission byproducts and retaining the remaining 95% of the fuel for re-use, is illegal.
The same cooling towers are used in both coal-firing and nuclear power plants. For some unknown reason, these cooling towers are used to depict nuclear power plants in news media. It is better to show the Containment Building.
Compared to the waste generated by the use of coal plants, nuclear waste is tiny and doesn't put anywhere near as much pollution into the atmosphere as coal does. Germany's reluctance maybe has another explanation other than the resultant pollution? Perhaps investment in renewables? If that were the case you don't have to do one or the other but can do all things in parallel to see what works as a hedge bet for future energy needs
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Well if you know you wouldn't, then you wouldn't spend the money obviously. But can we say for certain they definately wouldn't? If so, how come?
@@AbAb-th5qe who would be willing to pay 30 cents or more per kwh for electricity 20 or 30 years from now? Would you? Ofcourse not. Nobody would. We are moving to technology based solutions for our energy needs now. Technology only becomes more efficient every year and keeps dropping in price as production capacity keeps growing exponentially. 25 years from now solar panels deliver 4 times as much energy per panel then they do now at 10% of the price they cost now. What person or business would not be making nearly all their own electricity at that point. Same goes for storage. It cost 10 times as much 10 years ago then it does now. And it will be 10% of what it costs now 10 years from now. Everyone will have a samsung or panasonic storage device hanging in their closet People and especially businesses like retailers with masive roofs will all be selling their excess energy into the grid. Add to that new generation turbines feeding the grid and some other technologies here and there that will be commercialised 20 years from now. All of that is cheaper then nuclear. Even if you build in massive over capacity and store it as hydrogen as a backup. Technology moves fast. And only becomes cheaper over time. Economics is now taking over renewable adoption. Adoption saves money and the more money it's saving every year. The more people are going to be lining up to buy their own. It really can only go one direction from now on.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 That's a nice concept. How can you be so certain about the future cost of solar though? And what about when the sun doesn't shine? Do you think battery tech will also be better? Will nuclear tech not also improve in that timespan?
@@AbAb-th5qe ofcource. It is silicon technology. It doubles in efficienty every 10 years and keeps going down in price as production capacity grows exponentially. As it has been doing for decades. Just like EVERY single other technology in history and still keeps doing now. It is easilly projected because it always follows the exact same technological s-curve. If that was to stop now suddenly for whatever reason we have bigger issues to deal with then climate change. A laptop used to weigh a ton and cost a fortune in the 90s and could only do spreadsheets and 3 color games for 90 minutes in the 90s. Now we put chips that are just as powerful in 25 dollar toasters produced by the millions every year. And you can start your car multiple times with a powerpack the size of a snickers bar. This is not stopping. Especially not with the amount of money being poured into r&d in these fields. Nuclear is a resource based solution with a constant need for resources and with high maintenance and labour cost and is reliable on expanding infrastructure. Which also needs maintenance and management. All things that only become more expensive over time. Especially when you need to scale up the amount of specialists in these fields to do it safely. The gap will only keep increasing as time goes by.
Look, wind turbines and solar are so dependent on the weather that one day you get too much and the next there's not enough. That's putting too much stress on the whole grid. You just need the majority of your power plants to be consistent in any weather and any season. German wind energy is messing up our grid already.
Start to built will take 15 years? Really? Why it takes much less for China, South Korea, Japan? Is because those countries are so superior to German technology?
Nuclear energy can be replaced by fossil or fusion power plants, Germany choosed fossil fuel.German electricity is one of the most polluting in the EU.
@ 3:00 Too bad DW doesn't host an expert in the nuclear power field when asking questions. Though, listening to the political class's perspective is telling. .... When Molten Salt Reactors become available, the useful but spent nuclear fuel stored at existing reactors will become fuel feed stock; quite useful and not to be wasted. Existing spent nuclear fuel at todays reactors is quite useful but not in a configuration to be effectively used in todays reactors. The spent fuel stored at today's power plants could be used to power thermal plants for city heating. Instead it sits spending itself down a little each year, being no use to anyone.
Molten salt was proven to have a short life for the plant. What you would end up with is abandoned power plants that never paid for themselves. Just saying nuclear still is 3 times the price not including maintenance or decommission. Just like everything else some stuff on paper looks good until you do the math. Just like safety standards are eazy to say in compliance if you change your safety standards, and environmental dumping laws. Nothing will come with out costs question is who is paying.
@@adrianquaife9531 its a materials problem that is the focus of all development teams. Molten salt is corrosive to many materials. So even the material that is the 'salt' is an important part of the puzzle'. The reactors are small. I'm sure that recycling the reactors will be in the plan.
Germans are so silly.....they Ask what do you do with spent fuel rods?..... What do you do with the spent blades from wind turbines ? What do you do with the spent solar panels? ...... Nuclear power is not cheap.....Probably that's why France has a price that is 3 times cheaper than in Germany.....
The problem is, if you start building nuclear, you will not need renewables anymore. Renewables become a big business. They are also a great business for gas companies. If you don't have renewable hydro, only wind and solar, you need gas to start up quickly when the weather does not cooperate which is very often. Nuclear is one of the biggest threat of the gas industry.
@@solutionrebellion Hey, same team. I'm a big fan of small, safe and constantly improving nuclear over anything else. However, I live in FL, USA with plenty of sunshine. Robust offgrid solar is the way for my property. I'm very lucky.
@@emigrator08 Lucky you. :) I live in NL 50km (30 miles) from Amsterdam. If you have sun reliably the whole year long and can afford a battery pack for home, go ahead, it's a great solution there. But in North-Europe in the winter I don't see the sun for several days or sometimes for more than a week. Daylight is also less than 10 hours, so solar panels provide about 10% compared to summer. As we don't even have hills, we cannot do hydro. Off and onshore wind is growing, but we need much more and don't even have enough land for 100% renewable. Small country large population. Here the solution must include large scale nuclear, but our neighbor Germany tries to fight it any time they can. The best low carb technology should be decided by engineers/scientist by region and not forced by politicians and "green" activists.
@@solutionrebellion Still a very cool place! I've been to your beautiful home. I even rented a bike and rode with the commuters like a school of fish! Such a great place. Our home isn't perfect though, humidity, tstorms in summer, bugs, and everything else that comes with subtropical.
Nuclear is a cheap, cleaner solution than what's out there. If we put the money into nuclear that we have into solar and wind, things like recycling waste would already be here.
Educate yourself. Old style Cold Water Reactors using solid fuel. New Molten Salt Reactors using liquid fuel. MSR vs CWR is a radical improvement. This woman is not updated.
I don't think that there is any MSR that can be build now and I don't think tat we have time to wait another one or two decades if we really want to go the nuclear way.
@@MrToradragon .. Well, Thorcon has a deal with Indonesia. They swap the entire reactor every 7 years, and limit the core temperature to 600 C. Doing that, the materials are approved (Hasteloy N). The reactor is a burner, using Uranium & Plutonium Mix. Check THORCON!
@@oddvardmyrnes9040 I am quite hesitant to trust those projects until they are build and in operation. I have heard about too many already and none of them became reality.
@@MrToradragon .. The development is storming forward. The future is nuclear, no doubt about that. In the transition time, deal with the Russians. They are NOT our enemy. You will soon see Oliver Stone's new Documentary on nuclear power. Russia is immensely important for Europe.
@@oddvardmyrnes9040 O follow the development in nuclear technology for some 15 years, there were numerous designs, numerous projects and numerous proposals, all stormed forward until they were not. So I will wait until they have at leas one operational reactor. I think they god chance and Europe was too patient all that time. They were given 30 years and what we got in return?
I'm so delighted that politicians, not engineers, are in charge of the almighty "Taxonomy." I trust politicians with my feelings. Engineers only know numbers and such. I was never good at math but very good at my feelings. When I hear the word "safety" given as a reason against nuclear power, I simply don't want to hear more about it.
If you don't need it, sure do something else. If you have other better options again sure... do something else... But dismantling nuclear power plants for Russian gas was not the better option. And turning to Coal (the worst coal I might add) to get energy is absolutely not the better option... In that respect Germany failed. Sweden is about to fail (although not dependent on Russian gas) also by shutting down more nuclear power plants... Our democracy and civilisation depends on steady energy...
I'm super pro nuclear, but I don't agree entirely about building more in the past. Only modern reactors we can build now are truly safe. We should build lots now, not last decade or the decade before.
If all the European countries got together and designed a standardised modular reactor that could be mass produced surely it would be a good idea to go nuclear. As for disposal doesn’t Finland have a big underground dump they’re working on?
Going green with renewable energy is more expensive and evasive on the environment even though the WEF would try to to tell you otherwise to push their agenda for world domination forward.
Why does europe have such inconsistant energy policies......where is the unity?. ACTIONS speak louder than words. SHAME GERMANY living in it own bubble and definitatly has proved it is not a leader of the European union let alone a trusted partner showing solidarity.
No , there smaller nuclear power plant these days, it doesn't have to be the already existing huge types, modern technology had already moved and much better in nuclear tech.
True, but it is more than abundant for generations to come. And when talking nuclear, fusion is ultimately the goal. And hydrogen is rather abundant as well, though the more exotic variants of it aren't as much - well, they are but separating it from the more typical type of water is quite an ordeal.
Germany is a netexporter of electricity to france. Oh, and a major reason why germany is currently in an electricity crunch are the problems of french power plants.
@@glinrenkrenko9613 It doesn't matter. What matters is that Germany has to rely more and more on stable, continuous sources capable of running 24/7 like nuclear, coal and gas. In a nutshell, if there's no wind blowing you have to compensate from abroad. Germany has more than enough of installed power but in renewables.
Most European states just operate the plants, they don't have the rights to produce the fuel nor do they design or build entirely their own reactors. They license either a part or the whole design from either the French, British, Americans or the Russians. Sweden I believe might be an exception, though don't quote me on that.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Shame on Germany. Their anti-nuclear stance ended up prolonging the use of coal. Their anti-nuclear stance caused them to buy fossil fuel from Russia and funded Russia's warmachine. Sure they talk a lot about how renewable is better, but they still ended up a friend of fossil fuel interests and Russia. Shame on Germany.
Shame on math. If you want to reduce fuel burn quickly and you can do it with wind ~5x faster for 1/5th the cost would that not be the route you take because numbers?
China burns more coal than Europe,India and North America COMBINED!
How is Europe reducing coal saving the planet ?
@@Chris-ie9os Interesting, may I ask where you sourced those data?
Don't worry Germany, nuclear bombs going off is much better for the human race than long term, safe storage of spent fuel rods 🤣 Thanks for funding Putin.
How is being dependent on russian nuclear fuel better than being dependent on fossil fuel?
We still pay for the russian war machine but additionally they would also be able to blackmail us with bombing the reactors..?
Not a great deal.
Abandoning nuclear power is the height of stupidity.
"But" Russia "is a friend. Gollum, Gollum." What possibly could go wrong thought agent Angela.
@@vladimirseven777 Angela was from Eastern Germany. That by itself speaks volumes.
@@nbgoodiscore1303 Schroeder was from western and look at him now. Being corrupt politician not depends where you from absolutely, only accelerates some weaknesses. Or look at Trump who believes to putin more than to own intelligence.
@@vladimirseven777 in fairness, would you believe us intelligence after their many lies that get middle eastern kids killed?
Phasing out old designs that have proven to be problematic is not an unreasonable thing to do, rather issue was that people that didn't(and still don't) know any better decided that all nuclear is bad. Or take Pittels statement here that nuclear isn't green. Sure, fission isn't completely clean, though it can be made cleaner by using designs that can use refurbished rods that in turn helps minimize waste. But fusion is absolutely clean, indeed cleaner than solar.
"The nuclear power plant has never met western safety standards" - this is BS. The State Office for Nuclear Safety is a respected institution and the plants & their ops are reviewed by IAEA. Although there were some unscheduled shutdowns, it's common for all plants. The current French shutdowns seem to be much worse for instance. Nuclear power is statistically the safest and least environmentally intense per energy unit. Btw. I'm also a big fan of renewables. :)
There is number of inaccuracies in this video, as mentioned by Martin above but also, the plans of building new reactors (not new nuclear power plants).
slovakia is also starting new reactors now, ,
So glad the world is coming back to nuclear. Never should've been dumped for fossil fuels. This, and solar, should be our future.
There is also wind and geothermal that can be used.
wind and battery storage too.
Depends, better get them thorium reactors and not uranium reactors or the amount of nuclear weapons will rise to 25000... just enough to blow up 3 earthsized planets.
@@edc1569 battery cause polution
Unless they will use old soviet plants and replace one dependency to another.
We wouldn't even _be_ in this ridiculous situation of having to chose between funding Russia or the Saudis if we had built enough nuclear power plants in the last 40 years and moved to solar/wind/hydro at leisure instead of this mad scramble now to try to avert the absolute worst of climate change.
Yerp
LOL yeah even Saudi Arabia is looking to start nuclear plants pretty soon.
That's how humans work.
Maybe the next species after we are gone is going to do things better.
I'll tell you a secret Russia is the only country in the world that has the technology of recycling and reuse of nuclear waste.Where will you put the waste? you will pay to Russia (rubles) to have a light on in my room.Thank you, fool!
Too much money to be made in fossil fuels
As Austrian, I find it shameful how scientific data is being ignored when Austria and Germany in particular try to bad-mouth nuclear energy. I'd rather want an intact planet with the occasional nuclear breach instead of a post-apocalyptic wasteland with great radiation levels
France has 80% his eletric energy from nuclear...OK???
The coming Molten Salt Reactors will use today's facilities spent fuel as fuel feedstock. Sadly, security concern's, or some other concern, never allowed today's facilities spent fuel to be used to power city thermal plants. The spent fuel kept in cooling pools has the capacity to throw off lots of thermal energy. ie: Fukushima Daiichi is an example of the amount of energy that is being thrown off into spent fuel pools; all while configured to cool-off.
@@lourencomarques219 but France needs to keep meddling in their old Sahel colonies to keep its uranium sources secured... 😉
But it will be big target for isis
Not only that. Both countries are nagging their neighbours about existing and/or planned nuclear reactors. Pathetic. They can burn coal instaed, its green:))
4:00 Safety: Germany is replacing one of the safest technology (nuclear) with brown coal (which is the worst of the worst not just for the climate but for the health of their own citizens) and Russian gas.
4:15 Storage: first keep in under water for 2-5 years, then put in a steel container surrounded by reinforced concrete and let it be. The great thing about nuclear waste that it is getting less harmful as time passing by. You can also re-process it like they do it in France and then you really have only the fission products left what you can dig deep under ground. 4th gen reactors like Moltex Energy's Wasteburner (SSR-W) will be able to close the fuel cycle.
4:25 renewable become so much cheaper. Yes and no. Germany about uses 60 GW of electricity. They built more than 120 GW capacity of wind and solar but still they are burning gas and coal as there is no tomorrow. Their KWh electricity generation emits 4-5 times more CO2 than France. With the weather dependent energy sources you need to overbuild the capacity multiple times. If electricity from solar is half the price than from nuclear but you need 5 times more solar capacity and batteries and complex grid and more interconnection, the total cost will be way higher than if you just built nuclear.
It is estimated that by 2025, the cost of "Energiewende" will reach 520 billion euros. That's about the same as 18 Hinkley Point C. (maybe more due to economy of scale)
That could provide Germany 58GW carbon free electricity 24/7/365. No windmills, no farmlands turned to giant solar fields, no air pollution due to burning coal, no Russian gas no deforestation in the name of biomassa. And those plants can run for 60 to 80 years, while solar and wind needs to be replaced about every 25 years. (offshore wind is about 15 years).
5:55 Nuclear is greener than solar and wind. Sun and wind are renewable, but solar panels and wind turbine blades are not. They produce significantly larger amount of waste, take significantly more space, need significantly more raw materials to mine and I did not even mention all the extra batteries, grid connections etc to try to keep it running. And you still need fossil fuels for the winter, when the sun hardly shines.
6:50 Nuclear power plant took 4-5 years to build in the past. China can still do this, Korea can do in 7-8 years. France struggles, because they did not build for decades, and they did not had the experience anymore plus politicians and the public is blocking it wherever they can. SMRs like BWRX-300 or Nuscale's reactor will take 2-3 years to build.
6:58 Building the reactors are not cheap, but running them is. Once it has been built, it is very cheap.
If you want to decarbonise, the steps are the following:
1, close all coal plants
2, close all biomassa power plants
3, close all natural gas power plants
4, remove all solar panels (they lifecycle emission per KWh is 4 times as much as hydro, wind or nuclear)
5, if you have still reliable surplus energy you can start closing nuclear power plants.
The science on this is simple. If you cannot have the majority of your electricity from hydro like Norway, Austria or Iceland your second best bet is nuclear.
DW, please....
It seems that Germany lacks self-awareness.
Dw is a German outlet
I hope sir thad your comment get's pinned!
German channel…
The funniest thing is that the woman towards the end who said "safety" was even a concern for nuclear. Germany? Do you only know about nuclear technology from the Cold War?! Modern nuclear reactors are INCAPABLE of fallout and meltdown in general. It is a physical impossibility for modern nuclear technology and as far as storage is concerned... That's how I know she's just being pedantic. How mind numbingly dumb.
Don't shut down the reactors! That would be a good start.
Start calling coal "controversial fuel" instead of uranium.
Why do you invite people like this? She is clearly just repeating the talking points, chilling for the anti-nuclear agenda. Invite people that actually know about benefits of nuclear for a change
western countries lost their nuclear technologies so they do not have competent people in this field. If you wanna learn about contemporary nuclear technologies you have to learn Russian first
@@andreycham4797 😂😂😂😂 funny
@@andreycham4797 Tell that to France, the U.K., Japan and the U.S.A.
Who is going to buy the overpriced electricity from these things in 2040 or 2050?
By the time any new ones are finished they will never be started because nobody will be willing to buy from them.
The time to build new nuclear plants was 25 years ago so they where running today.
Today they window has closed. All they will be are big money pits.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 sorry, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense at all.
I agree with nuclear energy, i mean the nuclear energy WAS the original purpose why it was invented, not weaponized it...
Well, formally energy was a byproduct of nuclear weapon development.
Yet it doesn't matter now.
We can use clean, CO2 free, independent from Russia energy source .
If only in the 1950's there had been more information made available about the idea of Molten Salt Reactors. The idea and research had almost been forgotten/lost when revived. The primary reason for dropping it may have been that harvesting plutonium for production of nuclear weapons is more difficult with a MSR than with the Pressurized Water Reactor design.
@@rustyyb8450 Not really, MSR's are still breeders and can be designed so they'd produce plenty for weapons programs, just up to the specific design. Rather the by that point already fairly decently established nuclear industry didn't want to go through the costs of investments needed to shift to yet newer designs, while the investments of the older designs hadn't even been recouped yet. So they lobbied it into virtual non-existence.
What do you expect from people in fuuture?? same mystakes...
@@Megalomaniakaal The intent of an MSR is to add fuel when needed and eventually cleanse the salty mix. Not a possible operational scheme in a traditional reactor where renewing the fuel requires removing a plutonium rich fuel assembly.
1:20 - Temelín was finished in 2002, it's not that old, some people say that it's one of the most modern nuclear power plants in Europe, that about safety standards is not true, it has the best safety features, Czechoslovakia wanted similar reactors as in west, it's more like eastern block copy of western reactors
Temelín had plenty of issues with turbine ant it wore some equipment down, I have heard that even significantly, due to frequent shutdowns in early 2000's.
Dukovany do not have containment buildings for reactors, so that could be the reason why they do not fit current standards.
EDIT: I have as well heard that Czechoslovakia had copied some regulations from the West )USA precisely) and that the projects were modified to fit those standards.
Yeap, no true. Temelin had a lot of shutdowns and realibity problems, but mostly in non radioctive part of plant... So safety is great.
@@MrToradragon turbine is not a part of reactor but generator. This kind of issue can happen at any thermal power plant.
finally someone is questioning the madness of the german energiewende.
While I understand why nuclear power is "controversial" as there is a ton of misinformation out there and the stereotypes about it hurt it tremendously. I've never understood why technologies like batteries and even solar panels seem to get this complete pass with the hazardous chemicals used in their production (not to mention their disposal). Those hazardous chemicals NEVER decay and are an absolute nightmare in regards to the environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "anti" any technology that helps reduce climate change, but we need more nuclear power NOW there is just no other way around it. The worlds energy demands are far too great, and renewables just currently aren't up to the task of handling it all.
I suppose nuclear power is always going to be problematic if the risk of meltdowns isn't zero. Use them for long enough, say a couple hundred years, and meltdowns will happen from time to time. That might not matter so much if we use them for another decade or two, and neither does it matter as much on a global scale but for individual countries it can be devestating to loose entire regions. Using sources that have less extreme side effects might be more mangable for those countries, even if those side effects are also problematic.
Nuclear power is devastating when there is an accident. And some nuclear waste takes millions of years to decay. There is no research on how to make it decay faster or recycle it. The cost of nuclear energy is very high upfront. Last but not least, nuclear power plants can become targets during wars.
The look of the water in rivers used to clean radioactive waste, close to nuclear power, plants is shocking. I have seen it personally and engineers of the plant confirmed to me that there was no research on how to handle the waste.
I understand your points about other energy sources being toxic as well. But it should be easier to manage. Radioactive waste is not.
My conclusion is: we have to learn to consume less of what is not vital for us. Do we really need 1000s of TV channels? It is just an example.
@@SB-sh4oe
The longer it takes for the waste to decay, the less harmful the radiation, furthermore, the waste is no more dangerous than the minerals that the fuel was made from.
Deaths from oil drilling, coal mining kill in one day than all that Nuclear killed in a year.
@@jadoei13
Except that they are never used for hundreds of years, they are usually decomissioned after 40 years of use, the dangers of nuclear radiation are hyped up by the media anyway, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still thriving cities to this day.
@@Inaf1987 If you have reliable sources on the decay of radioactive waste, please share it with us.
Deaths from drilling and mining should be prevented. Maybe what is necessary is not done and that is not acceptable.
It is not possible to prevent accidents in nuclear plants 100%. They are bound to happen and they are devastating.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not destroyed by a nuclear power plant accident but by a nuclear bomb.
Instead of just taking this talking head at face value, what about considering the following:
1. One of the big things to plague Germany over the years is the lack of fossil fuels inside of German borders. Germany has had to import its energy during the entire modern era.
2. Germany has 3 nuclear power plants that are operational. It takes a certain supply and maintenance chain to keep a nuclear power plant safely operating. Get this supply chain in order and these plants can either continue running or only briefly shutdown as the supply and maintenance chain is ramped up.
3. Most of Germany's nuclear power plants were only recently shut down. You don't have to build new ones. You can work on turning existing ones back on in short order. This is more defeatist speak ignoring the existence of these power plants and claiming new ones have to be built.
4. In the long term there are much better options than light water nuclear reactors. Even with light water reactors, you can and should reprocess the fuel. Stopping this reprocessing has been a harmful political stunt committed by anti-nuclear activist politicians over the years. When you get into molten salt / thorium / LFTR reactors, you end up with a very inherently safe, compact, efficient, and cheap design where all of the fuel is burned. The problem with light water is by default only ~5% of the uranium fuel is burned. It is the other 95% that stays radioactive for a very long time as it slowly decays. Learn a little about this. There is a reason Earth is not super radioactive despite being composed of once highly radioactive stardust. Everything on Earth except for some materials such as U-235 rapidly decayed into a safe, stable state. U-235 on the other hand has been slowly decaying into other materials, which is why it is so rare and valuable as a material, but this is also why it is one of the few natural radioactive materials on Earth. The decay rates of the other radioactive isotopes is quick enough to make nuclear reasonable enough to manage in the long term.
4a. To re-emphasis, something like a LFTR (a molten salt thorium reactor) would be an excellent choice for future nuclear power plants for many reasons and it has all of the right things going for it. This was promoted by the same guy who invented the light water reactor. It was only shut down by politics, not technical capability, which is sad because we had the right answer and threw it away because others around him had a broken, backwater mindset.
4b. We are taking highly valuable 'spent' fuel rods and throwing them away instead of reprocessing them to use the other ~95% of the fuel in them. Because we don't use 95% of the fuel, they become a hazard for all time. Just crazy that we don't do the right thing with these 'spent' fuel rods.
I think there is a lot that can be done besides nuclear and all options need to be properly considered to get the right mix of energy sources. Some extra non-nuclear things to also consider:
5. As we get into higher temperature superconductors (HTSC) and already transmit power long distance through HVDC (high voltage direct current) and superconducting power lines can be built as a coaxial pipeline with zero external EMF like what happens when we use coax cable (anybody who has taken the higher level electromagnetism physics course in college should understand this [and who Carl Fredrick Gauss and James Clark Maxwell are]). The term I use for this is HTSC HVDC power transmission. The thing with superconductors if you can get the problem of cooling them to an easy enough state of affairs and use economies of scale, which should help get this to an easy enough state of affairs, is maybe consider a "high temperature" (which is still quite cold) superconducting HVDC supergrid. The notion being you could do things like collect solar power in the Sahara desert and have these super power lines buried in the ground, going under waterways, and snaking through Europe in redundant loops to deliver the power. Actually consider all of the renewable sources in all of the places where they make the most sense to gather and use this supergrid to get the power to all of the major distribution hubs where conventional power transmission can take over to deliver the last mile. Major cities may even consider having smaller, shorter HTSC lines (possibly doing 3 phase AC instead of DC transmission) in order to get rid of large overhead lines, instead having a power pipeline in the ground to help distribute power to a city.
6. A big thing with renewable is storage of power. The world is just not doing enough of this and it can take many forms. So be creative and get this ramped up to maximize what renewable can do.
7. An interesting thing with carbon capture is there are processes such as the Sabatier Reaction where you can manufacture methane. As Germany looks for more methane, home grown from carbon capture projects could be an interesting solution to keeping the wheel going around. Maybe look at what your own Exytron company is doing and get their operations ramped up.
Safety was never a concern. Nuclear is among the safest form of energies. Anyone can ask their favorite search engine with "what is the safest form of energy" and find out.
Also, nuclear fuel reprocessing exists and successfully recovers 96% of the mass of a spent fuel element. Germany banned reprocessing in 2002 which started the waste problem in the first place.
Still, the total mass of the spent fuel in Germany according to BGE is just 20.000 tons. Compare that to the 3.2 million tons of the high-toxic chemical waste that is currently stored in Herfa-Neurode.
The result of closing nuclear plants is a major increase in coal-fired power plants and as a consequence, an increase of CO2 and mercury in the environment.
Nuclear plants might produce electricity CO2 free but they aren't green not cheap 😂. The uranium mining is very unhealthy. And the construction and transport of construction goods plus mining is very CO2 emitting. A nuclear power plant costs easily 10 billion dollars and over 10 years in time to be build. Not to mention the waste storage and demolition of existing plants already.
@@fjellyo3261 No form of energy production is completely clean. A well designed nuclear power plant can remain operational for decades producing carbon free energy.
@@fjellyo3261 new technologies in nuclear are coming such as mini plants etc. It is a way to go
@@fjellyo3261
Tell the French their electricity isn't cheap
@@Robert-cu9bm it's highly subsidized by the state. Also a lot of the plants are currently shut down for inspection.
She’s arguing nuclear energy isn’t green because it has hazardous waste, but solar panels containing lead and arsenic which will end up in landfills at the end of their lives count as green?
Solar panels are just silicon. And they are near 100% cheaply recyclable.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716
They're not cheaply recycled, they take the aluminium and throw the rest.
@@Robert-cu9bm they are now. Because there is nothing to recycle yet. Other then the odd failing pannel. Adoption only began 10 years ago. It will take another 20 for serious amounts worth recycling will become available. By that time it will become economicly viable and there will be regulation ensuring proper disposal.
At least in the eu.
What about leaking natural gas pipes, is that green? Last I checked it's a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
As a Czech, i wish we had something like 50% nuclear 40% renewable, 10% gas (its still irreplaceable in some industries). And some coal factories which would be not working, but left ready to be used in time of crisis. I hope small modular atomic reactors are the future. Maybe one day fusion energy, that would change everything.
Well done Czech Republic. Carry on.
Nuclear is absolutely the future
agreed..with new techs it's the middle step needed before we reach fusion
Fusion is absolutely the future, but it's ETA is unknown. So having a diversified mix of fission and renewables(wind and solar, note: Not Natural Gas, which the pipes unavoidably leak into atmosphere) will have to do as a decent stopgap. Alas, wind and solar are not baseline and physically can't be, so fission is still necessary albeit not ideal.
Germany made a huge mistake, when it started abandoning some of it's power plants
I’m always amazed at how many Europeans speak English so well as a second language, Karen Pittel included. Lost in this discussion is that solar and wind installations built on a scale to meet the national needs of Germany will indeed have significant environmental impacts in terms of land use and wildlife hazards. Also not addressed in this piece is the fact that we don’t have to build old-fashioned centralized nuclear power plants any longer. There is a new wave of small pre-fabricated nuclear generators that can be operated in parallel. These small installations are much safer than older designs, and automatically limit the damage that can be done by an accident at one of the small reactors.
if im not mistaken its a main subject in most European schools
She is good. Most Germans doesn’t speak English well, at least if you compare them to Danes, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians
It's because of American rap
Bow wow wow
Yippy yo Yippy yay
Snoop doggy Doggs in da mvfkinn
HOWWWSSSEEEE
Exactly!
The university I attended had its own tiny nuclear power plant, right on university ground.
I was an English teacher in Europe. Only central and northern Europeans speak English well.
Renewables are only cheaper if you ignore the fact that they need a fossil backup.
In France, one kWh of electricity costs 18 Cents, in Germany the price for new utility contracts is already at 50 Cents per kWh.
They are correct, they need to build more Nuclear power units . Given the Alternatives it simply makes since .
The video contains several informations that are NOT TRUE
- The safety in both Czech nuclear power plants ,eets westers standards easily
- How many shurdowns due to technology reliability were in Temelin in past 20 years? 1 or 2? NOT many.
DW is a good channel and it is not worth to degrade your reputation with such statements.
Also the dependence on Russian fuel is a not true in future as new contracts with Westinghouse and Framatome for fuel are signed nowadays to prevent it. Lousy journalist work here...
@@pompoz1202 Thanks for the info! Its a German news channel so no wonder they are salty about the Czech republic doing better than them with nukes.
A good mix is the solution. I have no idea why some in Europe are so dead set against nuclear power. Finland just figured out a way to safely store spent fuel rods. Europe doesn’t get tons of sun nor do they have lots of wind. I like the idea of renewables but in areas where is makes economic and environment sense. Forcing it only creates more pollution as making the products does have a cost. It also makes Europe even more dependent on other countries as they do have the resources or industry at the scale required. It boggles the mind when governments are listening to kids that sound the alarm of impending doom. Look at the current situation, people bought into the idea closing down everything and now they have limited options that will damage the economy of some.
They simply don't make financial sense. They should have been build 25 years ago and be running now.
By the time these things are running in 25 years there are already so many cheaper options available nobody will be waiting for these things. That is the problem.
We need solutions for the next 20 years. After that the transition to renewables is done and we don't need them anymore.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Maybe, but France is building 6 new plants I believe. People said the same thing 20 years ago. The idea of future renewables was what caused the problems because they were not ready yet and still aren't. I like renewables but like I said solar and wind only makes sense in a few places in Europe not everywhere. I believe Europe needs a good mix not policy based on wants. When certain technology matures maybe it will make more sense but what will they do until then? Now Germany is starting some coal plants back up which are the worst. I just think people are too easily sold on renewables without considering the issues with it. But hey, maybe the carbon removal industry will make advances to help.
@@rickjames18 they are thinking about building more. By the time the permits are ready good luck finding anyone willing to invest in them.
It isn't about wanting anymore. It is all economics driven now. We need nuclear now to get us trough the transition that will take 20 years.
The thing is those plants had to be started to be build 20 years ago to deliver energy now when we need it.
In another 20 when the ones started now are ready to go online the transition is done and nobody will be willing to pay for it's overpriced electricity.
The next 20 years are the issue. New nuclear just takes to long to jump into that gap.
Germany just doesn't want to keep the ones the have going for the next 10 or 15 years to bridge the transition and is opting to fill that gap with some extra coal which will be turned off after the transition. In germany the nukes would be turned off in 20 years anyway, they where never going to build new ones.
It is just a temporary solution, not a long term strategy.
Would you be willing to pay 30 or 40 cents per kwh for energy from the grid 25 years from now?
Ofcourse not. And so will nobody else. Instantly making them a non option. No customers means no revenue.
They probably are watching Dark on repeat... Lol
Green is a religion. No real thought required. Self-proclaimed "environmentalists" no likee nuclear because they haven't thought about the problem.
Anyone who says nuclear isn't part of a sustainable future is a fool.
Nuclear certainly isn't a major part of a sustainable future. It can have a supporting and transitional role.
But as a power source it has been disappointing, and that is unlikely to change. But where the alternatives are to shut down a coal power plant and a nuclear plant, shut down the former.
@@jaxvoice718 Fusion is nuclear, so you are wrong.
@@Megalomaniakaal There is no reason to believe that fusion, when or if it comes, will be either cheap or convenient. There can be niches where fusion can be most cost effective, like space probes to the outer Solar System.
Her bias against nuclear powered energy gets in the way of the logic for continuing with a nuclear program ...
Short term all I hear is: "Let's turn off all the nuclear plants and start 20+ old brown coal plants instead". That's what happened already. You can have 6 plants running for 5 more years to ease up the situation quite a bit. It's totally doable. Also it's funny how coal is never mentioned. You burn so much brown cloal it's not even funny.
The fact that nuclear has been added to the green taxonomy is the result of extensive scientific research.
See: "Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 (‘Taxonomy Regulation’)".
RTE (French electric grid authority) has calculated we need at least 25% nuclear for a good ecological transition, ideally 35%. Keep in mind you also have to electrify most energy uses (industry, transport...).
Unless blessed with lots of hydro, 100% renewable is hard to do and prolongs fossil fuel dependence.
People often say solar/wind is cheaper but they don’t count the need for flexibilities (for when there’s no sun, no wind), those costs increase the more solar/wind in the mix.
In practice, Germany is becoming increasingly dependent on its neighbours’ nuclear plants. It can work like this I suppose, but then playing anti-nuclear choir boys is naive or hypocritical. You’ll be using nuke power one way or the other.
greatest cost of solar and wind is storage and the low efficiency and instead of opening one coal or uranium mine you are opening a hundred different mines for hundred diff things
@@siddeshnaik2296 Yeah, people keep touting solar/wind as cheaper based on numbers that ignore whole system costs, so annoying.
RTE is considering a majority renewables scenario, but it still needs some 35% nuclear to minimise energy storage.
Current tech batteries don’t cut it at this scale, and there’s no more time to wait for dreamtech.
They want to do hydrogen storage, which means electrolysis plants, big underground gas storages, hydrogen gas powerplants, cool stuff but costs add up. Nuclear helps keep it to a reasonable amount.
Yes transition. A transition that will take 25 years to complete. After which nuclear no longer is needed.
And how long does it take to build these nukes? 20 years probably more..
A bit late to the party
@@siddeshnaik2296 both storage and solar are technologies. Efficienty doubles every 10 years and production capacity grows exponentially while price keeps decreasing as production capacity grows.
There is simply nothing that can compete economicly in the same ballpark. There simply will be nobody willing to pay 30 cent kwh for power from the grid 20 years from now.
It just makes no sense.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Lol here we go, here is yet another one believing solar/wind is cheaper. RTE did the math, 100% renewable is more expensive than 35% nuclear, more polluting, more vulnerable to energy crises like we see right now with Russia cutting fossil gas.
Technological progress and economies of scale have been taken into account.
Germany has a weird anti-nuclear fetish that nobody else understands.
7:00 She says it takes 10-15 years to build a new one, but how much of that is regulatory delay? 90%? And she says nuclear "costs a lot", but wait til they get the bill from Russia
Luckilly there is lots of regulation around these things.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 too bad there is not that much regulation about brown coal in Germany…
They don't get the bill from Russia. Sadly, the Russians send the bill to Ukraine.
Nuclear is the technology that can save the world. It is the safest, greenest, and most powerful source of power we have devised. Renewables will never be able to replace fossil fuels. We need nuclear in every country.
Nuclear power is the best clean energy, but of course it has risks if the facility gets destroyed somehow. But as long as very strict safety protocols are not ignored, they should be fine.
French haven't had problems
Look at Ukraine where Russians were shelling a nuclear power plant. No meltdown there.
@@abcdef8915 they didn't hit the reactor. They hit one of the other buildings in the complex
Again west east problem, germany see us czech republic still as east. For example never heard that our nuclear pp never reached "western standards", idk why are they still using this cold war term. I heard that our nuclear pp are one of the safest and have higher standards in every way
The lady said people are opposed to nuclear energy due to safety and what to do with the fuel rods. World Nuclear Association says this about safety:
"The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided."
I have read that fuel rods can be recycled because there is still a lot of energy in them.
I bet a lot of Germans are having second thoughts about the nuclear thing.
It is never a people thing the lobbies fund the people just to act on streets some naive people also go along and the paid main stream media just focuses on those protests and shows it as a big movement. People in democracy believe that they have power but reality is different
I understand the worlds need for energy . I also understand the need to save our planet . Nuclear , at the moment , is the only viable form of energy that even comes close to meeting both needs .
Math disagrees.
@@Chris-ie9os in this case math is wrong .
@@hotchihuahua1546 Ok... which part? Is new wind not ~$30/MWh? Is new nuclear not >$120/MWh? Those are the numbers.
@@Chris-ie9os The safety measures that are implemented to run these reactors adds an initial cost which is reduced as the plant has run for a number of years . Those mathematical numbers you are talking about are an initial startup . Also , if more nuclear plans start to be built those costs will be reduced significantly.
@@hotchihuahua1546 Nuclear power has a negative learning curve. We have 60 years of operating experience that has shown us what can go wrong. Should we disregard that experience and not implement design changes for the sake of making reactors cheaper and less safe?
The woman says wind and solar is green compared to nuclear? They are not, huge amounts of toxic chemicals are used in the manufacture of a processing raw materials for solar panels and wind turbines. All energy sources are somewhat dangerous to the environment, we just need to learn to balance the impact and nuclear at least does not have any surface impact.
Nuclear is the future, I hope Germany stops screwing up their energy policy
@GN28 ? Other countries have uranium too. U dont need to buy it from russia. Yeah a Tsunami in Prag. LETS GOOOOOO. What are ur arguments. Then just dont build it near the shore.
@GN28 You can get Uranium from other parts of the world and Europe did have a big nuclear accident in the 1960 in a ramshackle Soviet reactor. Meanwhile France has been running on nuclear for quite a while without accidents
be aware that rosatom is a major player in producing uranium.
@@Tantalos79 So are Canada and Australia. I am also sure that Europe could get involved in certain regions of the Congo to build mines etc in an energy partnership with them.
But do you have a better idea
@GN28 Europe's uranium sourcing is much more diversified and much less Russia-dependent than gas or even coal...
As for Fukushima, it has been made habitable again already. It's not the dramatic hundreds-of-years wasteland anti-nuclear propagandists make it out to be. The same cannot be said of a fossil-fuel heavy economy, however... You're right about one thing: There have been examples of nuclear disasters, and their consequences have systematically been less negative than a single year of business-as-usual coal plants (which, reminder, kill tens of thousands of europeans every year).
Nice video. Though no comparison between coal and nuclear, which seems important especially since Germany is building new coal power plants.
Germany should stop backtracking on climate the risk to health from nuclear power is statistically much lower than the respiratory risks of coal or gas, not to mention the co2 output…
If Germany was importing uranium rather than gas from Russia, there would be 1 000 000 times less stuff to import since uranium is that much more power dense. Also you can import it from us here in Canada or from Aussies too. Also if you got in to mining thorium from coal ash piles, you could have more domestic energy from the thorium than you got from the coal in the first place. Domestic supply is always a good idea
Theres plenty of uranium throughout europe. And the French are perfectly capable of making fuel rods out of it. In truth even this doesn't necessarily have to be imported at all.
Poland says YES to nuclear. You want less coal? Atom is the only way.
...and they are right!
It's the most sensible, cleanest power for the price.
Who will be willing to pay that price then when the things are ready and running 25 or 30 years from now then?
Exactly... nobody lol.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716,
10 - 12 years, if we get started now. Until then, let the Wind & Solar technologies continue to advance, but good old reliable fossil fuels will be the best way to go for sure, especially until some miraculous new tech comes into being.
@@jimmerkerlin5005 that is not answering the question.
Even when started now with the peocedures the first ones will take at least 15 to 20 years before they could start running. Before a meaningful amount of them would be ready would take at least 25 to 30 years.
Who is going to pay 30 or 40 cents for electricity then lol. It is just a silly idea.
Well solar and wind shouldn't be on that list either, then. Does she not realize how much toxic byproducts are created in the mining and or construction of "renewables".
How is Germany going to switch from oil based fuels to electric vehicles then? With the rise of EV's and electric heating you will need 2-3 times more electricity! Also the French have 70% of their electricity produced by nuclear fission plants and their electricity is HALF the price of German electricity! They have an energy cost & security competitive advantage over Germany!
Why is it never mention the TCO when we look at nuclear vs other fuels.
We should not be building anymore hydrocarbon based power plants, the number of deaths they have cause is insane vs nuclear options.
And we are going to be paying for that clean up pretty soon, if your not already..
Right now, our Uranium fed nuclear reactors use less than 5% of the actual fuel in the fuel rods, but thanks to laws passed by lobbyist action to protect the market for fuel rods in the 1970’s, re-processing those spent rods to remove the actual fission byproducts and retaining the remaining 95% of the fuel for re-use, is illegal.
So dissapointed in germany for killing all its nuclearpower plants... it will end up costing them a whole lot
1, It would take a long time? Nope 2, It is expensive, Nope. Just look at korea.
The same cooling towers are used in both coal-firing and nuclear power plants. For some unknown reason, these cooling towers are used to depict nuclear power plants in news media. It is better to show the Containment Building.
Compared to the waste generated by the use of coal plants, nuclear waste is tiny and doesn't put anywhere near as much pollution into the atmosphere as coal does. Germany's reluctance maybe has another explanation other than the resultant pollution? Perhaps investment in renewables? If that were the case you don't have to do one or the other but can do all things in parallel to see what works as a hedge bet for future energy needs
That's an expensive hedge, multiple 10 billion dollar nukes that will never be even switched on.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Well if you know you wouldn't, then you wouldn't spend the money obviously. But can we say for certain they definately wouldn't? If so, how come?
@@AbAb-th5qe who would be willing to pay 30 cents or more per kwh for electricity 20 or 30 years from now?
Would you? Ofcourse not. Nobody would.
We are moving to technology based solutions for our energy needs now. Technology only becomes more efficient every year and keeps dropping in price as production capacity keeps growing exponentially.
25 years from now solar panels deliver 4 times as much energy per panel then they do now at 10% of the price they cost now. What person or business would not be making nearly all their own electricity at that point.
Same goes for storage. It cost 10 times as much 10 years ago then it does now. And it will be 10% of what it costs now 10 years from now.
Everyone will have a samsung or panasonic storage device hanging in their closet
People and especially businesses like retailers with masive roofs will all be selling their excess energy into the grid. Add to that new generation turbines feeding the grid and some other technologies here and there that will be commercialised 20 years from now.
All of that is cheaper then nuclear. Even if you build in massive over capacity and store it as hydrogen as a backup.
Technology moves fast. And only becomes cheaper over time. Economics is now taking over renewable adoption. Adoption saves money and the more money it's saving every year. The more people are going to be lining up to buy their own.
It really can only go one direction from now on.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 That's a nice concept. How can you be so certain about the future cost of solar though? And what about when the sun doesn't shine? Do you think battery tech will also be better? Will nuclear tech not also improve in that timespan?
@@AbAb-th5qe ofcource. It is silicon technology. It doubles in efficienty every 10 years and keeps going down in price as production capacity grows exponentially.
As it has been doing for decades. Just like EVERY single other technology in history and still keeps doing now.
It is easilly projected because it always follows the exact same technological s-curve. If that was to stop now suddenly for whatever reason we have bigger issues to deal with then climate change.
A laptop used to weigh a ton and cost a fortune in the 90s and could only do spreadsheets and 3 color games for 90 minutes in the 90s. Now we put chips that are just as powerful in 25 dollar toasters produced by the millions every year.
And you can start your car multiple times with a powerpack the size of a snickers bar.
This is not stopping. Especially not with the amount of money being poured into r&d in these fields.
Nuclear is a resource based solution with a constant need for resources and with high maintenance and labour cost and is reliable on expanding infrastructure. Which also needs maintenance and management. All things that only become more expensive over time. Especially when you need to scale up the amount of specialists in these fields to do it safely.
The gap will only keep increasing as time goes by.
Hey Germany, everyone thinks you're wrong, do you think it's possible you might be?
Look, wind turbines and solar are so dependent on the weather that one day you get too much and the next there's not enough. That's putting too much stress on the whole grid. You just need the majority of your power plants to be consistent in any weather and any season. German wind energy is messing up our grid already.
Start to built will take 15 years?
Really? Why it takes much less for China, South Korea, Japan?
Is because those countries are so superior to German technology?
Nuclear energy can be replaced by fossil or fusion power plants, Germany choosed fossil fuel.German electricity is one of the most polluting in the EU.
No, Germany has replaced its nuclear power by renewables.
@@glinrenkrenko9613 Germany needs more coal, and gas.
Not even close. Neighbouring Poland is far, far worse. On the other hand neighbouring Denmark and Sweden are far better.
@@jaxvoice718 France is far far better, and Austria, Switzerland too, and the EU avarege is better.
Fusion power plants? That's still minimaly 50 years from practice usage.
Too bad this woman doesn't understand that modern nuclear us green and safe.
The cleanest and most environmentally friendly way to go.
Germany phased out nuclear energy while quintupling the use of coal.
😅😂🤣
Tell the truth for a change.
And ROMANIA is pushing nuclear power energy. We start to implement new project of small nuclear reactions power plants.
France has 28 nuclear reactors, accident history not flawless but without
injury, exports electricity to neigbouring countries.
Exports to Germany the country that's hates nuclear, but happy to buy it.
@ 3:00 Too bad DW doesn't host an expert in the nuclear power field when asking questions. Though, listening to the political class's perspective is telling. .... When Molten Salt Reactors become available, the useful but spent nuclear fuel stored at existing reactors will become fuel feed stock; quite useful and not to be wasted. Existing spent nuclear fuel at todays reactors is quite useful but not in a configuration to be effectively used in todays reactors. The spent fuel stored at today's power plants could be used to power thermal plants for city heating. Instead it sits spending itself down a little each year, being no use to anyone.
Molten salt was proven to have a short life for the plant. What you would end up with is abandoned power plants that never paid for themselves. Just saying nuclear still is 3 times the price not including maintenance or decommission. Just like everything else some stuff on paper looks good until you do the math. Just like safety standards are eazy to say in compliance if you change your safety standards, and environmental dumping laws. Nothing will come with out costs question is who is paying.
@@adrianquaife9531 its a materials problem that is the focus of all development teams. Molten salt is corrosive to many materials. So even the material that is the 'salt' is an important part of the puzzle'. The reactors are small. I'm sure that recycling the reactors will be in the plan.
Y'know . . . nuclear power would be much cheaper if you weren't trying to tax it to death.
People are finally waking up to the potential of nuclear as opposed to the also rans.
The geologist gentleman was correct.
Should have built many more a long time ago.
Safest, cheapest green energy source.
Oh my gosh, what is more environmentally friendly than nuclear?😆
Nuclear, specifically fusion.
Germans are so silly.....they Ask what do you do with spent fuel rods?.....
What do you do with the spent blades from wind turbines ? What do you do with the spent solar panels? ......
Nuclear power is not cheap.....Probably that's why France has a price that is 3 times cheaper than in Germany.....
Do a mix of renewable and nuclear. What's the problem?
The problem is, if you start building nuclear, you will not need renewables anymore.
Renewables become a big business. They are also a great business for gas companies. If you don't have renewable hydro, only wind and solar, you need gas to start up quickly when the weather does not cooperate which is very often.
Nuclear is one of the biggest threat of the gas industry.
@@solutionrebellion Hey, same team. I'm a big fan of small, safe and constantly improving nuclear over anything else. However, I live in FL, USA with plenty of sunshine. Robust offgrid solar is the way for my property. I'm very lucky.
@@emigrator08 Lucky you. :)
I live in NL 50km (30 miles) from Amsterdam.
If you have sun reliably the whole year long and can afford a battery pack for home, go ahead, it's a great solution there.
But in North-Europe in the winter I don't see the sun for several days or sometimes for more than a week. Daylight is also less than 10 hours, so solar panels provide about 10% compared to summer.
As we don't even have hills, we cannot do hydro. Off and onshore wind is growing, but we need much more and don't even have enough land for 100% renewable. Small country large population. Here the solution must include large scale nuclear, but our neighbor Germany tries to fight it any time they can.
The best low carb technology should be decided by engineers/scientist by region and not forced by politicians and "green" activists.
@@solutionrebellion Still a very cool place! I've been to your beautiful home. I even rented a bike and rode with the commuters like a school of fish! Such a great place. Our home isn't perfect though, humidity, tstorms in summer, bugs, and everything else that comes with subtropical.
Nuclear is a cheap, cleaner solution than what's out there. If we put the money into nuclear that we have into solar and wind, things like recycling waste would already be here.
We should go all in for atomic energy
Being "critical" is a perfect job nowadays - all you need to do is to spread "your" opinion and receive money. The louder the more.
Spot on!
So Renewables are Cheaper. Great, but they don't work 100% of the time especially at German Latitudes in Winter when you need them the most.
Educate yourself. Old style Cold Water Reactors using solid fuel. New Molten Salt Reactors using liquid fuel. MSR vs CWR is a radical improvement. This woman is not updated.
I don't think that there is any MSR that can be build now and I don't think tat we have time to wait another one or two decades if we really want to go the nuclear way.
@@MrToradragon .. Well, Thorcon has a deal with Indonesia. They swap the entire reactor every 7 years, and limit the core temperature to 600 C. Doing that, the materials are approved (Hasteloy N). The reactor is a burner, using Uranium & Plutonium Mix. Check THORCON!
@@oddvardmyrnes9040 I am quite hesitant to trust those projects until they are build and in operation. I have heard about too many already and none of them became reality.
@@MrToradragon .. The development is storming forward. The future is nuclear, no doubt about that. In the transition time, deal with the Russians. They are NOT our enemy. You will soon see Oliver Stone's new Documentary on nuclear power. Russia is immensely important for Europe.
@@oddvardmyrnes9040 O follow the development in nuclear technology for some 15 years, there were numerous designs, numerous projects and numerous proposals, all stormed forward until they were not. So I will wait until they have at leas one operational reactor.
I think they god chance and Europe was too patient all that time. They were given 30 years and what we got in return?
Nuclear power is safe. Independance energy solution.
I'm so delighted that politicians, not engineers, are in charge of the almighty "Taxonomy." I trust politicians with my feelings. Engineers only know numbers and such. I was never good at math but very good at my feelings. When I hear the word "safety" given as a reason against nuclear power, I simply don't want to hear more about it.
The sarcasm is palpable indeed.
Why does DW only invite an ant-nuclear commentator?
bravo for Bohemia
I agree with Prague!
I know, a lot of Tsunamis in Germany!
Nuclear. Safe cheap reliable.
Definatly not cheap though. And that's why it is a dead end.
20th century technology that should stay in the 20th century.
If you don't need it, sure do something else. If you have other better options again sure... do something else... But dismantling nuclear power plants for Russian gas was not the better option. And turning to Coal (the worst coal I might add) to get energy is absolutely not the better option... In that respect Germany failed. Sweden is about to fail (although not dependent on Russian gas) also by shutting down more nuclear power plants...
Our democracy and civilisation depends on steady energy...
Trust DW to wheel out anti-nuclear zealots only, to comment on energy policy . Pathetic.
I wonder why they are still bothering with items on nuclear stuff. Such a waste of time altogether.
This is the one good thing that could come from this terrible war.
I'm super pro nuclear, but I don't agree entirely about building more in the past. Only modern reactors we can build now are truly safe. We should build lots now, not last decade or the decade before.
I thought the Czech (Czechia) has its own uranium?? Surely thermal energy is possible??
Why have uranium deposite in Jachymov/ Johanesthal
If all the European countries got together and designed a standardised modular reactor that could be mass produced surely it would be a good idea to go nuclear. As for disposal doesn’t Finland have a big underground dump they’re working on?
Going green with renewable energy is more expensive and evasive on the environment even though the WEF would try to to tell you otherwise to push their agenda for world domination forward.
Maybe Thorium reactors will become vogue
Why does europe have such inconsistant energy policies......where is the unity?. ACTIONS speak louder than words. SHAME GERMANY living in it own bubble and definitatly has proved it is not a leader of the European union let alone a trusted partner showing solidarity.
No , there smaller nuclear power plant these days, it doesn't have to be the already existing huge types, modern technology had already moved and much better in nuclear tech.
Yeah, in russia or china. The rest is "in development".
Yes. I love it. Great energy source. No climate changes.
Did she really just make the "it is too late now" arguement?
nuclear is clean sustainable energy 👏👏👏❤
cleaner not100% clean
@@Mirinovic Well, fusion is nuclear too.
most said its a future..but they forget the fuel for nuc plant isnt renewable
True, but it is more than abundant for generations to come. And when talking nuclear, fusion is ultimately the goal. And hydrogen is rather abundant as well, though the more exotic variants of it aren't as much - well, they are but separating it from the more typical type of water is quite an ordeal.
Good, more and more Europeans are waking up understanding how nuclear is going to be important for our future
Doesn’t Germany get lots of electricity from nuclear power? Just… reactors in France?
France, Czech republic..
Germany is a netexporter of electricity to france.
Oh, and a major reason why germany is currently in an electricity crunch are the problems of french power plants.
@@glinrenkrenko9613 It doesn't matter. What matters is that Germany has to rely more and more on stable, continuous sources capable of running 24/7 like nuclear, coal and gas. In a nutshell, if there's no wind blowing you have to compensate from abroad. Germany has more than enough of installed power but in renewables.
Europe has right to create Nuclear energy for themselves but not Iran and other Asian and African Countries
Most European states just operate the plants, they don't have the rights to produce the fuel nor do they design or build entirely their own reactors. They license either a part or the whole design from either the French, British, Americans or the Russians. Sweden I believe might be an exception, though don't quote me on that.
A tad bit late ….here in Ontario 70 percent of our energy comes from nuclear🇨🇦
Nuclear is the only actual green energy