I'm impressed that you care enough about the environment that you're willing to say some things that are very unpopular among mainstream "environmentalists." I admire your integrity.
he doesn't take care of environment or he would say" no energy at al"l. he is simply eventually discovering that we can't take care of environment but we have to make choice how to damage it with the less consequences for us. something that people knew for a long time but environmentalists.
I think it's the same sort of risk perception the general public has for air travel vs car travel. Plane crashes are sudden and unexpected and really grab our attention. Car crashes are background noise that we tune out.
Slowly but surely the evidence is seeping in of the higher probabiluity of cancer from flying, pilots and board staff have higher liklihood of dying from cancer than people whos eldom or never fly but the evidence needs to be collated it will be over the next couple of decades.
Excellent analogy. Or, in America there are the 100 people killed by guns per day, and nobody cares about them, but when there's more than 5 killed at the same time, mass media pretend it's an extraordinary tragedy. Nope, it's exactly as any other day, except that on that day, a significant number of victims knew each other.
The misinformation really is alarming, I mean I was kind of scared at the very concept of nuclear until I went to school to *specifically study environmental and energy engineering* . As soon as I went to a plant, saw the processes, saw the nuclear waste containment plans, and studied the facts about emissions and health effects, I realized how many people still feel the same way about nuclear as I used to. If it takes for a person to WANT to study the field before they realize the potential of nuclear energy, I'm afraid we're going to need a reaaaaaaaally good PR campaign.
Most people are not scared of Nuclear. They are afraid of the man operating the controls. Also, the government that is having the project built by the lowest bidder.
@@totallynottrademarked5279 You hit the nail on the head. When profit is ranked above people and the environment there will be safety breaches which becomes a scandal after the incident. Safety must come before EVERYTHING at all times. I am not scared of modern reactors but behind closed doors in meeting rooms I think some workers at the plants are disagreeing with fuel storage and other practices being breached. Chernobyl is a case study of what may happen when employees are not rigorously trained therefore transparency in practice is also vital. If the reactor is well designed for the environment and workers are very well trained with safety practices in operation at all times there should be absolutely no reason for secrecy in these roles. If we build reactors in stable areas and not in regions where earthquakes happen and tsunamis are probable then Nuclear can be very safe indeed!! Compare that with an alternative like China's bid to build a coal mine every week for '7 YEARS' causing all kinds of serious health issues it can be a no-brainer. In the future it looks like we will need a lot more energy and it cannot be from Solar, Wind and Water....It can only come from Nuclear. To allow this to happen we need to change the minds of the masses because if there emerges a huge class divide of the have and have nots of who can afford the very basic need of electricity then this will cause many associated problems like people ending up below the poverty line and crime then running out of control. Couple this with Abrupt Climate Change also the agricultural industry being hit very hard especially in the Bread Basket regions then this all tells me we have to get this done to avoid a very miserable and possibly very violent future.
I lived for years in France, where there is no environmental controversy whatsoever over nuclear energy. In a nation no larger than the size of Texas, there are 70 reactors in service, and in 50 years of operation, there has never been a serious accident or leak of nuclear materials.
@@marcwinkler He said serious ones. The entirety of Europe never had any serious accidents aside from Chernobyl and that was the shittiest reactor type you can imagine and even that wouldn't have been a problem if there hadn't been off the scale human error. Maybe look up how many serious accidents have been around coal mining, around wind and solar energy and where the materials come from and how much damage wind energy production can do down to destroying entire habitats and changing wind patterns that can lead to droughts. Any engineer in the world will tell you that if you want energy and you want it clean and safe, the best option we have right now is nuclear and there isn't anything that comes even close. And tons of nations like France have ZERO cultural problems with that while others do, and none of that has anything to do with the real facts and engineering, it's purely ideological. There is no objective sensible reason that speaks against nuclear power, especially the reactors we can build nowadays. Those are simply the facts. If a nation decides they don't want them for ideological reasons.. fine. anybody can do whatever they want. But people should stop pretenting they are somehow this dangerous thing. That's nonsense. That's a person who's afraid of flying trying to tell everybody how dangerous planes are, when in reality they're by far the safest way of transportation. And guess what.. I don't like flying, and I won't get aboard one no matter how safe it is. But I am going to be honest about why.. because I personally am afraid of flying. I won't go on a campaign and try to prohibit planes everywhere.
@@JayzeVo17 - If 26 are offline to repair cracks I look at that as a good thing, not an accident. France has been shrinking their plants because of the morons that run that country. They have been blue pilled into the opposite of everything Michael said in this talk 5 years ago. Look at the cost of energy this winter in Europe, and around the world. Idiots are running this world right now. We live in a time when we think we are the only mammals on this planet that can change genders as easy as changing a light bulb.
Ce n'est pas vrai. 25 % of French people are against nuclear energy today. It used to be close to 45 %. However, since the energy crisis, due to the invasion of the Ukraine, are now less against (hence 25%). There used to be a strong mobilization against the supergenerators. Unfortunately, Macron is downplaying the need for renouvable energies.
Don't worry! Most other people will think this guy is a nut for the next ten years and nothing will get done either. Just the way the world works. Unbiased critical thinking, even among experts and geniuses is very hard to come by. Hopefully bGates can make a dent with his wave reactors.
My college professor also told us the same things. Just a couple of years ago. But, I'm not American. If I went to an American college, I'd probably never hear my professor say it. Not in a class at least. Shows how much politics is undermining science.
As a child I lived when the 3 Mile Island accident occurred. I remember people saying that this was about as bad as a nuclear accident could get in the US, yet no one died, and there was almost no release of radiation. I thought to myself that if this is as bad as it can get, why are people against nuclear power?
Its amazing the ignorance that surrounds 3 Mile Island. Many people still believe that the plant had a meltdown and exploded, even though nothing even close to that ever happened. Part of it is probably also anti-Nuclear propaganda set up by the the other energy sectors, because they know Nuclear could put them out of business for good.
You should include more data points before jumping to conclusions. Chernobyl and Fukushima are better examples of how serious a nuclear disaster can be. Do you still wonder why nuclear power is considered a grave risk?
@@tswrench Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen based on its basic design, which was created in a country that literally had little disregard for human life, only expediency. Regarding Fukushima, the first thing I thought of when Fukushima happened was "What idiots would build a nuclear power plant at the ocean shore in a place where the word 'tsunami' comes from?" Hubris caused Fukushima, not nuclear power. Regarding the radiation from Fukushima, "No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA in June. By December, government health checks of some 1700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/yr, 98% were below 5 mSv/yr, and ten people were exposed to more than 10 mSv. So while the was no major public exposure, let alone deaths from radiation, there were a number of victims of 'disaster-related death', especially old people uprooted from homes and hospital because of forced evacuation and other nuclear-related measures. The psychological trauma of evacuation was a bigger health risk for most than any likely exposure from early return to homes."
@@gtv6chuck -- It sure reads like there are a pair of double quotation marks missing in your reply; you know, at the beginning and end. Also, there was a fatality due to radiation exposure at Fukushima.
@@bobjordan5231 I didn't see him discuss data. He references other people's work, and made statements but didn't address the economics of NP. Looks very like a NP lobbying presentation I've seen a lot of times at various places. The NP lobby are a pretty impressive bunch of people...very convincing.
So b.b. the wind lobby? The solar lobby? Are these two not pressing issues steering legislation, receiving tax money, brow beating hard working people into bankruptcy to bankroll their projects? Can you say that with an open mind you have listened, really listened, to any Nuclear Power presentation? How much time have you spent researching? Can you explain the reaction process? What do you know about Chernobyl? Have you ever formed an opinion on your own? Has new information ever changed your mind? I don't expect an answer, I would hope you might stop holding onto b.s. so you can develope your conciousness by hearing new information and allowing your awesome brain to work with facts and possibly gain some ground for humanity. You might be the one with a solution, but until you can be fine with being wrong it just isn't possible. Good luck on your Journey, I hope you grow into your best self!
22 years ago in my short lived attempt to study engineering I made all these environmental arguments in favour of nuclear power in a class debate. I was completely laughed out of the room by supposedly the country’s finest engineering minds. No energy source is problem free but nuclear has by far the greatest potential to provide the energy we need while reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental movement needs to be led by good science not pipe dreams.
@@SUPERTOASTERGOD All of thos things you mention are real, but the waste is much less than with coal, and the energy expended to mine, transport, and maintain nuclear plants is also far less than the energy needed for coal. Nuclear plants do take longer to build than natural gas plants, but far less time than it will take to produce enough solar panels and batteries to power the entire world. To get rid of carbon emissions we need to first replace all coal plants with nuclear plants, then work on replacing all nuclear plants with wind and solar plants. The coal plants could all be replaced in just a decade or two if we start constructing nuclear plants right now. It will take at least several decades minimum to replace the nuclear plants with solar. We could probably replace all daytime power usage with solar in less than 100 years, maybe in half that time, if we're lucky. But it will take more than 100 years, maybe longer, to produce enough battery storage to be able to run the entire world 24/7 on just solar, and wind. Maybe hydroelectric dams could save their power for use at night only.
People are afraid of what they don’t understand. As a nuclear engineering student I’d say almost all of what people are afraid of are nothing to be afraid of. It has some major issues though, but if we invest into the research then in some time we could be 100% nuclear with about no repercussions. If we abandon this technology we’ll be far behind our potential.
And let's not forget that the price for 1kg sent to space is becoming cheaper and cheaper. The final waste from nuclear could be sent to Sun (the only place where it can be safely recycled) and it would even help us.. since it would "power" the sun -- sure.. it's like 0.000.. 00001% - but hey, It can mean 1 day longer for our favorite fusion reactor.
Well.. remembering STUXNET.. I don't see the physical part of terorism the biggest danger.. I belive (don't have facts) if you close the plant and shut it down.. it should, in theory, enclose the radiation.. But yeah, it is a danger.. but then again: What do you think of hydroplants and dams? I see them more prone to physical terrorist attacks and WAY WAY more dangerous in the short term.. imagine a city under water in less then a few hours.
@@aquelaquelaquelaquel Sending something to the Sun is very, very hard compared to just reaching orbit. You can't just accelerate in a straight line and hit the Sun; without enough delta-v, the rocket will just end up in orbit around the Sun (or the Earth). Not to mention that if your rocket explodes, you've just spread tons of radioactive waste around. If close to the ground, that could be pretty devastating.
Never thought about this.. I was hoping that the sun gravity (which must be massive) would prevent it from going in a "orbiting" trajectory.. but hey.. i'm not a space explorer :)
Sadly, most people don't even understand what radiation is on even a basic level. (or even what energy is in general.) Agreed on all points (esp the last)
More nuclear power plants means more chances to make mistakes. After all we are all just human beings. I think nuclear power plants should be handled more delicately but be increased very slowly for long period of time. Think about back then when scientists talked racial superiority using their science. Science data can be distorted like that by emotions. Again after all we are just human beings
@@thunderyeti8476 Also there is a big "Game" whit energy, its can move industry, create products, and while we would want cheap energy, of free... well its utopic, sounds and would act as in a utopia, and its hard to see the damage it can do to industry and value (even of life). I'm sure that there are many rich people who would rather stop any cheap energy, until they secure their future in it.
I've just found you Michael, and want to thank you for a series of outstanding and deeply-considered presentations. We now need to change global public opinion regarding nuclear energy, so that we can use democratic pressure to move governments' policies in the right direction.
The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the US first nuclear Air Craft Carrier in service 1961-2012 (51years), It could run ~20 years without refueling. Imagine how many Gallons of diesel it would have burned if it was conventional powered
I think we should build massive barges with nuclear reactors on them so that they can be re-routed and move out of the way of things like the tsunami. I mean, we have whole ship cities living on this technology.
Due to the massive scare campaign up through the 70´s and up until today we´ve lost valuable momentum in reserching on how to build almost 100 percent safe nuclear facilities. That´s a damn shame.
Fortunately there has actually been a lot of research into advanced and safe nuclear power generation. Currently, the results of this research are manifested in the powerplants of US nuclear powered ships and submarines. The typical reactor used by the US Navy is compact, safe, and generates enough electricity to run an entire town. The only reason they are not being used for civilian generation of electricity is the anti-nuclear pseudo-environmentalist special interest groups.
Not as much a shame as the fact you can't even spell campaign. It's not a scare campaign, it actually IS scary. Go visit Chernobyl and see all the mutant animals or eat some of the fish caught off the coast of Japan since Fukushima.
@@petersimmons3654 The funny thing is that animals in these areas are actually thriving. Human habitation is actually far more detrimental to wildlife than increased radiation levels ever could be.
wow.,.. I have been totally anti nuclear for years.., but your talk has inspired me to do more research to see if your facts are accurate. You presented a powerful argument. Thank you for sharing.
I'm impressed by your attitude. It's not common for most of the people to do additional research instead of just dismissing opinion they do not agree with.
@@bartolini05 I agree that open mindedness is good - but this guy is advocating for the creation of nuclear waste which is immoral. I am not open to immorality.
@@paulborneo7535 We should not confuse openness for gathering more information with openness for using certain solutions. I'm not advocating here using or not using nuclear energy. I'm encouraging to learn more about the topic when facing contrary opinion. Every energy source has its pros and cons. Nuclear waste is one of the drawbacks of using nuclear power and should be weighted against drawbacks of other energy sources. This can be done well only after gathering enough information about all positive and negative effects. I think this topic is complex enough to not easily dismiss nuclear energy as immoral without proposing clearly better alternatives that can be deployed on large scale fast enough.
@@paulborneo7535 Coal power plants produce and release more "nuclear waste" into the enviroment in one day than nuclear power plants do in their lifetime. If you live down wind from a coal power plant, the radiation in the "fallout" of the smoke particles increases the background radiation in the surronding areas, increasing your chance for cancer if you live near one. What is safer/greener/better, just releasing the radiation into the air and letting it settle down wind, or storing a condensed form of radiation away from people and the enviroment for hundreds of years? More people die every year from coal plants compared to nuclear plants. The problem people have with nuclear power is the "what if". Well coal plants ARE releasing radiation into the enviroment every single day, thousands of them. Its like flying on a plane, you feel like its more dangerous, however your much more likely to die on the car ride to the airport compared to the flight. Do we stop all the planes because they SEEM more dangerous even though they have saved millions of lives and is the safest form of transportation? "but this guy is advocating for the creation of nuclear waste which is immoral." What is immoral is we have much safer and cleaner ways of using nuclear energy today, but the laws are preventing us from building the newer safer reactors, and we are currently forced to keep the 50+ year old reactors that are much more dangerous running. Currently nuclear power is the cleanest and safest energy we have ever produced, why do you let the fear of "nuclear radiation" scare you away from the solution to our energy needs, but are ok with other forms that RELEASE 100x more radiation into the enviroment on a daily basis...
@@paulborneo7535 "I am not open to immorality". How do you identify an idea as immoral if you're not willing to entertain it? Isn't that a contradiction?
@@preasail Energy by definition is dangerous. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as safe energy so what is your point? Solar plants in deserts steal habitat from tortoises. Windmills kill numerous birds.
@@MultiPetercool But there is such a thing as one source of energy being safer and less expensive than others. Nuclear energy is the least safe and, by far, the most expensive. That's why you never see Wall Street investing in nuclear power. A good example of the exorbitant cost is Hanford in Washington state, where they're getting almost a trillion dollars of taxpayers' money to clean up the mess, and no one knows what the health costs have been for the Tri-Cities. If you're really interested in the subject, read Kate Brown's book, Plutopia.
Blame this guy for misinforming the world. As long as I see people like this misinforming, I will be against nuclear energy. I would be for nuclear energy if the dangers were addressed correctly. When I see this guy downplaying Chernobyl, it was really too much for me. The problem with Chernobyl and with a lot of other accidents in the former USSR is that NOBODY knows what really happened / is happening. It is all about estimates. So about Chernobyl you can find estimates of 500.000 people affected down to 1000. You can go to that study there, or you can go to the WHO webpage and read a different tale.
Or the downlplaying of Fukushima. There is almost a total information blackout about what is still happening there. As far as I know, there still isn't a solid proposition for the containment of the irradiated underground water leakage into the ocean.
@@wimpow Any link to the 500 000 estimate? I can't think of a more reliable report than the UN one and it was pretty clear on how overblown the panic was (is).
When he said "nuclear waste is the only waste from electricity production that is actually contained. All the other types just go into the environment." I was like "..........huh. Touché."
Many nuclear power plants are leaking? I don't believe you. Even if they were, are they leaking more contamination than is released when we burn coal? I doubt it. Also a solar spill is known as the installation, removal, and maintenance. In all of those phases of solar people die (fall off of roofs, shocks mostly). Also like mentioned in the video emissions from process of solar are higher and lead to more deaths.
First that stuff was contained, then we dug it up, made it really really dangerous, used it. Now we have a type of waste that is incredibly dangerous and will stay that way for many generations while not having an actually secure process of dealing with it. CO2 emissions are bad too, but they don't kill anything close to it directly. Next thing is said in one word: Fukushima. Totally safe...until something happened. But I will change my mind if I get paid handsomely from some energy company. Not planning to have kids anyway. At leat not on this planet.
@@thomasspotzl4240 Are you serious, "while not having an actually secure process of dealing with it", that's where Fast Breeder reactors come in, a technology that has existed for over 70 years and is proven to work. We can reuse over at least 95% of the waste we create with regular reactors. Economical interest in FBR's simply dissipated because they discovered way more Uranium reserves, it's a more challenging process than simply dumping the waste after usage in regular light/heavy water reactors and the non-proliferation treaty prohibits uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. I'm not saying there aren't any issues and challenges paired with FBR's, but storing the 'waste' now, will allow us to one day use it as fuel. Right now about 1% of the potential fuel is used up, the rest is simply put away
This is just another case of "people are more afraid of air traffic accident than car accident". Air travel is much safer than cars, but the popular precetion of it is the opposite.
You ignore the cancer risk of air travel and the risk of capturing a bug form the reicrculated unhealthy air. Damage to health takes years and years to have an imapct and is hard to measure but tis there all right
@@2b2tisafactionsserver72 What is your point? A propos flying, I personally will not fly which involves some sacrifice. I would like to have visited South America and I will never see friends in the USA again. I wish environmentalists would practise what they preach and not fly, all too many have double standards. . Flying involves radiactive contamination on two counts: repeated use of scanners which give you a dose and probably worse, the radiation from the sun at high altitudes, but at least flying does not damage the planet permanently unlike nuclear power which is a sick invention in the very real sense of the word sick..
I think that there is one more, very important point he didn't make. Most of nuclear plants we know today operate under nearly obsolete technology designed in the 50's and built in the 60's & 70's. Including Chernobyl and Fukushima (which is actually older than Chernobyl by 5 years). The new technologies for clean nuclear today use spent fuel rods at a fraction of the cost and with materials that are impossible to create viable nuclear weapons. Besides, the compact nuclear plants (similar to the ones used in submarines and other Naval ships) have 3 to 5 times the safety redundancy that the old plants did, they are now virtually impossible to fail and as he said, if they did, the fall out would be minuscule in comparison to the destructive force of other power generating options over time.
Nice to hear, Diego! Has the technology to re-process (or separate various waste products for different storage destinations) also progressed at the same pace?
@@burlingtonbill1 there are reactors that can reuse the waste as fuel you can also use thorium instead of uranium which has a much shorter decay chain then uranium
EXACTLY! Came here to post this but you covered it perfectly. With today's alerts and technologies building safe plants should be much easier. What most people do not realize about Chernobyl (and Michael mentioned it in his talk) was that it was built with NO containment shield at all. Every nuclear plant, even our older ones, are built with very thick concrete containment shields so if we do have a meltdown we can contain and control it unlike Chernobyl.
@@jameson1239 Are there many reactors that do that successfully, then? I remember in the early 2000s in the UK we were trying to convert a plant (I think it was called Mox) to deal with foreign radioactive waste, but it didn't prove very effective at using the waste.
This is not to mention that Chernobyl was extremely poorly built and managed. Any modern nuclear power plant is orders or magnitude safer than Chernobyl.
It's just like when cars were first presented to the public. People were so afraid to move around in a vehicle with a fuel tank onboard that could "potentially explode at any minute", thus a lot of people were hesitant in the early years. But that was all just the fear of something they didn't understand. Fuel tanks are far less dangerous than the general public imagined. It's the same with nuclear power, people are afraid of what they don't understand, and when they hear one horror story they apply that to every other scenario as the potential outcome, even though it's not realistic in any way. Any modern nuclear plant is 100 times safer than an average coal plant.
I believe Tchernobyl did not have water as a moderator, which is much (much) safer, but graphite, a lot more dangerous (as it does not shut down process, as water does). And, if I am not mistaken, it was designed to help produce nuclear weapons, and that is of some consequence on security too (not the same cycles and uses of the material).
@@stephanheinemann5363 A good question! Actually, yes. Fukushima had poor design flaws and poor decisions made by a company with a bad reputation in Japan for their sub-par track record. This company "repaired" the reactor with duct-tape! They placed a generator for the reactor below sea level in a region that's world-famous for earthquakes and tsunamis! [I mean even the word 'tsunami' is itself Japanese.] They ignored the warnings of a man who realized that a major quake hits northern Japan every 1000 years!!! This disaster, just like Chernobyl, was easily avoidable, a perfect storm of human carelessness and poor decisions, paired with poor engineering. Sigh. Hindsight is always 20/20... Still researching Fukushima myself.
@@d.dementedengineerc99isurf26 In the company's defense they did say it was a bad idea to build it by the ocean while constructing it. The government ignored it and did it anyways.
@covid-19 The total number of people killed by civilian nuclear power generation is 58. The record death toll for a hydro dam event is over 100,000 direct dead. Dam disasters have caused the deaths of millions, but people want hydro and not the much safer nuclear.
@@shashankkumar5163 - It depends if it is low grade or high grade readioactive. Low grade you can dilute until it is no longer a danger. High grade, you extract the main radioactives, then dilute until it is no longer a problem.
In the mid 80's I was 'Educated' in Nuclear Energy. Since that date, I have been an advocate of Nuclear Power. Compared with all the other energy sources, it is so clean and efficient. Bring on the Nuclear Power plants. Happy to live next door to one.
@@MattFixesStuff I worked at a nuke plant for 4 years. Every day as part of my clocking out, I had to go through a scanner to see if I had picked up any radio active contaminants. Any time I was where they expected ANY radiation I had to wear a dosimeter (thing that measures radiation). That scanner? Had a coworker sent home for a week because he had a PET scan and was setting off the alarms at 50+ feet. My entire dose over 4 years was less then I got from 2 flights from CA to GA and back. And that was working IN THE RADIOACTIVE AREAS! Personally, I would be utterly unconcerned to live next to a nuke plant. Precisely because I *know* how much waste products and contamination they (don't) release.
I’ve followed this guy for quite some time and he makes a lot of sense. One question he must wrestle with is that when he looks at what ‘changed his mind’, that information was largely there from the beginning. To take his original position meant either ignoring this information, or just not looking for it. This sadly is the norm for activism.
I'm german and I always defended nuclear power in germany. I totally agree with You. I hate the fact that coal power plants are still the backbone of our country's electric power production.
@@beback_ half the carbon footprint of natural gas according to the IPCC, plus deadly particulate pollution only topped by coal. Not an acceptable solution.
Speaking as someone who was raised by and knows a lot of environmentalists, the main problem is that they're often ideological in their thinking. They don't think scientifically; they think sentimentally. You see it in their campaigning and advertising choices, which usually appeal to sentiment, intuition and gut reactions and contain little to no research and data.
Just rich kids who want to smoke pot and escape from the responsibilities and hardship of the real world, generally funded by the tax payer to go on do-gooder study abroad missions haha
Enviromentalism has become a utopianism ideology. Meaning "the only way to save the world is what I believe is the best way." I admire this man for speaking against a mainstream view and also support the nuclear progression.
nuclear is only good for base load, and the base load is set to be reduced as more renewables are used. Nuclear power plants are to slow to ramp up and ramp down and/or too expensive to do so. Solar/Wind injects power into the grid so the nuclear power plant would need to ramp down to prevent the grid from destabilizing.
Solar and wind energy is going to be much profitable once there are efficient/cheap means of buffering the energy. Nickle Iron batteries are looking to be good candidates. Nickle and Iron is cheap, you just need a place to put the battery because it would several times larger than the equivalent Li-ion battery.
Hydro is good for balancing wind and solar so you can at least have as much wind and solar as you have hydro to balance it with. To get beyond that we need storage, stationary batteries, thermal storage, vehicle to grid etc. Hopefully the reactors we have can operate until we have solved that.
you have stated in clear terms what has, on the one hand, been obvious, but on the other hand has been demonized by environmentalists that we start doubting our own sanity. thank you for calling this out… eye opening!
Need to also look at the newest (55 years or so) ideas for using nuclear power. These are generation 4 reactors. I have been interested in the fuel disolved in molten salt coolent reactors (MSR). These reactors solve most of the problems we are having with the present solid fuel high pressure light water reactors. The MSR reactors would operate at atmospheric pressure, produce 1/1000 the waste that decays to back ground levels in 300 years, uses almost all it's fuel, operates at high tempatures (900 C) so they are more efficient and useful for direct industrial use. These reactors would use thorium or used nuclear waste as fuel and are quite useless for making bombs. This being just one type of Gen 4 reactor. There is clearly potential here that warrants exploration as technology that can help with the problems with climate change.
Do you think there's an inherent stumbling block with newer generations of nuclear technology in that they're simply a long way behind on testing and safety research? I haven't looked into it but I imagine it's much easier to sell some of the older technologies, even if they're worse on paper, because they've just been safety tested and improved so much, and everyone understands in great detail how to make them as safe as possible. Newer technologies, by definition, would feel more experimental for a time.
@@boiledelephant they are not that far off. China has all ready built a generation lV commercial reactor. This year they are starting their first molten salt cooled Pebble Bed reactor. Their first molten salt fueled reactor is going to be operational in 2022. China is also planning to go full nuclear in their Navy in 20 years with MSR. In Canada a modual MSR design has been approved with plans being made for construction. Really a massive building program with this technology could eliminate need for fossil fuels in 25 years. The first part of this endeavor is simply realizing that it can be done. 10 years ago could you imagine a complete high speed rail system connection all of China. This was done. I think the end of use of fossil fuels will end in China first then it will happen here.
@@boiledelephant The USA had a working prototype Fast Breeder Reactor in Idaho that first fired up in the early 60s and a prototype Molten Salt Reactor in Tennessee in I think the mid 60s. Both were total successes as proof of concept. The high initial cost, but low long term cost, of building Nuclear combined with disinformation from the oil and gas industry has not just held back Nuclear is has almost totally stymied it.
@@MrYorickJenkins Dude I see you’re mad this video contradicts your world view. You shouldn’t dogmatic over this issue, clearly the data from scientific studies have proved Nuclear is the safest and most efficient way to create energy.
Let's also not forget that our nuclear power stations are old, really old, simply because people who are afraid of a nuclear disaster scares polititians away from building new safer plants. 2 weeks before Chernobyl there were a demonstration of a fully functional power plant that used sodium instead of water to cool the rods, they showed the world that it was impossible to have an accident like the one in Chernobyl or in Fukushima with a sodium cooled system. We still uses the dangerous water based cooling systems today, not because they are safe but because people pretend to care about the enviroment when all they want to do is scream at people. Nuclear will save us in the end, or nothing will.
Probably do not need saving "BY Nukes . . . but rather "FROM" Nukes. What is it you think Nukes will "save" anyone from? Do you understand that this guy is sponsored by the Nuke Industry? And at this point, Renewables are growing and cheaper by the day . . . . while Nukes going Bankrupt.
Nukes are going bankrupt because they're getting less and less government subsidies. Solar and wind, by comparison, are getting huge subsidies. And guess what? Those methods of power generation are low capacity. Meaning that you will rarely ever see a wind turbine making its full power output, in fact it's about 20% on average. Solar isn't much better. Hydrocarbons are around 65%, and nuclear is around 85%. I live in a region with a large nuclear power plant. It's great here. Our electricity is cheaper than the national average, too.
No, that's not the reason water cooling is still used in nuclear power plants. The reason is that using molten salt corrodes the container incredibly quickly. Why would it corrode quicker than water? Try throwing an iron nail into a bucket of water and another into another bucket of water, but fill the second one with salt until the water cannot absorb more salt. Which iron nail rusts first? Exactly, the one with salt. This process becomes much quicker with higher temperatures. Some reactions happen twice as fast with around a 10C temperature increase. Obviously, this won't go on forever, but you get the idea. Imagine how quickly it would react going from water at
As much as I can admire someone who realizes now that they might’ve been going down the wrong path, I have to also speak to the millions of people who already realized that we need perhaps as many as 15 nuclear power plants to be built now in the United States, and we need at least three new oil refineries, because as much as people want to believe that we can, we are not ready during the next 40 to 50 years to divest ourselves from fossil fuels. The truth is that most electric cars are being charged with electricity that is made from burning coal. The current technology for solar does not provide enough power to justify the cost of solar panels, or the fact that they are not economically recyclable. Unfortunately, most of the environmental movement is about people making themselves feel good about themselves, and then telling others about how good they are through virtue signaling. It is sad, really.
"Nobody knows this stuff" Well, people do - lots of us do. People usually just ignore us in favor of fear mongering rhetoric. Thanks for coming around and putting what you learned out there.
"Us" you mean scientists peddling this filfth? Thene xplain how you propose to contain all the nuclear waste accumulating in the world dso that it poses no danger now and for future geenrations
@@MrYorickJenkins But it isn't highly dangerous. You bury it deep underground where nothing can touch it and it's safe. No one has ever been harmed by nuclear waste because the disposal methods are extremely safe. So yeah, calling it highly dangerous is fear mongering. You are a fear mongerer.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 Check out the mining practices and associated environmental problems plus the increased carbon emitted by more ocean-going freighters travelling from South America to Asian battery factories and then batteries to auto manufacturers. Plus carbon emitted when scrapping ICE Vehicles plus recycling issues of lithium batteries.
@@Herbwise If the us army would be reduced by half it would have a lot more impact than some batteries. In germany we have recycling stations which ones can extract 95% until 97% of the material.
@@Herbwise Scrapping ice vehicles is a bad idea, noone says its good. We should upgrade em. In america you have a company which is upgrading old buses into new ones. Even without subsidies its much cheaper than new buses.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 if the US army reduced itself by half then NATO would lose half it's military too. Hardly a great idea considering we're sharing the planet with the China, Russia and North Korea to name a few.
The one thing he left out was the reason it takes close to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant is because the environmental movement who were against nuclear lobbied the government to pass very strict regulation on nuclear. It use to only take 2 years to build a plant, and it is also more expensive then it needs to because of the regulations passed in the 80s.
@@zachadolphe3633 It needs to be over regulated, because companies will cut costs on safety technology to save money. Then that company will cut costs in construction, causing flaws in the plants, then cut costs in training to run the nuclear plants and what to do if an issue occurs. It is the nature of a business. It is these issues that not might cause another Chernobyl, it will cause another Chernobyl if more than one of these things exist happen. These are things that need to be mindful of. No matter if the disaster is as bad as it was, or not. Anything else is reckless and selfish.
@@shauntempley9757 Most of the concerns you've raised has been eliminated today with advancements in technology and failsafe improvements. Don't let HBO Chernobyl mislead you into thinking that a lot of that applies to today's nuclear industry because it doesn't, and not everything in the Chernobyl was factually correct either.
When I studied Environmental Engineering in the Seventies, I was shocked to learn that the Europeans were using radiation to kill bacteria in sewage. Apparently it was cheaper than using Chlorine and holding the waste for a minimum contact time. Later on, here in the USA, there have been proposals to sterilize imported fruit and vegetables with radiation to reduce refrigeration cost and it actually works better than fumigation. The fear is always secondary radiation from the original bombardment of the sewage or fruit of whatever. Meat can be preserved as long as the package is not broken to reintroduce bacteria. My professor said that it was a great idea but because of the ignorance of the public, not to plan on ever seeing it happen. The thing that hurt the nuclear industry is the time it takes to build a monster plant. Rampant inflation closed several nuclear projects in the USA. The French solved that problem having smaller plants they also have Breeder reactors instead of using the Uranium cycle. The USA decided against Breeders because it had a greater threat of proliferation. I think that was in the mid Eighties.
I agree with you but France uses breeders that fission uranium. The US uses lite water reactors while Canada uses heavy water reactors. All of them fission uranium as the initial fuel but breeders can then switch to the more efficient (from a neutronic perspective) plutonium that they breed from U 238. It's also worth noting that any lite water reactors can fission plutonium also.
No, the French do not breed, they do some simple reprocessing, they tried with Super Phoenix, now the US is introducing fast cycle with Natrium and the Russians
I live in a country that was occupied by Soviet Union. Men from here were sent to clean up to Tshernobyl after the accident happened. I know 2 who died of cancer a couple of years after they returned. And one who was disabled for years and never fully recovered.
Thank you Michael for your dedication to saving our planet. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to change your mind based on the information that you have obtained over the years. You are making a tremendous impact on our environment through your seminars. God bless you
@@idontknowmuch3441 by discussing the options we have. Nuclear energy is probably the most cost effective, and environmentally friendly source of energy. People fear it because they don't understand it. Michael understands risk vs. reward.
I was already pro-nuclear going into this, and I had never considered the point you made about waste before. Someone should gather some data and make a visual comparison between nuclear waste volume and the volume of waste spit out by coal, oil, natural gas, etc... to help illustrate this point. It might be a little difficult to work out a visual that isn't deceptive, seeing as how most non-nuke emissions are gaseous and nuclear waste is almost all solid. I always think it's important to note, too, that the overwhelming majority of stuff that gets classified as "nuclear waste" isn't actually radioactive or dangerous. Most of it is just anything that gets taken beyond the different containment zone barriers (usually they have multiple levels of increasingly-tight safety zones as you work your way in toward the actual reactor), like booties, coveralls, paper products, office supplies, etc... that just gets chucked into the nuclear waste bin because of an _extreme_ focus on safety and containment. The amount of waste that is _actually_ the spent uranium/ plutonium fuel rods/ pellets is pretty small. That's the whole reason that nuclear is so amazing, you get an _insane_ amount of energy out of these "little" (in the context of industrial energy production) metal sticks just _sitting there_ generating crazy amounts of heat. Plus, you can actually reprocess spent fuel to use up every little bit of useful isotope in them. These spent fuel rods also have a bunch of other useful and rare elements in them from the radioactive decay, and while we don't know how to separate these elements out economically right now, if we have a drastic increase in nuclear power in the world then we might start to have enough spent fuel sitting around to make it worth extracting and recycling these elements out (which would also reduce the total volume of nuclear waste, by the way). Oh, and don't even get me started on Thorium reactors. Talk about cold war mentality, the main reason we don't have thorium nuclear plants all over the place is because the US nuclear committee wanted to use uranium fission specifically because the byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons, which can't be don't with the thorium process! Research into these new reactors could be the solution to bringing safe nuclear power to developing nations without the risk of proliferating nuclear weapons development. Damnit, I got started on thorium reactors, didn't I? One more thing: THORium. I want my nuclear reactors powered by the MF-ing _GOD OF THUNDER!_
Nuclear waste is an issue and can't be dealt with easily, the proposals are to dig deep storage areas a couple of miles underground and store waste there for a few hundred years. That's not cheap, and if we are going to scale up nuclear (which in itself is incredibly expensive to build, has never attained the promise of super cheap for the consumer, and virtually always takes longer to build than intended) we will be spending colossal amounts of money for centuries. That's not to say I'm firmly against nuclear and I think Germany overreacted after Fukushima by saying they wouldn't have any nuclear in future, but there are problems with it. Another problem, given the huge expense of nuclear plants in this era of tight economic conditions and the time it typically takes to get a nuclear plant built and online (usually at least a couple of decades in the West) is that it might simply be too late to help reach net zero. The economic situation is likely to become worse as climate change problems take an increasingly bigger toll on agriculture and general productivity and forcing larger scale migration.
Not a word about the cost of nuclear plants decommission. Not a word about nuclear waste. The cost of nuclear power is simply underestimated. It's less of an environmental problem than an economical one. Also uranium is a finite resource (but honestly, that's the least of the problems). I'm not saying to throw away nuclear power altogether (France is going to rely on it for a long time), but there are actual practical reasons why Germany wants to get rid of it.
@@lepetitroquet9410 Regardless of what the reasons were, they definitely did not improve carbon emissions. And the waste problem is basically solved, the problem is public and political opposition.
ALL the positives aside, it still takes ten years or so to build a nuclear power plant; requires truck and boat loads of material inputs; a massive investment; and, the issue of COMPLEXITY* has not been resolved... That is, the unpredictable potential for factors or events that can (and do) lead to accidents, meltdowns, and spills or leaks, NOT to forget the fact that We still have not adequately dealt with the issues surrounding the prolonged, safe, stable storage of nuke waste. (*) Complexity involves, amongst MANY other things-- BOTH "known Unknowns" AND "unknown Unknowns."
In my youth I was in an environmental group and we did a human chain outside a nuclear plant in Norway. The workers and researchers where waving from the window taking pictures. The police came and then someone from the plant came with coffee and told the police it was ok and not to worry. And then we dotched a police case.... Those guys at the plant were soo kind and cool tackling the situation in the most amazing way. I've changed my view btw since then. Right now I think hydroelectricity and nuclear are the most promising and realistic energy sources although yes there are big challenges on both.... My country Norway has always been BIG on hydroeelectricity and believe its about 90% of our energy supply is from that source
@@Mugo83x Correct, which is why we need nuclear. Let's not forget that Germany not only shut down its reactors, it also banned nuclear research. So any chance of any progress on lets say.. fusion... will no longer have any chance to come out of Germany. What people completely ignore is the fact that nuclear research is hindered if you cannot build plants or dont get funding because of political ideologies. And that doesn't just impact fission reactors, that also impacts fusion research which is the ONLY massive game changer regarding clean energy on the horizon. Anybody who's anti-nuclear is doing more damage to the climate crisis they constantly whine about than anybody else ever has. Those are the simple facts, that's the economic facts, that's the physics facts. If someone doesn't like nuclear because Chernobyl freaked them out even though they weren't even alife when it happened... whatever.. do what makes you happy. But those people should not go around telling other people they are basing their opinion on reality and facts. They're basing it on personal irrational fear and absolutely nothing else.
but why did they cover the Tschernobyl Plant in a huge concrete sarcophagus to contain it´s reamains if all that nuclear radiation was actually not harming anyone? Why spent billions on building that shelter then? Why does it take so long to decomission those old nuclear power plants form east germany they shut down right after reunification? That was almost 30 years ago, and the decomissioning still is taking place and costing tax money? Is that cost in all those calculations? Don´t think so. What about the nuclear waste containers they stored in old salt mines in germany where the salt is about to corrode the containers so sooner or later the nuclear waste is going to leak into ground water layers? Would you people drink water that has high radiation levels? Are used solar panels really waste? Or are they possibly quite easyly recycled? I don´t know, to me, a lot of the issues shown in this talk don´t really add up.
it costs so much because _we are doing it responsibly_ unlike with waste from dozens of industrial processes, coal power plants and toxic spills *making electricity costs human lives, be it coal, solar, wind, hydro or nuclear, but nuclear causes least amounts of deaths and least greenhouse gas emissions per GWh of generated electricity*
Yes, of course Solar PV Panels are FULLY Recyclable -- at a nice profit, I would add. They are mainly Aluminum and Glass. Solar Si PV is just simple doped Semiconductor and can be recycled back on that path, as well. The only reason there is not already a growing business in this is because . . . . Solar PV Panels just tend to keep going and going, and going. Although standard warranties on New Solar PV is typically 25 years or more . . . in truth they tend to keep going longer -- so no one is scrapping them. Panels from the early years are still going, and it looks like the service life may towards 50 years. This TED (misre)presenter was as clueless about this aspect of the marketing pitch as he was the rest. This may well be the dumbest TED presentation I have ever watched.
"Yes, of course Solar PV Panels are FULLY Recyclable" [citation needed] stats I saw talked about 95% being a _breakthrough_ and we aren't talking about a 1000 of tonnes per TWh of electricity, PV requires nearly 20 000 tonnes per TWh that needs to be recycled. Also you're saying that 50 year lifetime is an achievement, for nuclear it's called "Tuesday". And for nuclear you can upgrade the tech inside without rebuilding the containment domes - the most expensive part of a nuclear power plant so for nuclear the above is actually the _worst case scenario_. "Solar Si PV is just simple doped Semiconductor and can be recycled back on that path, as well." which doesn't make it easy to recycle, the whole PV assembly is complex and uses multitude of metals and materials oh, and while PV recycling is possible, only in EU it's actually mandatory
I was born a few days before Chernobyl and have always had a big fascination for it. I have read all of the leading books on the matter and have come to some interesting findings myself. In fact, knowing the details of the disaster made me become a proponent of nuclear energy. However, I believe for people to make their decisions correctly, they should be given all the facts straight, and there are two problems with this talk when it came to Chernobyl & Fukushima. So yes, I argue that this video is misleading on some points. 1. It is NOT true that Chernobyl was the biggest accident; Fukushima was. It just got played over by the media, but ultimately, with Fukushima, (a) radioactive material was released for several days more, (b) more material was released into the environment if you count both air and sea, which (c) caused contamination in a FAR greater radius. 2. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are small compared to the "ultimate" nuclear disaster they could have been. Using them as an example of how limited their consequences are ignores the fact that (a) both of them could have been worse but thankfully weren't, and (b) a far greater disaster could still happen. To elaborate on the second point: at Chernobyl, the first reaction to putting out the fire was to pump water into the reactor (they later threw in bags of sand, fortunately). This could theoretically have caused an explosion, because the water that reached the burning graphite was immediately electrolyzed into oxygen and hydrogen, which could have basically turned it into a hydrogen bomb further exposing the entire reactor and causing massively more nuclear fuel to be spewed out. They also filled some of the basement with water, which could have caused the exact same reaction. Fortunately, most of the reactor's fuel did not go up in smoke, but seeped into the basement and became a sort of glass. It is this kind of reaction, by the way, that caused the explosions at Fukushima. At Fukushima, there was only a partial meltdown; had it been a full meltdown, it would have also been a worse disaster than what we ended up dealing with. So, that said, we should not be scared to know that we "got lucky" both times, and that today's nuclear power plants are much safer. I believe we should close off old power plants, build new ones, but not ignore or forget that an accident may still happen sooner or later. That is just being realistic and objective.
I totally agree with you that nuclear power should always be handelt with care and enjoyed with a grain of salt. But the eu and specially germany spend millions upon billions of subsidizes into solar power plants. Now imagine all that mkney in state owned nuclear plants and research. Also consider new reactor designs. If all of this effort to demonise nuclear and rallying for solar and wind would have gone in improving nuclear and refining new plants There would be an golden age for low emmissions and cheap energy. I hate germanys energypolicy and why i need to pay 27ct while big corps with high power demands just get their renewable energy tax or "EEG Umlage" gifted. Total CDU Party nonsense
Nice to see a different perspective on this and data to support it. I'm very much pro-nuclear, but the talk really left me with a bad taste. I feel like he didn't dive deep enough into the potential risks of the technology. Nuclear is probably still our best shot when it comes to climate change right now, but playing down the risks only leads to new disasters which ultimately hurts the development of our reactors. And we desperately need safer and more efficient reactors, if we want them to replace fossil fuels as the main energy source. I'm very happy that there's finally at least one nation (China) willing to spend significant amounts of money to develop safer and more efficient reactor types. A lot of the reactor tech in use is still not fundamentally different from the very first designs, which were never meant to be used outside of the military (and civil systems don't really have that high degree of supervision and maintenance + strong redundancy of the surrounding systems).
When you say hydrogen bomb that's pretty misleading. Are you talking about a hydrogen fusion chain reaction or simply oxygen and hydrogen burning to make water? In a nuclear disaster site, even a small conventional explosion could create very big problem. But using the phrase "hydrogen bomb" in the context of nuclear is very very potentially misleading, unless you deliberately intend to say there was a risk of a nuclear hydrogen fusion explosion, which I absolutely and wholly doubt was the case.
Even I, a pro-nuclear individual, noticed his seemingly incorrect portrayal of both incidents. I thank you for also acknowledging this, and pointing this out.
It’s a comment section. Put a /sarc tag because we don’t know enough about you to know if you are serious or not (though I would like to think you were being facetious!) :)
But he missed a couple important counter points, which made it seem to me, as he didn't try to tell the story, but just try to convince people. As an example, nuclear and renewable are really bad partners... they don't work well together. It is hard to regulate a grid with nuclear and if you have to shut a power plant down, it needs multiple days to weeks to power it up again. Oh and his comparison of the cost was also looking fishy, as it compared France to German cost, but not producing the electricity, but what consumers have to pay. Things ignores a lot of things, like that the big industries in Germany's pay much less and a lot of other factors.
I think he was more aiming to show many examples from many places in order to illustrate the point. You can take any set of data and nit-pick it to death in order to make it sound wrong/misleading, but overall I think his big picture approach is much more coherent and digestible.
+AlbinosaurusR3X "aiming to show many examples" yes, which makes it even worse, as like I've said he ignored many important points, which all would be counter to his narrative. "You can take any set of data and nit-pick it to death in order to make it sound wrong/misleading" Couldn't you say the same about what he was doing?
Its important to note that Fukushima was also a triple-disaster. I did a research paper on the disaster and ended up finding that the effects of the meltdown itself in the environment and community were relatively minor. The earthquake and tsunami did far more significant damage to the community and people
The video shows big casks of spent nuclear fuel in storage. Why aren't we using the waste heat from spent nuclear fuel. Those big casks produce about 50KW initially and 25KW after ten years. Thirty casks produce thermal energy per day equivalent to burning 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel daily. Tremendous waste of thermal energy.
Nuclear engineer here. It's not really worth the effort tbh. It's more cost effective to use other energy sources rather than trying to get useful energy out of the decay heat from spent fuel rods while simultaneously keeping them shielded and separated to avoid criticality accidents and the like. If you want to use that spent fuel, reprocess it like France does.
I appreciate Michael Shellenberger`s talk. I work in Wind energy, but want to see much more Nuclear Energy to replace Coal as our baseload power. This ought to be our National Priority. Honestly, we must get off of coal. That being the keystone of priorities, we all know how to replace that coal baseload, it is Nuclear or MSR, or Thorium nuclear, the balance being handled by wind and solar. We need to be a lot more careful to elect persons who actually know that basic Science is important--I`d rather not see Florida under water.
We need to transition to non-carbon energy sources much, much faster than any crash nuclear power plant building program could address. Creating nuclear waste is immoral.
I want to see nuclear replace wind turbines as well. Solar-Thermal can stay, their advanced super-critical steam designs must replace the originals though.
We are past Peak Coal, the best coal has already been mined. More nuclear power would mean a growth in business for cancer treatment due to the cancers this would cause, but the techno fix approach prefers to ignore the health consequences of uranium mining, the nuclear fuel cycle, reactor emissions and the impossibility of storing the "waste" forever.
@@markrobinowitz8473 agreed but you can see in this post that hundreds of comments disagree with us. But I find it slightly suspicious how many there are....allot of bots on UA-cam and UA-camrs can manipulate to generate commercial stats. The economics of NG doesn't stack up. We would be better doing transitional gas. We know how to clean up old gas plant.
What’s crazy is how long we have known about these issues and the already failed test cases and yet the climate activists still dont understand. Drives me nuts
@@MrYorickJenkins, I don't think you understand, the risks of nuclear energy are far smaller than the risks of fossil fuels. I know this won't be enough to change your mind because you are far beyond the line of fanaticism when it comes to the "nuclear = bad" ideology, so no actual facts nor any kind of proof will work on you. In fact, you act similarly to flat-earthers. Regardless, thousands of times more people die each year as a result of fossil fuel extraction and pollution across the world than as a result of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters as well as any other nuclear power plant accident that has ever happened combined. An estimate of 3+ million people die each year from fossil fuel pollution, and a maximum of 1500-2000 people died in the events I have mentioned and as a direct AND indirect result of any nuclear energy accident as well as nuclear energy production itself. When it comes to renewable energy, nuclear is still about 5 times safer than solar, and 1,5-2 times safer than wind. I am talking about average mortalities per thousand terawatt hour, with nuclear at 90, wind at 150, and solar at 440.
@@ignatz2 totally agree but with one addition...... nuclear energy should not be in the hands of globalist corporations & owned by the people/country with any profits made distributed as dividends or supplied to the people at cost!!! Electriciy being a fundimental resource should not be in private hands for profit!!! Also being owned by the people & our focus keyed to safety & enviromental aspects we could offer peace of mind that nuclear is safe...from my research we should be using thorium as a source offering a greener option that uranium
@@ignatz2 Not so. Radiation is a fundamentally different kind of risk. Radioactive waste is forever. Just because coal is bad does NOT mean nuclear is the alternative.
@@Rep0007 The amount of actually radioactive nuclear waste is minimal (not sure but i think I remember it being 2% or 3%), most of the waste is just water vapour and a bunch of pretty safe elements. The dangerous stuff is kept in very thick barrels, that are in turn kept in very deep underground shafts designed to withstand natural disasters and eliminate the risk of any accidents, and are left there for thousands of years to stabilise into less and less radioactive compounds and then to be forgotten. If people finally accepted nuclear energy then the field would get more funding, which in turn would bring innovation in all areas, including waste management. But still, compared to fossil fuel power plants, nuclear waste isn't just randomly floating in the air we breathe every single day. And by the way, at least today, air pollution is also kinda forever, because there is so much of it that nature can't get rid of it on it's own. Oh and I almost forgot, if you go on a plane flight, you get exposed to more radiation than Chernobyl's cleanup workers. Radiation is everywhere, and it's really not as dangerous as it may seem.
If a grain of sand was sitting on top of a single uranium atom, when that atom underwent fission, you would see that grain of sand jump from the energy hitting it. (Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb) It is truly a gift from the heavens.
I'm glad this was pub back up. This is, in my opinion, one of the most balanced, science-driven looks at climate change and how to solve it. I loved this presentation!
I think this video is more about meeting our energy needs rather than on how to deal with climate change. However, if communicating to people that nuclear power will help deal with "climate change" while addressing meeting our energy needs then that is also a good thing in my opinion.
Not well researched. He overlooks the fact that there are many types of PV panels. Sunpower’s PV panels are the most efficient at converting solar to electricity, and they contain no cadmium, lead, or other toxics. Most solar power plants don’t even use PV, they use mirrors and no toxic chemicals. He also overlooks that PV panels are recycleable, and only need to be recycled every 30 yrs, whereas nuclear waste accumulates every day you run the plant.
He also overlooks how the nuclear industry has defaulted on over 50% of its government backed loans to build nuclear power plants - leaving taxpayers on the hook for many billions of dollars for each one.
He makes illogical arguments like its a good idea to increase harmful nuclear radiation because we are currently exposed to even more radiation from other sources like radon.
He overlooks the fact that Fluidic Energy is an Arizona company with patented rechargeable zinc air batteries that would be very good for storing renewable power at homes but they will only sell them to developing countries. There are also companies with similar NiMH battery technology (look up “gigacell” by kawasaki heavy industries) but none will sell the products to people who want to use them for residential purposes like back-up heating.
Years ago I first thought 2-3 day's worth of background radiation would be present as far as 2 miles from a Nuclear facility. Later I found out that it only gets like that when you are within several meters of the water tank that contains the uranium rods.
My physics teacher talked about this in class a couple years ago and most of the class (me included) had a hard time believing him. It's so ingrained in so many of us that nuclear power is bad and anti-environment. With all the innovations in nuclear power only improving its safety and efficiency, I hope to see it implemented more in the future.
ive been on the nuclear band wagon for a decade and im glad people are starting to see that it is way more practical than the current renewable energy sources
@@AcBEntertainment it is more efficient, has zero emissions, and more reliable. You need less plants to power more cities. Its just an overall better energy source
@@AcBEntertainment yea I have all the documents ready to link to you. Lol dude did you even watch the video? There are many on the subject on UA-cam, maybe give them a look
@@theoyancey Zero emissions is one massive lie by the proponents of ncuealr energy which they come out with by limiting the meaning of the word emission. Nuclear waset is by an proper deifnition "emission" and nuclear waste is a horrendous problem
@@theoyancey I will tell you reducing consumption that is what people should be looking at not new ways of posioning and plundering the planet to accommodate runaway human population growth
@@notthatgerry , I hope they gorge upon it! It will not only pull them up from a third world nation but show the world what open minded energy will create.
@@steelwarrior105 , Sorry should have been more passionate. We need to concentrate massive more research and development in this area of research, it should become a priority.
@@donalddunkin fair enough, i will let you know thought that there are seven interesting projects around the country about to hit that may really start the ball rolling in that direction
One environmental activist says what nuclear experts have been saying for years and he's lauded as a visionary. It's people like him who are the reason that nuclear power has been held back for so long. If people are serious about cutting CO2 emissions, they need to understand that the only two viable options are nuclear power and cryogenic carbon capture.
I hope all the people that comment below (on both 'sides' of the issues) went and checked his facts, his sources, and did more than just take his word. People can be slick with their presentations. We are told so many stories by so many people and organizations, corporations etc. that one is afraid to just believe anything anymore. He may have hit it right on, but..... What worries me that in these discussions of energy 'need' we so often completely ignore the efficiency aspect. We have technology and brains that can change how we use of energy, where we use it, what kinds we use in which applications etc. It is not just a question of adding more supply...that is thinking for gorillas, not humans. There is tremendous potential here. There are many people in the world that do not even have electricity - and wow, they actually survive! When we talk about solar we seldom hear anymore about direct sunlight rather than photovoltaic. The more we complicate the technology and our reliance on it, the more often we dig ourselves into a reliance problem that potentially excludes simpler fixes. The big one of course is behavioural change - and that gets missed completely by energy hacks.
a mix of nuclear, geothermal, renewables, hydro is the solution since nuclear is too centralized to able to provide energy to an entire country on its own
I'm very surprised by what he said about Chernobyl's radioactivity. 28 deaths is the official death toll, Russia will never recognize the official number which was way higher. Many people died to try and stopped the core from being exposed. Plus, just saying "there's no more deaths than that" is forgetting another key element : The sick people. They aren't dead yet, but they fell very sick from radiation (like the worker in the n°4 control room who had to had many skin grafts because his skin was falling off) and this, to me, must be taken into account. There's also the land which can't be used anymore, many mutations on the wildlife, and so on. It's not "oh hey, it's cool, only 28 deaths", it's way more complex than that.
In my opinion, you can “ignore” this fact, if you look up the number of people who got sick because of coal. Just saying. Like I support your point, this was just what I think was his thought proses
I can’t wait to retire. About 18 months out. With the commute now working about 60 hours/week. Work is very difficult and pressure packed, with constant sales quotas, and customer demands. With my job you are never, never, never, caught up or finished. After over 45 years of doing this, I am past ready for a change. Believe me, I’m ready to escape from my enslavement. It’s hard for me to understand the need to go back to work, that some have. My retirement income should be about the same as I’m making now working. Freedom is what I crave.
It is good to hear someone say this on a larger platform. We that work in Nuclear have been trying to get the word out about the disinformation about nuclear for decades. In the USA 15,000 large birds of prey get killed by wind power every year. They do not even get fined for this. If a large bird of prey lands in a nuclear station yard and gets killed the fine is between $10,000 and $100,000 per bird. To date in the United States we have had ZERO deaths directly related to the operation of a nuclear power plant. Coal kills 10,s of thousands every year. Wind kills dozens every year. People do not know that it takes almost as much coal energy to create a solar panel as the electrical energy that would be produced if we burned burned the coal instead. Solar panels BTW are created from a liquified mix of coal and quartz that produces a toxic water run off. It all looks clean but as he says in the speech solar energy does little to contain or control it's waste (and there is alot of it). Lets not get into the toxic damage batteries cause. Biomass plants were concepted as renewable. They make as much pollution as coal does, and with the demise of the paper industry trees are being clear cut just to burn them in the plants because there is not enough bio-waste to operate them.
@EnlightenmentLiberal How do you figure SL-1 was a "weapons reactor"? SL-1 was part of the Army Nuclear Power Program. The reactor was intended to provide electrical power and heat for small, remote military facilities, such as radar sites near the Arctic Circle, and those in the DEW Line. The design power was 3 MW (thermal), but some 4.7 MW tests were performed in the months prior to the accident. Operating power was 200 kW electrical and 400 kW thermal for space heating.
@@parkertheprophet Nuclear power is the safest, but I get tired of lies on either end of the anti-nuke/pro-nuke spectrum and I clearly corrected one of those lies. If nuclear power is going to die, let it die on facts and evidence, not lies and assertions.
@@kurtjohansson1265 Thorium Nuclear Reactors are the safest. Uranium has let us down and is too volatile as well as a target for terrorism. This is the guy that worked along with the Obama Administration on renewables and now is working along with the other idiots to bring back Uranium reactors so they can have the depleted Uranium for their weapons industry. Watch ANY of the DOZENS of TedTalks on Thorium Reactors and then thank me later. ;)
You prove your point so well and I convinced nuclear energy is best alternative... 1) the biggest challenge is time taken to build functional nuclear energy plant 2) transportation of nuclear material as raw material 3) how nuclear energy will benefit reach to poor or 3rd nation countries
@@appleislander8536 there are coastal mountain ranges in california. i've always wanted to see someone do pumped hydro using the ocean as the lower basin. still calls for destroy a mountain valley or 2.
@@ejjaquez9849 I've actually seen this used.. It's somewhere along the I5 leaving the city proper of LA going to Palmdale.. it's not being used as I assume is usually used when theres excess water.
Great insights. It changed a lot of things I believed in the past. Excellent way of presenting ideas this is something which every TeD talk has in common. Great ideas are explained precisely and briefly.
@@andresmusetti i don't feel like watching video again, but i'm pretty sure in this one he uses bladerunner as a reference for how much land is required for solar, which I'm sure you'll agree is silly. There is also no permanent solution for managing nuclear waste at the moment. He also omits the fact that he gets paid by the nuclear industry to propagandize for them, which was made clear when his campaign finances were made public. the majority of his lies are through omissions, though. For example, we already have companies working on recycling batters, managing energy storage with older grids and modernizing/diversifying grid energy production. He also never brings up the fact that the world is so invested in U reactors because the fuel and waste can both be weaponized. Nuclear is also not an option for most of the world's poor nations, which is most dependent on fossil fuels (unless they agree to be financed by other nations). Basically, he's right that nuclear is a path forward, but he takes it waaaay too far to the point of smearing other viable technologies. He also NEVER cites any studies, because none of them support his claims. It's a bit strange, especially considering the IPCC 2022 study literally states nuclear as the most cost-effective path forward for the immediate future, but because it also accurate portrays the issue and solutions, he won't even cite relatively positive studies. If you want more accurate and scientifically-based perspective, there are much better sources. This guy is just a shill for the nuclear industry and indirectly for the fossil fuel industry.
@@snowballeffect7812 the problem with [redacted] people is that they base their opinion on ONE PERSON. this is PHYSICS, his "opinion" doesn't matter. look further, think harder, dig deeper. but nope, just gonna smear this one guy and base your ENTIRE view on this. nice. for you because you are clearly [redacted]: THIS LAST PART IS SARCASM.
@@samhhaincat2703 not sure what you're talking about. I looked up his sources of funding and employment history. He's a shill who's skilled in throwing in facts and then making baseless claims to make it seem like everything he's saying is based on reality. i clearly provided examples where he lies about facts. if we're talking about PHYSICS, as you put it, he's still wrong. I literally did "think harder, dig deeper" and it seems you didn't like what i found lol. have you taken your own advice?
In 2021, You are 1000% true. In Australia we are closing our 60 year old coal power plants with nothing but wind and solar to replace them. We have already experienced power outages and increased prices. We need to invest in nuclear power for many reasons and the benefits out weigh the problems 1000 fold.
Try living in germany. exactly why I left the place. The anti nuclear movement has done more environmental damage than the oil and coal industry combined and it's time they realize that. They've been blocking nuclear research and power plant construction for over half a century. And this climate crisis, the air polition issues in tons of places and millions of deaths are on their conscience alone. If we had kept building the plants and research had continued, not only would we be WAY further in nuclear design, we'd possibly even have fusion reactors by now, a program which has also been massively impacted by this. But we certainly wouldn't have western central european nations that are still burning coal to run their industry.
The thing about deploying renewables on the sort of scale we need, is they require a level of storage capacity and efficiency which isn't there and is not cost effective to develop right now. And I totally agree nuclear is a necessary stopgap while we chip away at that. Heck, I've only been saying that for the last 40 years. Glad you got on board.
This is actually a common misunderstood fallacy. Urbanization allows for smaller living/ yard spaces, less dependency on automobiles, and more efficient uses of infrastructure (roads, utility connections) among urban dwellers, meaning a lower per capita consumption of key resources from land and water to energy and materials. The misconception involves thinking about where the greatest total resource consumption occurs, rather than measuring levels of demand by population
@@bobthebuilder5668 exactly - million people living in a dense city will have much less negative effect on environment than million people living in villages or a (stereo)typical American suburb
Christopher Dizon you will only pay so litlle at a moment you don’t need it. Therefore windsun is not cheap, but worthless. When you need it, you will pay the real cost. In Belgium where I live and in close by Germany, we’re at 0.30$ now and climbing.
Demand response then Batteries ;) I've never seen >3 days w/o SIGNIFICANT sun or wind. Better to pay ~$0.02/kWh ~95% of the time. FAR cheaper than the nuclear boondoggle. And nuclear gets more expensive as we get more energy from wind/solar since a nuclear plant costs the same to maintain whether it's generating 1MWh/yr or 1TWh/yr....
Solar and wind are only cheaper when you ignore questions of capacity. You are correct that a nuclear plant costs the same whether it generates a MWh or a GWh. But with a nuclear plant, multi-GWh output is a possibility. You can actually use nuclear power as a base load solution. You can't with solar or wind. The technology just doesn't scale that well.
Renewable energy like most "green" things are a luxury for the wealthy. Electric cars, solar panels on your house, having thousands of dollars of tesla batteries just to flex on your neighbor, that's all fine and dandy. But if you live in a studio apartment with street parking, you rely on the grid and gas for now. And while there was a large move to get out of large cities during covid, large cities are still the centers that people congregate in to increase their earning potential and relying on spotty renewable energy just to keep the lights on is not a stable system.
Everyone was panicking because this video was temporarily taken down! Some incredibly important points for the pragmatic solution to climate change, energy poverty, and clean industrial energy! Love Environmental Progress, the non-profit founded my Micheal Schellenberger... I watch all his talks.
I haven’t watched it but I’m guessing Fukushima isn’t what changed his mind about nuclear energy. I’m guessing also that requiring procreation permits isn’t his solution to climate change and other problems related to overpopulation.
He considers nuclear “clean” bc no carbon. Radiation is not clean. When people die from cancer they don’t know where they got it from but we know radiation is one cause. There is still radiation in ocean fish from fukushima. European countries dump nuclear waste into the ocean. Radioactive waste from Hanford leaks into groundwater. If you like radiation you might also enjoy reading about “green runs” from Hanford.
Max Little, still haven't watched the video? Radiation from nuclear waste and in areas contaminated by nuclear fallout and decay products still comprises just a small percentage of total radiation levels. Most radiation comes from radon in the ground, granite and other rocks, asphalt(thanks to coal ash), cosmic radiation, the air, water, living things, etc. Living things are generally more radioactive than their environments thanks to the concentration of C14 and K40. And all sea water is radioactive, it actually has significant levels of Uranium throughout. If you're so concerned about radiation, other industries produce way higher (and unregulated) levels of radiation from their byproducts (coal, geothermal, REEs for wind turbines). And about cancer, you realize it's also treated with radiation? That is something radiophobes can never seem to get their heads around.
Carla: I watched the video before making my last comment and was not impressed. The fact that non-nuclear radiation is more ubiquitous is a bad reason to increase nuclear radiation. Have you read up on green runs yet? Nuclear power is also very expensive. The focus should be on decreasing negligent procreation. If the economy wasn’t so dependant on increasing populations the problem would have been addressed a long time ago. We control the population size and procreation decisions of many plants and animals but not our own species.
it would be awesome if solar and wind could meet most of our energy needs, but this just isn't possible. It'a time to look at the facts and not be controlled by emotional reasoning.
@@DoGlowy I wouldn't write him off as a total shill, he raises some very valid points and concerns around energy and environment. I don't agree with everything he says like he supports GMOs for one but just because he endorses oil and fossil fuels doesn't make him a "corporate shill"
@@TBustah I'm against modern GMOs due to the widespread use of Roundup. Hybridisation is not the same as corporation funded gene modification. Go figure.
I went to jail in 2000 and read a book while there about nuclear energy. It changed my life, and perspective, regarding nuclear energy and it's potential. It is SO hard to talk about it with people, they are scared by propaganda. Putting the increase cost of renewables on the 'people' merely to 'do the right thing' will never fly. We all want a clean world, but most of us work to pay bills. We deserve reasonable costs. It is ALL about the storage, and we ain't got it yet!
No it's *not* all about the storage. It's also about the waste from solar, the avian kills from wind, the blight on the landscape, the relocated wildlife, the intermittent power, and the huge land mass necessary for renewables.
They still take too long to build which can't keep up with demand. Nuscale who builds the SMRs recently announced the project would be delayed to 2030, and the cost would rise from $4.2 billion to 6.1 billion. No utilities will take them on if they can't lower the cost. Innovation typically means cheaper costs but oddly it has always been the opposite for nuclear energy.
Great presentation. We've been using nuclear power electricity generation in Ontario, Canada for over 50 years with no safety issues. And we're going to continue. Our electrical utility, OPG, is committed to SMR development as part of its carbon neutral program.
You've been using nuclear power for fifty years, one generation The waste that you have created will have to be safely maintained for thousands of years, or hundreds of generations. You're about 1% of the way on the journey of responsibility just for the energy you have created so far.
@@kevdaag2523 Meanwhile, trillions of tons of carbon waste and particulates are being spewed into the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans. More deaths from lung and heart disease caused by air pollution will continue every year, because people do not understand that radiation is not as dangerous as they are lead to believe by media and some environmental activists (I'm looking at you Greenpeace). More than half of ionizing radiation comes from the ground in the form of radon gas, other forms of ionizing radiation comes from other natural sources, like the sun. However, less than 0.01% comes from man made radiation. Radiation waste from nuclear power can be contained and stored safely in geologically stable rock formations (the Canadian Shield has not changed in millions of years and will not change for millions more) deep underground for thousands of years. The problem is that there is so much opposition to safely storing this waste, that instead the nuclear waste is stored above ground in containers, that will not last more than a hundred years. Nuclear and renewable energy is the way to reducing GHG and to ensure clean air for future generations to breath. Closing nuclear plants and opening coal fired power plants and natural gas plants is to ensure that CO2 output will continue to increase, see Germanys increase in emissions over the last twenty years since they have decommissioned nuclear power plants, even though they have invested heavily in solar and wind power. This is a dangerous experiment to play with the only atmosphere we all share, and we will continue to cause preventable pain and suffering to future generations from heart and lung disease caused by air pollution. But for all the evidence, you'll probably not change your mind.
No safety issues? That is false. The correct statement is that the people of Ontario were not notified of the safety issues because they keep safety failures secret.
The funniest thing I've heard about nuclear energy is that the smome coming from the reactors is co2, methane etc. when it's actually just water recirculating in the atmosphere
I am trained as a engineeer and an attorney. I would agree with more than 90% on with Mr. Shellenberger says. What frightens me however, is the knowledge that everything he says was known and explained 50 years ago. But it was drowned out by people such as him, with a larger microphone than the rest of us, who encouraged nonsense and emotion to override common sense. It should be obvious that if you want to lessen the impact on the environment, you should focus on systems and sources of energy which are energy dense, yet we do exactly the opposite. The real question is why? I think there are a number of reasons one is simply money. If one can force people on this planet into stampead like behavior, then one can figure out how to easily profit from that. Like creating and selling toxic solar panels that we don't even know how to recycle. The other is Geo political advantage by the various countries. The US is blessed with lots of energy resources both fossil and otherwise, and the best way to hamstring the US is to keep it from becoming energy independent.
Fusion is the prize. Once we can master it, our macro energy problems (electricity via power lines) will be solved- pretty much permanently, with virtually no risks.
We have made a fusion reactor before, the only problem was that it took more up more energy than it created. We need to create a way more efficient form of fusion before its even advantageous to use it at all
@@dallascopp4798 this is true, and there are independent projects worldwide dedicated to making it work. Linus Tech Tips has a great video about a reactor in Canada that has a working reactor that they are tuning millions of variables on to make it efficient. They believe by brute forcing the variables they will have a working config in the next 10 - 30 years at the absolute most.
Except that people don't rupture and spew 10,000 years of radiation when something goes wrong. Course you might get a toxic fart once in a while... but that's a different kinda risk.
Nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy we have. Yes, when things go wrong, they go wrong big, but they almost never go wrong. We humans tend to be more concerned with big events than actual impact. 50 fatal car crashes a day is no big deal, but the moment a plane crash kills 300 people all at once, people freak out and think air travel is super dangerous. The same thing happens with nuclear reactors. They kill a few thousand people a century, but we ignore the fact that other energy production methods pull that off every year. It's just that nuclear reactors do it all at once, so it looks scarier.
@@enderallygolem What if the toxic waste gets into our freshwater supply? Or in out food? Even if the radiation isn't as bad as usually thought, if we are constantly surrounded by it, it can't be healthy.
@@eden1925 You are constantly bombarded from the waste from the nearby landfill, which is highly toxic, is a biohazard, and an air pollutant. Now tell me how it's different from the depleted uranium fuel rods.
@@hijarian It isn't that different, but I'd guess that you could also reuse the material inside, I think he mentioned something about the EU recycling solar panels. And I'd guess that it is toxic for a shorter period of time and not multiple millenia.
@@eden1925 You'd guess wrong then. Lead, for example, doesn't stop being toxic over time. Million year old lead is just as poisonous as day old lead, because such terms are meaningless in a practical sense. Lead isn't really being created or destroyed to a significant degree on Earth, it's mostly just being moved around. Nuclear waste is an issue that must be addressed, but as far as waste from power production is concerned, it's actually some of the EASIEST to address. It is a much smaller amount than the waste products from other forms of energy production, and it comes in a form that we can capture, transport, and put somewhere far from people or groundwater. Waste from things like fossil fuels only seemed to be less of an issue than nuclear waste because society thought that dumping it into the air or into the oceans meant it went away. That if we couldn't see it, it was safely disposed of. And that's simply not true.
If more people were willing to speak out against orthodoxy held by their “tribe”, the world would be a much better place..I wish I lived in CA so I could vote for Shellenberger
As a proponent for working against climate change, i think it's without a shadow of a doubt that nuclear power needs to be a significant part of that transition.
I think (but am not certain) that the energy (thus emissions) required to excavate and refine the uranium for fission nuclear is bad, possibly (but here's where I'm not sure) worse per kwh than coal or gas. Irritating that this guy didn't address that, I get that he is addressing the huge stigma and fear from most bogan's about nuclear though.
@@alexbuilder6983 It might take more to excavate to get the same amount of mass, but here's the thing, but nuclear is a hugely magnititude more energy dense than any fossil fuel is. Also not to even mention the fact that Thorium is often a bi-product of other mining operations, there's large quantities of it that's already dug up not being used. Obviously it'd take some refining and purification, but that's already the case for petroleum too. Basically no form of energy comes without it's drawbacks, but i think by and large, if we could get it to work on a large scale, Thorium would be our best bet for energy.
@@TehIdiotOne super interesting! I wasnt a hundred percent sure so thanks for clearing that up. Nuclear should definitely be the go to source of stationary energy (which is most of it), I think hydrogen may be a better alternative for some petroluem applications rather than batteries, its much more energy dense (and lighter) than both batteries and fossil fuels and would probably require less change of infrastructure (concrete, steel etc). Especially since theres people working on ways of using the sun to seperate hydrogen from water (hopefully sea water). It would be interesting to see carbon dioxide emmissions per joule or watt of hydrogen as compared to fossil fuels or batteries.
I used to be afraid of nuclear power because I thought a nuclear reactor worked like a nuclear bomb, and that it could potentially explode like one. I was half wrong. What goes on inside a nuclear reactor is the same that goes on inside a nuclear bomb; they do the same thing, but they do it very differently, such that a nuclear reactor actually has 0% chance of ever exploding like a nuclear bomb. I think it was the youtuber _thunderf00t_ that made a video where he explained that difference. Not sure which video it was. Might have been his video(s) about fukushima or something. Basically the nuclear bomb has a high density of uranium particles and it makes them all release energy at the same time, and that's what generates a brutal force that causes the explosion. The nuclear reactor is the opposite: it has a low density of particles and it make them release energy more sporadically. It does only what is enough to generate electricity, and that's it. According to thunderf00t, the process of the nuclear bomb is also very difficult to get right, so you can't even cause a nuclear explosion by mistake. This, alongside Michael Shellenberger's talks, made me change my mind completely.
I'm impressed that you care enough about the environment that you're willing to say some things that are very unpopular among mainstream "environmentalists." I admire your integrity.
he doesn't take care of environment or he would say" no energy at al"l. he is simply eventually discovering that we can't take care of environment but we have to make choice how to damage it with the less consequences for us. something that people knew for a long time but environmentalists.
People have been saying this for 70 years. It's all nonsense. Nuclear power is not the answer.
@@bentoboxofire7404 what are those soft lies?
@@Skankhunt-mv4vd so what are YOUR answer...
@@earnthis1 Nuclear power literally is the solution. You're delusional.
I think it's the same sort of risk perception the general public has for air travel vs car travel. Plane crashes are sudden and unexpected and really grab our attention. Car crashes are background noise that we tune out.
Christina Dunigan
lol I literally just came up with this same analogy while watching this video XD
perfect example
Also shark deaths vs cow deaths
Slowly but surely the evidence is seeping in of the higher probabiluity of cancer from flying, pilots and board staff have higher liklihood of dying from cancer than people whos eldom or never fly but the evidence needs to be collated it will be over the next couple of decades.
Excellent analogy. Or, in America there are the 100 people killed by guns per day, and nobody cares about them, but when there's more than 5 killed at the same time, mass media pretend it's an extraordinary tragedy. Nope, it's exactly as any other day, except that on that day, a significant number of victims knew each other.
The misinformation really is alarming, I mean I was kind of scared at the very concept of nuclear until I went to school to *specifically study environmental and energy engineering* .
As soon as I went to a plant, saw the processes, saw the nuclear waste containment plans, and studied the facts about emissions and health effects, I realized how many people still feel the same way about nuclear as I used to. If it takes for a person to WANT to study the field before they realize the potential of nuclear energy, I'm afraid we're going to need a reaaaaaaaally good PR campaign.
Most people are not scared of Nuclear. They are afraid of the man operating the controls. Also, the government that is having the project built by the lowest bidder.
@@totallynottrademarked5279 You hit the nail on the head. When profit is ranked above people and the environment there will be safety breaches which becomes a scandal after the incident. Safety must come before EVERYTHING at all times. I am not scared of modern reactors but behind closed doors in meeting rooms I think some workers at the plants are disagreeing with fuel storage and other practices being breached.
Chernobyl is a case study of what may happen when employees are not rigorously trained therefore transparency in practice is also vital. If the reactor is well designed for the environment and workers are very well trained with safety practices in operation at all times there should be absolutely no reason for secrecy in these roles. If we build reactors in stable areas and not in regions where earthquakes happen and tsunamis are probable then Nuclear can be very safe indeed!! Compare that with an alternative like China's bid to build a coal mine every week for '7 YEARS' causing all kinds of serious health issues it can be a no-brainer. In the future it looks like we will need a lot more energy and it cannot be from Solar, Wind and Water....It can only come from Nuclear. To allow this to happen we need to change the minds of the masses because if there emerges a huge class divide of the have and have nots of who can afford the very basic need of electricity then this will cause many associated problems like people ending up below the poverty line and crime then running out of control. Couple this with Abrupt Climate Change also the agricultural industry being hit very hard especially in the Bread Basket regions then this all tells me we have to get this done to avoid a very miserable and possibly very violent future.
Which plant did you go to?
@Kytsche drinking the cool aid, buddy. Enjoy the sweet flavor.
@@totallynottrademarked5279 China is building the ones England wants. They can't even build them themselves.
I lived for years in France, where there is no environmental controversy whatsoever over nuclear energy. In a nation no larger than the size of Texas, there are 70 reactors in service, and in 50 years of operation, there has never been a serious accident or leak of nuclear materials.
54 reactors and 2 Saint Laurent nuclear accidents ........ but but great imagination!
@@marcwinkler He said serious ones. The entirety of Europe never had any serious accidents aside from Chernobyl and that was the shittiest reactor type you can imagine and even that wouldn't have been a problem if there hadn't been off the scale human error.
Maybe look up how many serious accidents have been around coal mining, around wind and solar energy and where the materials come from and how much damage wind energy production can do down to destroying entire habitats and changing wind patterns that can lead to droughts.
Any engineer in the world will tell you that if you want energy and you want it clean and safe, the best option we have right now is nuclear and there isn't anything that comes even close. And tons of nations like France have ZERO cultural problems with that while others do, and none of that has anything to do with the real facts and engineering, it's purely ideological. There is no objective sensible reason that speaks against nuclear power, especially the reactors we can build nowadays.
Those are simply the facts. If a nation decides they don't want them for ideological reasons.. fine. anybody can do whatever they want. But people should stop pretenting they are somehow this dangerous thing. That's nonsense. That's a person who's afraid of flying trying to tell everybody how dangerous planes are, when in reality they're by far the safest way of transportation.
And guess what.. I don't like flying, and I won't get aboard one no matter how safe it is. But I am going to be honest about why.. because I personally am afraid of flying. I won't go on a campaign and try to prohibit planes everywhere.
@@marcwinkler Now 56, with 26 offline in November to repair cracks.
@@JayzeVo17 - If 26 are offline to repair cracks I look at that as a good thing, not an accident. France has been shrinking their plants because of the morons that run that country. They have been blue pilled into the opposite of everything Michael said in this talk 5 years ago. Look at the cost of energy this winter in Europe, and around the world. Idiots are running this world right now. We live in a time when we think we are the only mammals on this planet that can change genders as easy as changing a light bulb.
Ce n'est pas vrai. 25 % of French people are against nuclear energy today. It used to be close to 45 %. However, since the energy crisis, due to the invasion of the Ukraine, are now less against (hence 25%). There used to be a strong mobilization against the supergenerators. Unfortunately, Macron is downplaying the need for renouvable energies.
kudos to Michael.
You start out with a view, a theory, you study, resurche, learn and you go with the evidence. This is called wisdom
Man, I had a chemistry professor tell me all of this 10 years ago. Thought he was just a nut. Should probably trust scientists.
He wasn't named Hassell, was he?
People trust scientists unless they say something that goes radically against their narrative.
sloth4z yeah
Don't worry! Most other people will think this guy is a nut for the next ten years and nothing will get done either. Just the way the world works. Unbiased critical thinking, even among experts and geniuses is very hard to come by. Hopefully bGates can make a dent with his wave reactors.
My college professor also told us the same things. Just a couple of years ago. But, I'm not American. If I went to an American college, I'd probably never hear my professor say it. Not in a class at least. Shows how much politics is undermining science.
As a child I lived when the 3 Mile Island accident occurred. I remember people saying that this was about as bad as a nuclear accident could get in the US, yet no one died, and there was almost no release of radiation. I thought to myself that if this is as bad as it can get, why are people against nuclear power?
Its amazing the ignorance that surrounds 3 Mile Island. Many people still believe that the plant had a meltdown and exploded, even though nothing even close to that ever happened.
Part of it is probably also anti-Nuclear propaganda set up by the the other energy sectors, because they know Nuclear could put them out of business for good.
Big wind and solar! Lol
You should include more data points before jumping to conclusions. Chernobyl and Fukushima are better examples of how serious a nuclear disaster can be. Do you still wonder why nuclear power is considered a grave risk?
@@tswrench Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen based on its basic design, which was created in a country that literally had little disregard for human life, only expediency. Regarding Fukushima, the first thing I thought of when Fukushima happened was "What idiots would build a nuclear power plant at the ocean shore in a place where the word 'tsunami' comes from?"
Hubris caused Fukushima, not nuclear power. Regarding the radiation from Fukushima, "No harmful health effects were found in 195,345 residents living in the vicinity of the plant who were screened by the end of May 2011. All the 1,080 children tested for thyroid gland exposure showed results within safe limits, according to the report submitted to IAEA in June. By December, government health checks of some 1700 residents who were evacuated from three municipalities showed that two-thirds received an external radiation dose within the normal international limit of 1 mSv/yr, 98% were below 5 mSv/yr, and ten people were exposed to more than 10 mSv. So while the was no major public exposure, let alone deaths from radiation, there were a number of victims of 'disaster-related death', especially old people uprooted from homes and hospital because of forced evacuation and other nuclear-related measures. The psychological trauma of evacuation was a bigger health risk for most than any likely exposure from early return to homes."
@@gtv6chuck -- It sure reads like there are a pair of double quotation marks missing in your reply; you know, at the beginning and end.
Also, there was a fatality due to radiation exposure at Fukushima.
This is what an intellectually honest person concludes when looking at the data, even if they came into the issue with biases. Well done Michael.
You are being sarcastic yes?
@@malr1975 Nope. He began with a bias, and looked at the data, and changed his mind.
@@bobjordan5231 I didn't see him discuss data. He references other people's work, and made statements but didn't address the economics of NP. Looks very like a NP lobbying presentation I've seen a lot of times at various places. The NP lobby are a pretty impressive bunch of people...very convincing.
So b.b. the wind lobby? The solar lobby? Are these two not pressing issues steering legislation, receiving tax money, brow beating hard working people into bankruptcy to bankroll their projects? Can you say that with an open mind you have listened, really listened, to any Nuclear Power presentation? How much time have you spent researching? Can you explain the reaction process? What do you know about Chernobyl? Have you ever formed an opinion on your own? Has new information ever changed your mind? I don't expect an answer, I would hope you might stop holding onto b.s. so you can develope your conciousness by hearing new information and allowing your awesome brain to work with facts and possibly gain some ground for humanity. You might be the one with a solution, but until you can be fine with being wrong it just isn't possible. Good luck on your Journey, I hope you grow into your best self!
@@eliwhitley1878 Very well stated. Don't expect the Bum to follow any logic though...
22 years ago in my short lived attempt to study engineering I made all these environmental arguments in favour of nuclear power in a class debate. I was completely laughed out of the room by supposedly the country’s finest engineering minds. No energy source is problem free but nuclear has by far the greatest potential to provide the energy we need while reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental movement needs to be led by good science not pipe dreams.
Nuclear Engineering is taught in about no engineering schools compared to forty years ago. No future
The solar and wind only crowd reminds me of those people who think everyone can and should become Vegans.
@@Powerhaus88 @Nathan Sharp
@@Fetherko I take it you believe everyone can be vegan and can be on 100% wind and solar.
@@SUPERTOASTERGOD
All of thos things you mention are real, but the waste is much less than with coal, and the energy expended to mine, transport, and maintain nuclear plants is also far less than the energy needed for coal. Nuclear plants do take longer to build than natural gas plants, but far less time than it will take to produce enough solar panels and batteries to power the entire world. To get rid of carbon emissions we need to first replace all coal plants with nuclear plants, then work on replacing all nuclear plants with wind and solar plants. The coal plants could all be replaced in just a decade or two if we start constructing nuclear plants right now. It will take at least several decades minimum to replace the nuclear plants with solar. We could probably replace all daytime power usage with solar in less than 100 years, maybe in half that time, if we're lucky. But it will take more than 100 years, maybe longer, to produce enough battery storage to be able to run the entire world 24/7 on just solar, and wind. Maybe hydroelectric dams could save their power for use at night only.
People are afraid of what they don’t understand. As a nuclear engineering student I’d say almost all of what people are afraid of are nothing to be afraid of. It has some major issues though, but if we invest into the research then in some time we could be 100% nuclear with about no repercussions. If we abandon this technology we’ll be far behind our potential.
And let's not forget that the price for 1kg sent to space is becoming cheaper and cheaper. The final waste from nuclear could be sent to Sun (the only place where it can be safely recycled) and it would even help us.. since it would "power" the sun -- sure.. it's like 0.000.. 00001% - but hey, It can mean 1 day longer for our favorite fusion reactor.
Well.. remembering STUXNET.. I don't see the physical part of terorism the biggest danger.. I belive (don't have facts) if you close the plant and shut it down.. it should, in theory, enclose the radiation.. But yeah, it is a danger.. but then again: What do you think of hydroplants and dams? I see them more prone to physical terrorist attacks and WAY WAY more dangerous in the short term.. imagine a city under water in less then a few hours.
@@aquelaquelaquelaquel Sending something to the Sun is very, very hard compared to just reaching orbit. You can't just accelerate in a straight line and hit the Sun; without enough delta-v, the rocket will just end up in orbit around the Sun (or the Earth).
Not to mention that if your rocket explodes, you've just spread tons of radioactive waste around. If close to the ground, that could be pretty devastating.
Never thought about this.. I was hoping that the sun gravity (which must be massive) would prevent it from going in a "orbiting" trajectory.. but hey.. i'm not a space explorer :)
Sadly, most people don't even understand what radiation is on even a basic level. (or even what energy is in general.)
Agreed on all points (esp the last)
Its amazing the conclusions you can reach when you use data instead of just gut instinct.
*His own made up data, followed his sources, he lied about what they said
Imagine if humanity becomes a technocracy. How many problems would we solve?
More nuclear power plants means more chances to make mistakes.
After all we are all just human beings.
I think nuclear power plants should be handled more delicately but be increased very slowly for long period of time.
Think about back then when scientists talked racial superiority using their science.
Science data can be distorted like that by emotions.
Again after all we are just human beings
Eter I just searched about molten salt based reactors and these are very interesting .
I wonder why these are rare than water based reactors
@@thunderyeti8476 Also there is a big "Game" whit energy, its can move industry, create products, and while we would want cheap energy, of free... well its utopic, sounds and would act as in a utopia, and its hard to see the damage it can do to industry and value (even of life). I'm sure that there are many rich people who would rather stop any cheap energy, until they secure their future in it.
I've just found you Michael, and want to thank you for a series of outstanding and deeply-considered presentations. We now need to change global public opinion regarding nuclear energy, so that we can use democratic pressure to move governments' policies in the right direction.
The USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the US first nuclear Air Craft Carrier in service 1961-2012 (51years), It could run ~20 years without refueling. Imagine how many Gallons of diesel it would have burned if it was conventional powered
I think we should build massive barges with nuclear reactors on them so that they can be re-routed and move out of the way of things like the tsunami. I mean, we have whole ship cities living on this technology.
And it boldly went where no one has gone before ;-)
@FBI But couldn't a missle hit a fixed target nuclear reactor just the same?
@FBI And it could potentially be towed out to sea, away from people. But I hear ya.
@FBI are land-based nuclear plants protected by those systems?
Due to the massive scare campaign up through the 70´s and up until today we´ve lost valuable momentum in reserching on how to build almost 100 percent safe nuclear facilities. That´s a damn shame.
Fortunately there has actually been a lot of research into advanced and safe nuclear power generation. Currently, the results of this research are manifested in the powerplants of US nuclear powered ships and submarines. The typical reactor used by the US Navy is compact, safe, and generates enough electricity to run an entire town. The only reason they are not being used for civilian generation of electricity is the anti-nuclear pseudo-environmentalist special interest groups.
@@maxkronader5225 Uplifting. Thanks 👍
Not as much a shame as the fact you can't even spell campaign. It's not a scare campaign, it actually IS scary. Go visit Chernobyl and see all the mutant animals or eat some of the fish caught off the coast of Japan since Fukushima.
@@petersimmons3654 The funny thing is that animals in these areas are actually thriving. Human habitation is actually far more detrimental to wildlife than increased radiation levels ever could be.
Chinese and Russia are still developing new technologies.
wow.,.. I have been totally anti nuclear for years.., but your talk has inspired me to do more research to see if your facts are accurate. You presented a powerful argument. Thank you for sharing.
I'm impressed by your attitude. It's not common for most of the people to do additional research instead of just dismissing opinion they do not agree with.
@@bartolini05 I agree that open mindedness is good - but this guy is advocating for the creation of nuclear waste which is immoral. I am not open to immorality.
@@paulborneo7535 We should not confuse openness for gathering more information with openness for using certain solutions. I'm not advocating here using or not using nuclear energy. I'm encouraging to learn more about the topic when facing contrary opinion.
Every energy source has its pros and cons. Nuclear waste is one of the drawbacks of using nuclear power and should be weighted against drawbacks of other energy sources. This can be done well only after gathering enough information about all positive and negative effects. I think this topic is complex enough to not easily dismiss nuclear energy as immoral without proposing clearly better alternatives that can be deployed on large scale fast enough.
@@paulborneo7535 Coal power plants produce and release more "nuclear waste" into the enviroment in one day than nuclear power plants do in their lifetime.
If you live down wind from a coal power plant, the radiation in the "fallout" of the smoke particles increases the background radiation in the surronding areas, increasing your chance for cancer if you live near one. What is safer/greener/better, just releasing the radiation into the air and letting it settle down wind, or storing a condensed form of radiation away from people and the enviroment for hundreds of years?
More people die every year from coal plants compared to nuclear plants. The problem people have with nuclear power is the "what if". Well coal plants ARE releasing radiation into the enviroment every single day, thousands of them. Its like flying on a plane, you feel like its more dangerous, however your much more likely to die on the car ride to the airport compared to the flight. Do we stop all the planes because they SEEM more dangerous even though they have saved millions of lives and is the safest form of transportation?
"but this guy is advocating for the creation of nuclear waste which is immoral."
What is immoral is we have much safer and cleaner ways of using nuclear energy today, but the laws are preventing us from building the newer safer reactors, and we are currently forced to keep the 50+ year old reactors that are much more dangerous running. Currently nuclear power is the cleanest and safest energy we have ever produced, why do you let the fear of "nuclear radiation" scare you away from the solution to our energy needs, but are ok with other forms that RELEASE 100x more radiation into the enviroment on a daily basis...
@@paulborneo7535 "I am not open to immorality". How do you identify an idea as immoral if you're not willing to entertain it? Isn't that a contradiction?
It takes a Big Man to admit he was wrong. Much respect for this dude.
I could see it in his face, gestures and overall paralanguage. I agree with you. I respect him greatly.
Safe nuclear power is an oxymoron.
@@preasail Energy by definition is dangerous. Strictly speaking there is no such thing as safe energy so what is your point?
Solar plants in deserts steal habitat from tortoises. Windmills kill numerous birds.
@@MultiPetercool But there is such a thing as one source of energy being safer and less expensive than others. Nuclear energy is the least safe and, by far, the most expensive. That's why you never see Wall Street investing in nuclear power.
A good example of the exorbitant cost is Hanford in Washington state, where they're getting almost a trillion dollars of taxpayers' money to clean up the mess, and no one knows what the health costs have been for the Tri-Cities.
If you're really interested in the subject, read Kate Brown's book, Plutopia.
@@preasail wrong
Blame greenpeace for misinforming the world.
Blame this guy for misinforming the world.
As long as I see people like this misinforming, I will be against nuclear energy. I would be for nuclear energy if the dangers were addressed correctly. When I see this guy downplaying Chernobyl, it was really too much for me.
The problem with Chernobyl and with a lot of other accidents in the former USSR is that NOBODY knows what really happened / is happening.
It is all about estimates. So about Chernobyl you can find estimates of 500.000 people affected down to 1000.
You can go to that study there, or you can go to the WHO webpage and read a different tale.
Greenpeace lost its soul nearly 40 years ago.
Or the downlplaying of Fukushima. There is almost a total information blackout about what is still happening there. As far as I know, there still isn't a solid proposition for the containment of the irradiated underground water leakage into the ocean.
wimpow you are misinformed
@@wimpow Any link to the 500 000 estimate? I can't think of a more reliable report than the UN one and it was pretty clear on how overblown the panic was (is).
When he said "nuclear waste is the only waste from electricity production that is actually contained. All the other types just go into the environment." I was like "..........huh. Touché."
But of course that is a lie.
Many Nuke sites are leaking as we speak.
You know what they call a Solar Spill? A Sunny Day.
Many nuclear power plants are leaking? I don't believe you. Even if they were, are they leaking more contamination than is released when we burn coal? I doubt it. Also a solar spill is known as the installation, removal, and maintenance. In all of those phases of solar people die (fall off of roofs, shocks mostly). Also like mentioned in the video emissions from process of solar are higher and lead to more deaths.
First that stuff was contained, then we dug it up, made it really really dangerous, used it. Now we have a type of waste that is incredibly dangerous and will stay that way for many generations while not having an actually secure process of dealing with it. CO2 emissions are bad too, but they don't kill anything close to it directly. Next thing is said in one word: Fukushima. Totally safe...until something happened. But I will change my mind if I get paid handsomely from some energy company. Not planning to have kids anyway. At leat not on this planet.
@@thomasspotzl4240 Are you serious, "while not having an actually secure process of dealing with it", that's where Fast Breeder reactors come in, a technology that has existed for over 70 years and is proven to work. We can reuse over at least 95% of the waste we create with regular reactors.
Economical interest in FBR's simply dissipated because they discovered way more Uranium reserves, it's a more challenging process than simply dumping the waste after usage in regular light/heavy water reactors and the non-proliferation treaty prohibits uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing.
I'm not saying there aren't any issues and challenges paired with FBR's, but storing the 'waste' now, will allow us to one day use it as fuel. Right now about 1% of the potential fuel is used up, the rest is simply put away
@@thomasspotzl4240 you have no clue do you? there are safe ways to deal with them and the netherlands for sure is using them...
This is just another case of "people are more afraid of air traffic accident than car accident". Air travel is much safer than cars, but the popular precetion of it is the opposite.
You ignore the cancer risk of air travel and the risk of capturing a bug form the reicrculated unhealthy air. Damage to health takes years and years to have an imapct and is hard to measure but tis there all right
@@MrYorickJenkins modern airplanes use engine bleed air
@@2b2tisafactionsserver72 What is your point? A propos flying, I personally will not fly which involves some sacrifice. I would like to have visited South America and I will never see friends in the USA again. I wish environmentalists would practise what they preach and not fly, all too many have double standards. . Flying involves radiactive contamination on two counts: repeated use of scanners which give you a dose and probably worse, the radiation from the sun at high altitudes, but at least flying does not damage the planet permanently unlike nuclear power which is a sick invention in the very real sense of the word sick..
@@MrYorickJenkins Why do you have that view?
Not quite so simple: constantly travelling by air exposes the traveller/pilot to high levels of radiation making the likihood of cancer much higher.
I think that there is one more, very important point he didn't make. Most of nuclear plants we know today operate under nearly obsolete technology designed in the 50's and built in the 60's & 70's. Including Chernobyl and Fukushima (which is actually older than Chernobyl by 5 years). The new technologies for clean nuclear today use spent fuel rods at a fraction of the cost and with materials that are impossible to create viable nuclear weapons. Besides, the compact nuclear plants (similar to the ones used in submarines and other Naval ships) have 3 to 5 times the safety redundancy that the old plants did, they are now virtually impossible to fail and as he said, if they did, the fall out would be minuscule in comparison to the destructive force of other power generating options over time.
Nice to hear, Diego! Has the technology to re-process (or separate various waste products for different storage destinations) also progressed at the same pace?
@@burlingtonbill1 there are reactors that can reuse the waste as fuel you can also use thorium instead of uranium which has a much shorter decay chain then uranium
Love it
EXACTLY! Came here to post this but you covered it perfectly. With today's alerts and technologies building safe plants should be much easier. What most people do not realize about Chernobyl (and Michael mentioned it in his talk) was that it was built with NO containment shield at all. Every nuclear plant, even our older ones, are built with very thick concrete containment shields so if we do have a meltdown we can contain and control it unlike Chernobyl.
@@jameson1239 Are there many reactors that do that successfully, then? I remember in the early 2000s in the UK we were trying to convert a plant (I think it was called Mox) to deal with foreign radioactive waste, but it didn't prove very effective at using the waste.
This is not to mention that Chernobyl was extremely poorly built and managed. Any modern nuclear power plant is orders or magnitude safer than Chernobyl.
It's just like when cars were first presented to the public. People were so afraid to move around in a vehicle with a fuel tank onboard that could "potentially explode at any minute", thus a lot of people were hesitant in the early years. But that was all just the fear of something they didn't understand. Fuel tanks are far less dangerous than the general public imagined. It's the same with nuclear power, people are afraid of what they don't understand, and when they hear one horror story they apply that to every other scenario as the potential outcome, even though it's not realistic in any way. Any modern nuclear plant is 100 times safer than an average coal plant.
I believe Tchernobyl did not have water as a moderator, which is much (much) safer, but graphite, a lot more dangerous (as it does not shut down process, as water does).
And, if I am not mistaken, it was designed to help produce nuclear weapons, and that is of some consequence on security too (not the same cycles and uses of the material).
Like Fukushima?
@@stephanheinemann5363 A good question! Actually, yes. Fukushima had poor design flaws and poor decisions made by a company with a bad reputation in Japan for their sub-par track record. This company "repaired" the reactor with duct-tape! They placed a generator for the reactor below sea level in a region that's world-famous for earthquakes and tsunamis! [I mean even the word 'tsunami' is itself Japanese.] They ignored the warnings of a man who realized that a major quake hits northern Japan every 1000 years!!! This disaster, just like Chernobyl, was easily avoidable, a perfect storm of human carelessness and poor decisions, paired with poor engineering. Sigh. Hindsight is always 20/20... Still researching Fukushima myself.
@@d.dementedengineerc99isurf26 In the company's defense they did say it was a bad idea to build it by the ocean while constructing it. The government ignored it and did it anyways.
All the physicists watching this going, "FINALLY!"
Yep. As a physicist I have been strongly advocating thorium cycle nuclear energy for many years.
@covid-19 The total number of people killed by civilian nuclear power generation is 58. The record death toll for a hydro dam event is over 100,000 direct dead. Dam disasters have caused the deaths of millions, but people want hydro and not the much safer nuclear.
@@spacecadet35 what about Japan where should it throw its radioactive water
@@shashankkumar5163 - It depends if it is low grade or high grade readioactive. Low grade you can dilute until it is no longer a danger. High grade, you extract the main radioactives, then dilute until it is no longer a problem.
@@spacecadet35 still, where does the nuclear waste that you separated go?
In the mid 80's I was 'Educated' in Nuclear Energy. Since that date, I have been an advocate of Nuclear Power. Compared with all the other energy sources, it is so clean and efficient. Bring on the Nuclear Power plants. Happy to live next door to one.
Peter Compton really?
What about the waste products. What about radioactive contamination. Even living next to one you probably got fairly high levels of radioactivity...
Matt no lol
@@MattFixesStuff Actually NOT.
@@MattFixesStuff I worked at a nuke plant for 4 years. Every day as part of my clocking out, I had to go through a scanner to see if I had picked up any radio active contaminants. Any time I was where they expected ANY radiation I had to wear a dosimeter (thing that measures radiation). That scanner? Had a coworker sent home for a week because he had a PET scan and was setting off the alarms at 50+ feet. My entire dose over 4 years was less then I got from 2 flights from CA to GA and back. And that was working IN THE RADIOACTIVE AREAS!
Personally, I would be utterly unconcerned to live next to a nuke plant. Precisely because I *know* how much waste products and contamination they (don't) release.
I’ve followed this guy for quite some time and he makes a lot of sense. One question he must wrestle with is that when he looks at what ‘changed his mind’, that information was largely there from the beginning. To take his original position meant either ignoring this information, or just not looking for it. This sadly is the norm for activism.
It's a narcissist behavior combined with being too lazy to educate oneself..
I'm german and I always defended nuclear power in germany. I totally agree with You. I hate the fact that coal power plants are still the backbone of our country's electric power production.
That and biomass. It's technically carbon neutral but environmentally friendly it is not.
@@Bibitybopitybacon Biomass is good.
@@beback_ half the carbon footprint of natural gas according to the IPCC, plus deadly particulate pollution only topped by coal. Not an acceptable solution.
Yup. But we felt the result of Chernobyl as kids in NW Germany and that stayed with a lot of people.
@@beback_ harms the environment due to deforestation and other problems with large scale agriculture
The problem with most environmentalists is that they don't ever seem to understand the environment and the actual science behind it.
Bingo
Speaking as someone who was raised by and knows a lot of environmentalists, the main problem is that they're often ideological in their thinking. They don't think scientifically; they think sentimentally. You see it in their campaigning and advertising choices, which usually appeal to sentiment, intuition and gut reactions and contain little to no research and data.
Just rich kids who want to smoke pot and escape from the responsibilities and hardship of the real world, generally funded by the tax payer to go on do-gooder study abroad missions haha
Enviromentalism has become a utopianism ideology. Meaning "the only way to save the world is what I believe is the best way." I admire this man for speaking against a mainstream view and also support the nuclear progression.
Yep, environmentalism has become a cult of loonies that are more interested in their political agendas then fixing the planet.
I'm still in favor of nuclear, despite Stings endorsement :-)
lol
nuclear is only good for base load, and the base load is set to be reduced as more renewables are used.
Nuclear power plants are to slow to ramp up and ramp down and/or too expensive to do so. Solar/Wind injects power into the grid so the nuclear power plant would need to ramp down to prevent the grid from destabilizing.
Simple, the answer is clear. Stop wasting money on the intermittent solar and wind. Which has no control, at least nuclear has some!
Solar and wind energy is going to be much profitable once there are efficient/cheap means of buffering the energy.
Nickle Iron batteries are looking to be good candidates. Nickle and Iron is cheap, you just need a place to put the battery because it would several times larger than the equivalent Li-ion battery.
Hydro is good for balancing wind and solar so you can at least have as much wind and solar as you have hydro to balance it with. To get beyond that we need storage, stationary batteries, thermal storage, vehicle to grid etc. Hopefully the reactors we have can operate until we have solved that.
you have stated in clear terms what has, on the one hand, been obvious, but on the other hand has been demonized by environmentalists that we start doubting our own sanity. thank you for calling this out… eye opening!
Need to also look at the newest (55 years or so) ideas for using nuclear power. These are generation 4 reactors. I have been interested in the fuel disolved in molten salt coolent reactors (MSR). These reactors solve most of the problems we are having with the present solid fuel high pressure light water reactors. The MSR reactors would operate at atmospheric pressure, produce 1/1000 the waste that decays to back ground levels in 300 years, uses almost all it's fuel, operates at high tempatures (900 C) so they are more efficient and useful for direct industrial use. These reactors would use thorium or used nuclear waste as fuel and are quite useless for making bombs. This being just one type of Gen 4 reactor. There is clearly potential here that warrants exploration as technology that can help with the problems with climate change.
Do you think there's an inherent stumbling block with newer generations of nuclear technology in that they're simply a long way behind on testing and safety research? I haven't looked into it but I imagine it's much easier to sell some of the older technologies, even if they're worse on paper, because they've just been safety tested and improved so much, and everyone understands in great detail how to make them as safe as possible. Newer technologies, by definition, would feel more experimental for a time.
@@boiledelephant they are not that far off. China has all ready built a generation lV commercial reactor. This year they are starting their first molten salt cooled Pebble Bed reactor. Their first molten salt fueled reactor is going to be operational in 2022. China is also planning to go full nuclear in their Navy in 20 years with MSR. In Canada a modual MSR design has been approved with plans being made for construction. Really a massive building program with this technology could eliminate need for fossil fuels in 25 years. The first part of this endeavor is simply realizing that it can be done. 10 years ago could you imagine a complete high speed rail system connection all of China. This was done. I think the end of use of fossil fuels will end in China first then it will happen here.
Imagine if we had actually been researching and developing nuclear power for the last 50 years instead of running from it
LFTRs are a real solution. There has never been a technology where advantages outweigh disadvantages so much.
@@boiledelephant The USA had a working prototype Fast Breeder Reactor in Idaho that first fired up in the early 60s and a prototype Molten Salt Reactor in Tennessee in I think the mid 60s. Both were total successes as proof of concept. The high initial cost, but low long term cost, of building Nuclear combined with disinformation from the oil and gas industry has not just held back Nuclear is has almost totally stymied it.
It takes huge courage as an environmentalists, to change mind as new data presents itself. Thanks for sharing.
What new data? I didnt notice that he tried to produce new data
@@MrYorickJenkins Dude I see you’re mad this video contradicts your world view. You shouldn’t dogmatic over this issue, clearly the data from scientific studies have proved Nuclear is the safest and most efficient way to create energy.
Not really. When the nuclear industry hands you the "new data", and a big juicy check, it's very easy to change your mind!
@@Rep0007 Transcend cynicism. Present your data, based on falsifiable claims and verified evidence, and he might change his mind again.
Let's also not forget that our nuclear power stations are old, really old, simply because people who are afraid of a nuclear disaster scares polititians away from building new safer plants.
2 weeks before Chernobyl there were a demonstration of a fully functional power plant that used sodium instead of water to cool the rods, they showed the world that it was impossible to have an accident like the one in Chernobyl or in Fukushima with a sodium cooled system.
We still uses the dangerous water based cooling systems today, not because they are safe but because people pretend to care about the enviroment when all they want to do is scream at people.
Nuclear will save us in the end, or nothing will.
Probably do not need saving "BY Nukes . . . but rather "FROM" Nukes.
What is it you think Nukes will "save" anyone from?
Do you understand that this guy is sponsored by the Nuke Industry? And at this point, Renewables are growing and cheaper by the day . . . . while Nukes going Bankrupt.
Nukes are going bankrupt because they're getting less and less government subsidies. Solar and wind, by comparison, are getting huge subsidies. And guess what? Those methods of power generation are low capacity. Meaning that you will rarely ever see a wind turbine making its full power output, in fact it's about 20% on average. Solar isn't much better. Hydrocarbons are around 65%, and nuclear is around 85%.
I live in a region with a large nuclear power plant. It's great here. Our electricity is cheaper than the national average, too.
No, that's not the reason water cooling is still used in nuclear power plants. The reason is that using molten salt corrodes the container incredibly quickly. Why would it corrode quicker than water? Try throwing an iron nail into a bucket of water and another into another bucket of water, but fill the second one with salt until the water cannot absorb more salt. Which iron nail rusts first? Exactly, the one with salt. This process becomes much quicker with higher temperatures. Some reactions happen twice as fast with around a 10C temperature increase. Obviously, this won't go on forever, but you get the idea. Imagine how quickly it would react going from water at
Go watch Michael Mann's 'Blackhat Hacker'.
why is water dangerous?
As much as I can admire someone who realizes now that they might’ve been going down the wrong path, I have to also speak to the millions of people who already realized that we need perhaps as many as 15 nuclear power plants to be built now in the United States, and we need at least three new oil refineries, because as much as people want to believe that we can, we are not ready during the next 40 to 50 years to divest ourselves from fossil fuels. The truth is that most electric cars are being charged with electricity that is made from burning coal. The current technology for solar does not provide enough power to justify the cost of solar panels, or the fact that they are not economically recyclable. Unfortunately, most of the environmental movement is about people making themselves feel good about themselves, and then telling others about how good they are through virtue signaling. It is sad, really.
"Nobody knows this stuff"
Well, people do - lots of us do. People usually just ignore us in favor of fear mongering rhetoric. Thanks for coming around and putting what you learned out there.
A lot of "us" lol. I like how you managed to shoehorn your own expertise in there.
Wh is "us"?
"Us" you mean scientists peddling this filfth? Thene xplain how you propose to contain all the nuclear waste accumulating in the world dso that it poses no danger now and for future geenrations
Nuclear lovers call a rejection of contamination of the planet with radioactive highly dangerous nuclear waste "fear mongering rhetoric".
@@MrYorickJenkins But it isn't highly dangerous. You bury it deep underground where nothing can touch it and it's safe. No one has ever been harmed by nuclear waste because the disposal methods are extremely safe. So yeah, calling it highly dangerous is fear mongering. You are a fear mongerer.
And storage in lithium and cobalt based batteries have huge environmental concerns.
Lithium isn't rare and cobalt is about to get cut out.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 Check out the mining practices and associated environmental problems plus the increased carbon emitted by more ocean-going freighters travelling from South America to Asian battery factories and then batteries to auto manufacturers. Plus carbon emitted when scrapping ICE Vehicles plus recycling issues of lithium batteries.
@@Herbwise If the us army would be reduced by half it would have a lot more impact than some batteries. In germany we have recycling stations which ones can extract 95% until 97% of the material.
@@Herbwise Scrapping ice vehicles is a bad idea, noone says its good. We should upgrade em. In america you have a company which is upgrading old buses into new ones. Even without subsidies its much cheaper than new buses.
@@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174 if the US army reduced itself by half then NATO would lose half it's military too. Hardly a great idea considering we're sharing the planet with the China, Russia and North Korea to name a few.
I wasn't convinced until the quote from Sting. That changes everything.
@@MrYorickJenkins Yes.
LOL - great comment
🤣🤣
This is a rare man: an honest, intelligent environmentalist who does diligent research.
The one thing he left out was the reason it takes close to 10 years to build a nuclear power plant is because the environmental movement who were against nuclear lobbied the government to pass very strict regulation on nuclear. It use to only take 2 years to build a plant, and it is also more expensive then it needs to because of the regulations passed in the 80s.
Yeah, it is crazy how long it takes these days. Sad.
I don't think that unregulated nuclear power is a wholly good thing...
@@DoGlowy It doesn't have to be unregulated, just not over regulated.
@@zachadolphe3633 It needs to be over regulated, because companies will cut costs on safety technology to save money. Then that company will cut costs in construction, causing flaws in the plants, then cut costs in training to run the nuclear plants and what to do if an issue occurs. It is the nature of a business. It is these issues that not might cause another Chernobyl, it will cause another Chernobyl if more than one of these things exist happen. These are things that need to be mindful of. No matter if the disaster is as bad as it was, or not. Anything else is reckless and selfish.
@@shauntempley9757 Most of the concerns you've raised has been eliminated today with advancements in technology and failsafe improvements. Don't let HBO Chernobyl mislead you into thinking that a lot of that applies to today's nuclear industry because it doesn't, and not everything in the Chernobyl was factually correct either.
When I studied Environmental Engineering in the Seventies, I was shocked to learn that the Europeans were using radiation to kill bacteria in sewage. Apparently it was cheaper than using Chlorine and holding the waste for a minimum contact time. Later on, here in the USA, there have been proposals to sterilize imported fruit and vegetables with radiation to reduce refrigeration cost and it actually works better than fumigation. The fear is always secondary radiation from the original bombardment of the sewage or fruit of whatever. Meat can be preserved as long as the package is not broken to reintroduce bacteria. My professor said that it was a great idea but because of the ignorance of the public, not to plan on ever seeing it happen. The thing that hurt the nuclear industry is the time it takes to build a monster plant. Rampant inflation closed several nuclear projects in the USA. The French solved that problem having smaller plants they also have Breeder reactors instead of using the Uranium cycle. The USA decided against Breeders because it had a greater threat of proliferation. I think that was in the mid Eighties.
I agree with you but France uses breeders that fission uranium. The US uses lite water reactors while Canada uses heavy water reactors. All of them fission uranium as the initial fuel but breeders can then switch to the more efficient (from a neutronic perspective) plutonium that they breed from U 238. It's also worth noting that any lite water reactors can fission plutonium also.
All french breeders have been shut down long ago and their plants are not small.
You have never heard of nuclear medicine ?
Hey, I use my microwave, why would this be different?
No, the French do not breed, they do some simple reprocessing, they tried with Super Phoenix, now the US is introducing fast cycle with Natrium and the Russians
I live in a country that was occupied by Soviet Union. Men from here were sent to clean up to Tshernobyl after the accident happened. I know 2 who died of cancer a couple of years after they returned. And one who was disabled for years and never fully recovered.
So is "nuclear" the problem or is it "socialists"?
Australia has had two coal mine accidents that each killed more people than Chernobyl.
Thank you Michael for your dedication to saving our planet. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to change your mind based on the information that you have obtained over the years. You are making a tremendous impact on our environment through your seminars. God bless you
I wish this was true but what impact that is so tremendous is he having on our environment?
@@idontknowmuch3441 by discussing the options we have. Nuclear energy is probably the most cost effective, and environmentally friendly source of energy. People fear it because they don't understand it. Michael understands risk vs. reward.
@@idontknowmuch3441 your [redacted] handle checks out. holy [redacted].
I was already pro-nuclear going into this, and I had never considered the point you made about waste before. Someone should gather some data and make a visual comparison between nuclear waste volume and the volume of waste spit out by coal, oil, natural gas, etc... to help illustrate this point. It might be a little difficult to work out a visual that isn't deceptive, seeing as how most non-nuke emissions are gaseous and nuclear waste is almost all solid.
I always think it's important to note, too, that the overwhelming majority of stuff that gets classified as "nuclear waste" isn't actually radioactive or dangerous. Most of it is just anything that gets taken beyond the different containment zone barriers (usually they have multiple levels of increasingly-tight safety zones as you work your way in toward the actual reactor), like booties, coveralls, paper products, office supplies, etc... that just gets chucked into the nuclear waste bin because of an _extreme_ focus on safety and containment. The amount of waste that is _actually_ the spent uranium/ plutonium fuel rods/ pellets is pretty small. That's the whole reason that nuclear is so amazing, you get an _insane_ amount of energy out of these "little" (in the context of industrial energy production) metal sticks just _sitting there_ generating crazy amounts of heat. Plus, you can actually reprocess spent fuel to use up every little bit of useful isotope in them. These spent fuel rods also have a bunch of other useful and rare elements in them from the radioactive decay, and while we don't know how to separate these elements out economically right now, if we have a drastic increase in nuclear power in the world then we might start to have enough spent fuel sitting around to make it worth extracting and recycling these elements out (which would also reduce the total volume of nuclear waste, by the way).
Oh, and don't even get me started on Thorium reactors. Talk about cold war mentality, the main reason we don't have thorium nuclear plants all over the place is because the US nuclear committee wanted to use uranium fission specifically because the byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons, which can't be don't with the thorium process! Research into these new reactors could be the solution to bringing safe nuclear power to developing nations without the risk of proliferating nuclear weapons development. Damnit, I got started on thorium reactors, didn't I?
One more thing: THORium. I want my nuclear reactors powered by the MF-ing _GOD OF THUNDER!_
sick dude! thanks
Nuclear waste is an issue and can't be dealt with easily, the proposals are to dig deep storage areas a couple of miles underground and store waste there for a few hundred years. That's not cheap, and if we are going to scale up nuclear (which in itself is incredibly expensive to build, has never attained the promise of super cheap for the consumer, and virtually always takes longer to build than intended) we will be spending colossal amounts of money for centuries. That's not to say I'm firmly against nuclear and I think Germany overreacted after Fukushima by saying they wouldn't have any nuclear in future, but there are problems with it. Another problem, given the huge expense of nuclear plants in this era of tight economic conditions and the time it typically takes to get a nuclear plant built and online (usually at least a couple of decades in the West) is that it might simply be too late to help reach net zero. The economic situation is likely to become worse as climate change problems take an increasingly bigger toll on agriculture and general productivity and forcing larger scale migration.
We have a facility already. Lots of room. @@danyoutube7491
The title should be, “How I discovered textbooks”.
Julio Blanco lmao
Not a word about the cost of nuclear plants decommission.
Not a word about nuclear waste.
The cost of nuclear power is simply underestimated. It's less of an environmental problem than an economical one. Also uranium is a finite resource (but honestly, that's the least of the problems).
I'm not saying to throw away nuclear power altogether (France is going to rely on it for a long time), but there are actual practical reasons why Germany wants to get rid of it.
@@lepetitroquet9410 And the reasons weren't worth it.
@@2b2tisafactionsserver72 You're entitled to your opinion, given that it's your opinion.
@@lepetitroquet9410 Regardless of what the reasons were, they definitely did not improve carbon emissions.
And the waste problem is basically solved, the problem is public and political opposition.
It’s always heartening to see previously anti-nuclear energy people change their minds in the face of compelling evidence.
I know right.. there is hope after all.
It means they've filled their pockets twice by giving these lectures to the ingnorant masses
@@MaFd0n That we can contaminate the planet even faster woopie
Compelling evidence? Misinformtaion lies and ignorance Id say
ALL the positives aside, it still takes ten years or so to build a nuclear power plant; requires truck and boat loads of material inputs; a massive investment; and, the issue of COMPLEXITY* has not been resolved... That is, the unpredictable potential for factors or events that can (and do) lead to accidents, meltdowns, and spills or leaks, NOT to forget the fact that We still have not adequately dealt with the issues surrounding the prolonged, safe, stable storage of nuke waste.
(*) Complexity involves, amongst MANY other things-- BOTH "known Unknowns" AND "unknown Unknowns."
In my youth I was in an environmental group and we did a human chain outside a nuclear plant in Norway. The workers and researchers where waving from the window taking pictures. The police came and then someone from the plant came with coffee and told the police it was ok and not to worry. And then we dotched a police case.... Those guys at the plant were soo kind and cool tackling the situation in the most amazing way. I've changed my view btw since then. Right now I think hydroelectricity and nuclear are the most promising and realistic energy sources although yes there are big challenges on both.... My country Norway has always been BIG on hydroeelectricity and believe its about 90% of our energy supply is from that source
Norwegians in a nutshell! :) Ha ha haa wonderful :)
yeah, altho most countries (almost all id say) do not posses the precipitations/geographic conformity of Norway… sadly :/
@@Mugo83x Correct, which is why we need nuclear. Let's not forget that Germany not only shut down its reactors, it also banned nuclear research. So any chance of any progress on lets say.. fusion... will no longer have any chance to come out of Germany.
What people completely ignore is the fact that nuclear research is hindered if you cannot build plants or dont get funding because of political ideologies. And that doesn't just impact fission reactors, that also impacts fusion research which is the ONLY massive game changer regarding clean energy on the horizon.
Anybody who's anti-nuclear is doing more damage to the climate crisis they constantly whine about than anybody else ever has. Those are the simple facts, that's the economic facts, that's the physics facts. If someone doesn't like nuclear because Chernobyl freaked them out even though they weren't even alife when it happened... whatever.. do what makes you happy. But those people should not go around telling other people they are basing their opinion on reality and facts. They're basing it on personal irrational fear and absolutely nothing else.
@@LeutnantJoker yeah mate, i am 110% with you. Nuclear all the way. the only way moving forward if sustainability goals are to be reached
Few countries have the topography of Norway. Try hydro in Saudi Arabia.
but why did they cover the Tschernobyl Plant in a huge concrete sarcophagus to contain it´s reamains if all that nuclear radiation was actually not harming anyone? Why spent billions on building that shelter then? Why does it take so long to decomission those old nuclear power plants form east germany they shut down right after reunification? That was almost 30 years ago, and the decomissioning still is taking place and costing tax money? Is that cost in all those calculations? Don´t think so. What about the nuclear waste containers they stored in old salt mines in germany where the salt is about to corrode the containers so sooner or later the nuclear waste is going to leak into ground water layers? Would you people drink water that has high radiation levels? Are used solar panels really waste? Or are they possibly quite easyly recycled? I don´t know, to me, a lot of the issues shown in this talk don´t really add up.
it costs so much because _we are doing it responsibly_ unlike with waste from dozens of industrial processes, coal power plants and toxic spills
*making electricity costs human lives, be it coal, solar, wind, hydro or nuclear, but nuclear causes least amounts of deaths and least greenhouse gas emissions per GWh of generated electricity*
Yes, of course Solar PV Panels are FULLY Recyclable -- at a nice profit, I would add. They are mainly Aluminum and Glass. Solar Si PV is just simple doped Semiconductor and can be recycled back on that path, as well.
The only reason there is not already a growing business in this is because . . . . Solar PV Panels just tend to keep going and going, and going. Although standard warranties on New Solar PV is typically 25 years or more . . . in truth they tend to keep going longer -- so no one is scrapping them. Panels from the early years are still going, and it looks like the service life may towards 50 years.
This TED (misre)presenter was as clueless about this aspect of the marketing pitch as he was the rest. This may well be the dumbest TED presentation I have ever watched.
"Yes, of course Solar PV Panels are FULLY Recyclable" [citation needed] stats I saw talked about 95% being a _breakthrough_
and we aren't talking about a 1000 of tonnes per TWh of electricity, PV requires nearly 20 000 tonnes per TWh that needs to be recycled. Also you're saying that 50 year lifetime is an achievement, for nuclear it's called "Tuesday". And for nuclear you can upgrade the tech inside without rebuilding the containment domes - the most expensive part of a nuclear power plant so for nuclear the above is actually the _worst case scenario_.
"Solar Si PV is just simple doped Semiconductor and can be recycled back on that path, as well."
which doesn't make it easy to recycle, the whole PV assembly is complex and uses multitude of metals and materials
oh, and while PV recycling is possible, only in EU it's actually mandatory
@@666Tomato666 Where is that info from? Does it include the deaths in mining and all related activities as well?
I was born a few days before Chernobyl and have always had a big fascination for it. I have read all of the leading books on the matter and have come to some interesting findings myself. In fact, knowing the details of the disaster made me become a proponent of nuclear energy.
However, I believe for people to make their decisions correctly, they should be given all the facts straight, and there are two problems with this talk when it came to Chernobyl & Fukushima. So yes, I argue that this video is misleading on some points.
1. It is NOT true that Chernobyl was the biggest accident; Fukushima was. It just got played over by the media, but ultimately, with Fukushima, (a) radioactive material was released for several days more, (b) more material was released into the environment if you count both air and sea, which (c) caused contamination in a FAR greater radius.
2. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are small compared to the "ultimate" nuclear disaster they could have been. Using them as an example of how limited their consequences are ignores the fact that (a) both of them could have been worse but thankfully weren't, and (b) a far greater disaster could still happen.
To elaborate on the second point: at Chernobyl, the first reaction to putting out the fire was to pump water into the reactor (they later threw in bags of sand, fortunately). This could theoretically have caused an explosion, because the water that reached the burning graphite was immediately electrolyzed into oxygen and hydrogen, which could have basically turned it into a hydrogen bomb further exposing the entire reactor and causing massively more nuclear fuel to be spewed out. They also filled some of the basement with water, which could have caused the exact same reaction. Fortunately, most of the reactor's fuel did not go up in smoke, but seeped into the basement and became a sort of glass. It is this kind of reaction, by the way, that caused the explosions at Fukushima. At Fukushima, there was only a partial meltdown; had it been a full meltdown, it would have also been a worse disaster than what we ended up dealing with.
So, that said, we should not be scared to know that we "got lucky" both times, and that today's nuclear power plants are much safer. I believe we should close off old power plants, build new ones, but not ignore or forget that an accident may still happen sooner or later. That is just being realistic and objective.
I totally agree with you that nuclear power should always be handelt with care and enjoyed with a grain of salt. But the eu and specially germany spend millions upon billions of subsidizes into solar power plants. Now imagine all that mkney in state owned nuclear plants and research. Also consider new reactor designs. If all of this effort to demonise nuclear and rallying for solar and wind would have gone in improving nuclear and refining new plants
There would be an golden age for low emmissions and cheap energy. I hate germanys energypolicy and why i need to pay 27ct while big corps with high power demands just get their renewable energy tax or "EEG Umlage" gifted. Total CDU Party nonsense
Nice to see a different perspective on this and data to support it. I'm very much pro-nuclear, but the talk really left me with a bad taste. I feel like he didn't dive deep enough into the potential risks of the technology. Nuclear is probably still our best shot when it comes to climate change right now, but playing down the risks only leads to new disasters which ultimately hurts the development of our reactors. And we desperately need safer and more efficient reactors, if we want them to replace fossil fuels as the main energy source.
I'm very happy that there's finally at least one nation (China) willing to spend significant amounts of money to develop safer and more efficient reactor types. A lot of the reactor tech in use is still not fundamentally different from the very first designs, which were never meant to be used outside of the military (and civil systems don't really have that high degree of supervision and maintenance + strong redundancy of the surrounding systems).
When you say hydrogen bomb that's pretty misleading. Are you talking about a hydrogen fusion chain reaction or simply oxygen and hydrogen burning to make water?
In a nuclear disaster site, even a small conventional explosion could create very big problem. But using the phrase "hydrogen bomb" in the context of nuclear is very very potentially misleading, unless you deliberately intend to say there was a risk of a nuclear hydrogen fusion explosion, which I absolutely and wholly doubt was the case.
What's most important is safety procedures. Or perhaps automate most of the process. Since it's mostly down to human error
Even I, a pro-nuclear individual, noticed his seemingly incorrect portrayal of both incidents. I thank you for also acknowledging this, and pointing this out.
Brilliant, clear and convincing!
and then ends with Sting
If it wasnt for Stings quote at the end, I would still be against nuclear power.
And I worry about yours. He was clearly joking. xD
Aquarium Contrarian hahahahaha I love this comment! Underrated!
HAHAHAHA i was thinking the same thing
Not everyone understands irony @@MajedAlShamsi
It’s a comment section. Put a /sarc tag because we don’t know enough about you to know if you are serious or not (though I would like to think you were being facetious!) :)
Humans struggle with perspective.
I was really surprised by this. Even without highlighting the advances in nuclear technology he really built a persuasive argument.
Imagine if he *did* delve into those advances!
But he missed a couple important counter points, which made it seem to me, as he didn't try to tell the story, but just try to convince people.
As an example, nuclear and renewable are really bad partners... they don't work well together.
It is hard to regulate a grid with nuclear and if you have to shut a power plant down, it needs multiple days to weeks to power it up again.
Oh and his comparison of the cost was also looking fishy, as it compared France to German cost, but not producing the electricity, but what consumers have to pay. Things ignores a lot of things, like that the big industries in Germany's pay much less and a lot of other factors.
I think he was more aiming to show many examples from many places in order to illustrate the point. You can take any set of data and nit-pick it to death in order to make it sound wrong/misleading, but overall I think his big picture approach is much more coherent and digestible.
+AlbinosaurusR3X
"aiming to show many examples"
yes, which makes it even worse, as like I've said he ignored many important points, which all would be counter to his narrative.
"You can take any set of data and nit-pick it to death in order to make it sound wrong/misleading"
Couldn't you say the same about what he was doing?
I am saying you could do that to his data. I'm also saying that you're missing the forest for the trees.
Its important to note that Fukushima was also a triple-disaster. I did a research paper on the disaster and ended up finding that the effects of the meltdown itself in the environment and community were relatively minor. The earthquake and tsunami did far more significant damage to the community and people
Addressing the real world effects of radiation is the best way to overcome 'nuclear fear'.
Google "radiation hormesis" some time. In some cases, radiation is good for you.
+Martin Kral. They did discover a radiation-eating fungus in the wreckage of reactor 4 at chernobyl
Unless one considers the dangers of wealth concentration into the investor class and its ability to distort truth and research.!.!.!.
The video shows big casks of spent nuclear fuel in storage. Why aren't we using the waste heat from spent nuclear fuel. Those big casks produce about 50KW initially and 25KW after ten years. Thirty casks produce thermal energy per day equivalent to burning 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel daily. Tremendous waste of thermal energy.
The radioactivity
More importantly, the waste could be reprocessed into fuel for gen 4 reactors and utilized. They are literally just leaving the stuff to be wasted.
@@AgentExeider It's in waiting to be used in gen 4 reactors. What's wasted to-date is it's thermal release.
@@josephzepeda1330 ,you scare me.
Nuclear engineer here. It's not really worth the effort tbh. It's more cost effective to use other energy sources rather than trying to get useful energy out of the decay heat from spent fuel rods while simultaneously keeping them shielded and separated to avoid criticality accidents and the like. If you want to use that spent fuel, reprocess it like France does.
I appreciate Michael Shellenberger`s talk. I work in Wind energy, but want to see much more Nuclear Energy to replace Coal as our baseload power. This ought to be our National Priority. Honestly, we must get off of coal. That being the keystone of priorities, we all know how to replace that coal baseload, it is Nuclear or MSR, or Thorium nuclear, the balance being handled by wind and solar. We need to be a lot more careful to elect persons who actually know that basic Science is important--I`d rather not see Florida under water.
We need to transition to non-carbon energy sources much, much faster than any crash nuclear power plant building program could address. Creating nuclear waste is immoral.
@@paulborneo7535, watch Shellenberger video and know energy GWatts_hour/Tons of waste relationship.
I want to see nuclear replace wind turbines as well. Solar-Thermal can stay, their advanced super-critical steam designs must replace the originals though.
We are past Peak Coal, the best coal has already been mined. More nuclear power would mean a growth in business for cancer treatment due to the cancers this would cause, but the techno fix approach prefers to ignore the health consequences of uranium mining, the nuclear fuel cycle, reactor emissions and the impossibility of storing the "waste" forever.
@@markrobinowitz8473 agreed but you can see in this post that hundreds of comments disagree with us. But I find it slightly suspicious how many there are....allot of bots on UA-cam and UA-camrs can manipulate to generate commercial stats. The economics of NG doesn't stack up. We would be better doing transitional gas. We know how to clean up old gas plant.
CO2 is not a toxin! CO2 is atmospheric fertilizer. It is absolutely critical for our food supply.
What’s crazy is how long we have known about these issues and the already failed test cases and yet the climate activists still dont understand. Drives me nuts
Being nuts is not as bad as dying from radiation poisoning
@@MrYorickJenkins, I don't think you understand, the risks of nuclear energy are far smaller than the risks of fossil fuels.
I know this won't be enough to change your mind because you are far beyond the line of fanaticism when it comes to the "nuclear = bad" ideology, so no actual facts nor any kind of proof will work on you. In fact, you act similarly to flat-earthers.
Regardless, thousands of times more people die each year as a result of fossil fuel extraction and pollution across the world than as a result of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters as well as any other nuclear power plant accident that has ever happened combined.
An estimate of 3+ million people die each year from fossil fuel pollution, and a maximum of 1500-2000 people died in the events I have mentioned and as a direct AND indirect result of any nuclear energy accident as well as nuclear energy production itself.
When it comes to renewable energy, nuclear is still about 5 times safer than solar, and 1,5-2 times safer than wind. I am talking about average mortalities per thousand terawatt hour, with nuclear at 90, wind at 150, and solar at 440.
@@ignatz2 totally agree but with one addition...... nuclear energy should not be in the hands of globalist corporations & owned by the people/country with any profits made distributed as dividends or supplied to the people at cost!!! Electriciy being a fundimental resource should not be in private hands for profit!!! Also being owned by the people & our focus keyed to safety & enviromental aspects we could offer peace of mind that nuclear is safe...from my research we should be using thorium as a source offering a greener option that uranium
@@ignatz2 Not so. Radiation is a fundamentally different kind of risk. Radioactive waste is forever. Just because coal is bad does NOT mean nuclear is the alternative.
@@Rep0007 The amount of actually radioactive nuclear waste is minimal (not sure but i think I remember it being 2% or 3%), most of the waste is just water vapour and a bunch of pretty safe elements. The dangerous stuff is kept in very thick barrels, that are in turn kept in very deep underground shafts designed to withstand natural disasters and eliminate the risk of any accidents, and are left there for thousands of years to stabilise into less and less radioactive compounds and then to be forgotten. If people finally accepted nuclear energy then the field would get more funding, which in turn would bring innovation in all areas, including waste management. But still, compared to fossil fuel power plants, nuclear waste isn't just randomly floating in the air we breathe every single day.
And by the way, at least today, air pollution is also kinda forever, because there is so much of it that nature can't get rid of it on it's own.
Oh and I almost forgot, if you go on a plane flight, you get exposed to more radiation than Chernobyl's cleanup workers. Radiation is everywhere, and it's really not as dangerous as it may seem.
Uranium is a gift to mankind.
If a grain of sand was sitting on top of a single uranium atom, when that atom underwent fission, you would see that grain of sand jump from the energy hitting it. (Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb) It is truly a gift from the heavens.
Thank you for that!
I'm glad this was pub back up. This is, in my opinion, one of the most balanced, science-driven looks at climate change and how to solve it. I loved this presentation!
I think this video is more about meeting our energy needs rather than on how to deal with climate change. However, if communicating to people that nuclear power will help deal with "climate change" while addressing meeting our energy needs then that is also a good thing in my opinion.
Not well researched. He overlooks the fact that there are many types of PV panels. Sunpower’s PV panels are the most efficient at converting solar to electricity, and they contain no cadmium, lead, or other toxics. Most solar power plants don’t even use PV, they use mirrors and no toxic chemicals. He also overlooks that PV panels are recycleable, and only need to be recycled every 30 yrs, whereas nuclear waste accumulates every day you run the plant.
He also overlooks how the nuclear industry has defaulted on over 50% of its government backed loans to build nuclear power plants - leaving taxpayers on the hook for many billions of dollars for each one.
He makes illogical arguments like its a good idea to increase harmful nuclear radiation because we are currently exposed to even more radiation from other sources like radon.
He overlooks the fact that Fluidic Energy is an Arizona company with patented rechargeable zinc air batteries that would be very good for storing renewable power at homes but they will only sell them to developing countries. There are also companies with similar NiMH battery technology (look up “gigacell” by kawasaki heavy industries) but none will sell the products to people who want to use them for residential purposes like back-up heating.
Thorium reactors do not produce radioactive waste. They are cheaper and smaller and don't require enriched uranium.
Years ago I first thought 2-3 day's worth of background radiation would be present as far as 2 miles from a Nuclear facility. Later I found out that it only gets like that when you are within several meters of the water tank that contains the uranium rods.
In US you will measure less radiation at the gate of a nuclear plant than you will at the gate of a coal plant.
My physics teacher talked about this in class a couple years ago and most of the class (me included) had a hard time believing him. It's so ingrained in so many of us that nuclear power is bad and anti-environment. With all the innovations in nuclear power only improving its safety and efficiency, I hope to see it implemented more in the future.
ive been on the nuclear band wagon for a decade and im glad people are starting to see that it is way more practical than the current renewable energy sources
@@AcBEntertainment it is more efficient, has zero emissions, and more reliable. You need less plants to power more cities. Its just an overall better energy source
@@AcBEntertainment yea I have all the documents ready to link to you. Lol dude did you even watch the video? There are many on the subject on UA-cam, maybe give them a look
@@AcBEntertainment do tell me what is better than nuclear
@@theoyancey Zero emissions is one massive lie by the proponents of ncuealr energy which they come out with by limiting the meaning of the word emission. Nuclear waset is by an proper deifnition "emission" and nuclear waste is a horrendous problem
@@theoyancey I will tell you reducing consumption that is what people should be looking at not new ways of posioning and plundering the planet to accommodate runaway human population growth
These are the men who we as a society need
We should do more research with thorium reactors.
Thats kinda what we are doing
India has stollen your cake, sir.
@@notthatgerry , I hope they gorge upon it! It will not only pull them up from a third world nation but show the world what open minded energy will create.
@@steelwarrior105 , Sorry should have been more passionate. We need to concentrate massive more research and development in this area of research, it should become a priority.
@@donalddunkin fair enough, i will let you know thought that there are seven interesting projects around the country about to hit that may really start the ball rolling in that direction
This is a perfect example when your logic is greater than your desire to be right
One environmental activist says what nuclear experts have been saying for years and he's lauded as a visionary. It's people like him who are the reason that nuclear power has been held back for so long. If people are serious about cutting CO2 emissions, they need to understand that the only two viable options are nuclear power and cryogenic carbon capture.
You cannot discount solar energy. Both nuclear and solar, ideally some combination, are viable.
They push renewables ignoring the fact it’s just as bad for the environment than coal, gas and nuclear.
@@themaskedman221 nuclear, renewables and carbon capture - it seems like all of them are necessary
@@mieszkogulinski168 Completely agree. We need every option at our disposal.
It always felt weird when people put so much emphasis on Fukushima, while ignoring the 20,000 deaths and vast devastation caused by the tsunami.
Also Onagawa was hit much worse by the tsunami. The entire town was basicallt wiped out.
But the nuclear power plant there survived completely intact.
I hope all the people that comment below (on both 'sides' of the issues) went and checked his facts, his sources, and did more than just take his word. People can be slick with their presentations. We are told so many stories by so many people and organizations, corporations etc. that one is afraid to just believe anything anymore. He may have hit it right on, but.....
What worries me that in these discussions of energy 'need' we so often completely ignore the efficiency aspect. We have technology and brains that can change how we use of energy, where we use it, what kinds we use in which applications etc. It is not just a question of adding more supply...that is thinking for gorillas, not humans. There is tremendous potential here. There are many people in the world that do not even have electricity - and wow, they actually survive! When we talk about solar we seldom hear anymore about direct sunlight rather than photovoltaic. The more we complicate the technology and our reliance on it, the more often we dig ourselves into a reliance problem that potentially excludes simpler fixes. The big one of course is behavioural change - and that gets missed completely by energy hacks.
If properly used and maintained, nuclear energy is the perfect answer to all energy challenges of modern world.
a mix of nuclear, geothermal, renewables, hydro is the solution since nuclear is too centralized to able to provide energy to an entire country on its own
@EnlightenmentLiberal EGP-6, RITM-200, NuScale Power Module, BWRX-300? Wuzzat?
I'm very surprised by what he said about Chernobyl's radioactivity. 28 deaths is the official death toll, Russia will never recognize the official number which was way higher. Many people died to try and stopped the core from being exposed.
Plus, just saying "there's no more deaths than that" is forgetting another key element : The sick people. They aren't dead yet, but they fell very sick from radiation (like the worker in the n°4 control room who had to had many skin grafts because his skin was falling off) and this, to me, must be taken into account.
There's also the land which can't be used anymore, many mutations on the wildlife, and so on. It's not "oh hey, it's cool, only 28 deaths", it's way more complex than that.
In my opinion, you can “ignore” this fact, if you look up the number of people who got sick because of coal. Just saying. Like I support your point, this was just what I think was his thought proses
He addressed this in the talk, fella.
I can’t wait to retire. About 18 months out. With the commute now working about 60 hours/week. Work is very difficult and pressure packed, with constant sales quotas, and customer demands. With my job you are never, never, never, caught up or finished. After over 45 years of doing this, I am past ready for a change. Believe me, I’m ready to escape from my enslavement. It’s hard for me to understand the need to go back to work, that some have. My retirement income should be about the same as I’m making now working. Freedom is what I crave.
Oh Sting! Well now you've changed my mind!
Id like to think that is ironic
I wonder what Madonna's opinion is!
It is good to hear someone say this on a larger platform. We that work in Nuclear have been trying to get the word out about the disinformation about nuclear for decades.
In the USA 15,000 large birds of prey get killed by wind power every year. They do not even get fined for this. If a large bird of prey lands in a nuclear station yard and gets killed the fine is between $10,000 and $100,000 per bird.
To date in the United States we have had ZERO deaths directly related to the operation of a nuclear power plant. Coal kills 10,s of thousands every year. Wind kills dozens every year.
People do not know that it takes almost as much coal energy to create a solar panel as the electrical energy that would be produced if we burned burned the coal instead. Solar panels BTW are created from a liquified mix of coal and quartz that produces a toxic water run off. It all looks clean but as he says in the speech solar energy does little to contain or control it's waste (and there is alot of it). Lets not get into the toxic damage batteries cause. Biomass plants were concepted as renewable. They make as much pollution as coal does, and with the demise of the paper industry trees are being clear cut just to burn them in the plants because there is not enough bio-waste to operate them.
You are certainly on the right track, but look up SL-1 in Idaho 1961 before you spread the falsehood of no deaths due to nuclear power in the US.
Agreed, should have qualified it.
Nuclear power generation....
@EnlightenmentLiberal How do you figure SL-1 was a "weapons reactor"? SL-1 was part of the Army Nuclear Power Program. The reactor was intended to provide electrical power and heat for small, remote military facilities, such as radar sites near the Arctic Circle, and those in the DEW Line. The design power was 3 MW (thermal), but some 4.7 MW tests were performed in the months prior to the accident. Operating power was 200 kW electrical and 400 kW thermal for space heating.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Still not nearly as dangerous as other forms of energy production
@@parkertheprophet Nuclear power is the safest, but I get tired of lies on either end of the anti-nuke/pro-nuke spectrum and I clearly corrected one of those lies. If nuclear power is going to die, let it die on facts and evidence, not lies and assertions.
Really cool that Dane Cook went back to get educated on energy
He went back to get paid not educated. This is propaganda by the nuclear death industry
to get paid you mean
@@MrYorickJenkins its safer than anything else we have.
Your hippe parents are wrong.
@@kurtjohansson1265 Thorium Nuclear Reactors are the safest. Uranium has let us down and is too volatile as well as a target for terrorism. This is the guy that worked along with the Obama Administration on renewables and now is working along with the other idiots to bring back Uranium reactors so they can have the depleted Uranium for their weapons industry.
Watch ANY of the DOZENS of TedTalks on Thorium Reactors and then thank me later. ;)
You prove your point so well and I convinced nuclear energy is best alternative...
1) the biggest challenge is time taken to build functional nuclear energy plant
2) transportation of nuclear material as raw material
3) how nuclear energy will benefit reach to poor or 3rd nation countries
What to do with too much power from solar or wind? Pumped Hydro. Use the power to pump water uphill. Natural battery.
of course, the problem is there isn't much of it, compared to the amount of electricity we use. and creating more is also environmentally devastating.
And of course, in California there's not enough water to pump, and in The Netherlands, there's no uphill to pump it.
@@appleislander8536 there are coastal mountain ranges in california. i've always wanted to see someone do pumped hydro using the ocean as the lower basin. still calls for destroy a mountain valley or 2.
That's even less energy efficient than just storing it in the batteries we have.
@@ejjaquez9849 I've actually seen this used.. It's somewhere along the I5 leaving the city proper of LA going to Palmdale.. it's not being used as I assume is usually used when theres excess water.
Great insights. It changed a lot of things I believed in the past. Excellent way of presenting ideas this is something which every TeD talk has in common. Great ideas are explained precisely and briefly.
You should take his position with a boulder of salt. He mixes in a lot of lies with the facts and doesn't cite any of it.
@@snowballeffect7812 You made me very curious... Can you tell us which parts are lies and why?
@@andresmusetti i don't feel like watching video again, but i'm pretty sure in this one he uses bladerunner as a reference for how much land is required for solar, which I'm sure you'll agree is silly. There is also no permanent solution for managing nuclear waste at the moment. He also omits the fact that he gets paid by the nuclear industry to propagandize for them, which was made clear when his campaign finances were made public. the majority of his lies are through omissions, though. For example, we already have companies working on recycling batters, managing energy storage with older grids and modernizing/diversifying grid energy production. He also never brings up the fact that the world is so invested in U reactors because the fuel and waste can both be weaponized. Nuclear is also not an option for most of the world's poor nations, which is most dependent on fossil fuels (unless they agree to be financed by other nations).
Basically, he's right that nuclear is a path forward, but he takes it waaaay too far to the point of smearing other viable technologies. He also NEVER cites any studies, because none of them support his claims. It's a bit strange, especially considering the IPCC 2022 study literally states nuclear as the most cost-effective path forward for the immediate future, but because it also accurate portrays the issue and solutions, he won't even cite relatively positive studies. If you want more accurate and scientifically-based perspective, there are much better sources. This guy is just a shill for the nuclear industry and indirectly for the fossil fuel industry.
@@snowballeffect7812 the problem with [redacted] people is that they base their opinion on ONE PERSON. this is PHYSICS, his "opinion" doesn't matter. look further, think harder, dig deeper. but nope, just gonna smear this one guy and base your ENTIRE view on this. nice.
for you because you are clearly [redacted]: THIS LAST PART IS SARCASM.
@@samhhaincat2703 not sure what you're talking about. I looked up his sources of funding and employment history. He's a shill who's skilled in throwing in facts and then making baseless claims to make it seem like everything he's saying is based on reality.
i clearly provided examples where he lies about facts. if we're talking about PHYSICS, as you put it, he's still wrong. I literally did "think harder, dig deeper" and it seems you didn't like what i found lol. have you taken your own advice?
In 2021, You are 1000% true. In Australia we are closing our 60 year old coal power plants with nothing but wind and solar to replace them. We have already experienced power outages and increased prices. We need to invest in nuclear power for many reasons and the benefits out weigh the problems 1000 fold.
Try living in germany. exactly why I left the place. The anti nuclear movement has done more environmental damage than the oil and coal industry combined and it's time they realize that. They've been blocking nuclear research and power plant construction for over half a century. And this climate crisis, the air polition issues in tons of places and millions of deaths are on their conscience alone. If we had kept building the plants and research had continued, not only would we be WAY further in nuclear design, we'd possibly even have fusion reactors by now, a program which has also been massively impacted by this. But we certainly wouldn't have western central european nations that are still burning coal to run their industry.
I was skeptical....until he mentioned Sting. And if a famous singer is okay with it, then so am I.
Finally on line! Thank you TedXBerlin!
The thing about deploying renewables on the sort of scale we need, is they require a level of storage capacity and efficiency which isn't there and is not cost effective to develop right now.
And I totally agree nuclear is a necessary stopgap while we chip away at that. Heck, I've only been saying that for the last 40 years. Glad you got on board.
This is actually a common misunderstood fallacy. Urbanization allows for smaller living/ yard spaces, less dependency on automobiles, and more efficient uses of infrastructure (roads, utility connections) among urban dwellers, meaning a lower per capita consumption of key resources from land and water to energy and materials. The misconception involves thinking about where the greatest total resource consumption occurs, rather than measuring levels of demand by population
@@bobthebuilder5668 exactly - million people living in a dense city will have much less negative effect on environment than million people living in villages or a (stereo)typical American suburb
Atoms for energy seems much more appropriate to me than Atoms for peace.
If you wanna pay $0.12/kWh for nuclear electrons be my guest. I'll buy my electricity from solar and wind for ~$0.03/kWh ;)
Christopher Dizon you will only pay so litlle at a moment you don’t need it. Therefore windsun is not cheap, but worthless. When you need it, you will pay the real cost. In Belgium where I live and in close by Germany, we’re at 0.30$ now and climbing.
Demand response then Batteries ;) I've never seen >3 days w/o SIGNIFICANT sun or wind. Better to pay ~$0.02/kWh ~95% of the time. FAR cheaper than the nuclear boondoggle. And nuclear gets more expensive as we get more energy from wind/solar since a nuclear plant costs the same to maintain whether it's generating 1MWh/yr or 1TWh/yr....
Solar and wind are only cheaper when you ignore questions of capacity. You are correct that a nuclear plant costs the same whether it generates a MWh or a GWh. But with a nuclear plant, multi-GWh output is a possibility. You can actually use nuclear power as a base load solution. You can't with solar or wind. The technology just doesn't scale that well.
No... I said 'kWh' for a reason. Wind and Solar are cheaper per kW>>h
Renewable energy like most "green" things are a luxury for the wealthy. Electric cars, solar panels on your house, having thousands of dollars of tesla batteries just to flex on your neighbor, that's all fine and dandy. But if you live in a studio apartment with street parking, you rely on the grid and gas for now.
And while there was a large move to get out of large cities during covid, large cities are still the centers that people congregate in to increase their earning potential and relying on spotty renewable energy just to keep the lights on is not a stable system.
Everyone was panicking because this video was temporarily taken down! Some incredibly important points for the pragmatic solution to climate change, energy poverty, and clean industrial energy! Love Environmental Progress, the non-profit founded my Micheal Schellenberger... I watch all his talks.
I haven’t watched it but I’m guessing Fukushima isn’t what changed his mind about nuclear energy. I’m guessing also that requiring procreation permits isn’t his solution to climate change and other problems related to overpopulation.
Actually, Fukushima is exactly one of the things that made him change his mind. Watch the Video.
He considers nuclear “clean” bc no carbon. Radiation is not clean. When people die from cancer they don’t know where they got it from but we know radiation is one cause. There is still radiation in ocean fish from fukushima. European countries dump nuclear waste into the ocean. Radioactive waste from Hanford leaks into groundwater. If you like radiation you might also enjoy reading about “green runs” from Hanford.
Max Little, still haven't watched the video? Radiation from nuclear waste and in areas contaminated by nuclear fallout and decay products still comprises just a small percentage of total radiation levels. Most radiation comes from radon in the ground, granite and other rocks, asphalt(thanks to coal ash), cosmic radiation, the air, water, living things, etc. Living things are generally more radioactive than their environments thanks to the concentration of C14 and K40. And all sea water is radioactive, it actually has significant levels of Uranium throughout. If you're so concerned about radiation, other industries produce way higher (and unregulated) levels of radiation from their byproducts (coal, geothermal, REEs for wind turbines). And about cancer, you realize it's also treated with radiation? That is something radiophobes can never seem to get their heads around.
Carla: I watched the video before making my last comment and was not impressed. The fact that non-nuclear radiation is more ubiquitous is a bad reason to increase nuclear radiation. Have you read up on green runs yet? Nuclear power is also very expensive. The focus should be on decreasing negligent procreation. If the economy wasn’t so dependant on increasing populations the problem would have been addressed a long time ago. We control the population size and procreation decisions of many plants and animals but not our own species.
it would be awesome if solar and wind could meet most of our energy needs, but this just isn't possible. It'a time to look at the facts and not be controlled by emotional reasoning.
"Emotional" and "Reasoning" are mutually exclusive! There is no such thing as emotional reasoning!
The Original Founder of Greenpeace has left the organization 😂
Patrick Moore is a corporate shill.
@@DoGlowy I wouldn't write him off as a total shill, he raises some very valid points and concerns around energy and environment. I don't agree with everything he says like he supports GMOs for one but just because he endorses oil and fossil fuels doesn't make him a "corporate shill"
@@lovebeamsoutward Everything you eat is the result of centuries of selective breeding.
@@TBustah I'm against modern GMOs due to the widespread use of Roundup. Hybridisation is not the same as corporation funded gene modification. Go figure.
@@lovebeamsoutward Then the problem is the pesticides, not the gene splicing itself.
I went to jail in 2000 and read a book while there about nuclear energy. It changed my life, and perspective, regarding nuclear energy and it's potential.
It is SO hard to talk about it with people, they are scared by propaganda.
Putting the increase cost of renewables on the 'people' merely to 'do the right thing' will never fly. We all want a clean world, but most of us work to pay bills. We deserve reasonable costs.
It is ALL about the storage, and we ain't got it yet!
No it's *not* all about the storage. It's also about the waste from solar, the avian kills from wind, the blight on the landscape, the relocated wildlife, the intermittent power, and the huge land mass necessary for renewables.
Pick up the latest issue of Popular Mechanics. It has a great story on SMR's. Small, modular, reactors. Many benefits to be had versus large reactors.
They still take too long to build which can't keep up with demand. Nuscale who builds the SMRs recently announced the project would be delayed to 2030, and the cost would rise from $4.2 billion to 6.1 billion. No utilities will take them on if they can't lower the cost. Innovation typically means cheaper costs but oddly it has always been the opposite for nuclear energy.
Great presentation. We've been using nuclear power electricity generation in Ontario, Canada for over 50 years with no safety issues. And we're going to continue. Our electrical utility, OPG, is committed to SMR development as part of its carbon neutral program.
You've been using nuclear power for fifty years, one generation The waste that you have created will have to be safely maintained for thousands of years, or hundreds of generations. You're about 1% of the way on the journey of responsibility just for the energy you have created so far.
@@kevdaag2523 Meanwhile, trillions of tons of carbon waste and particulates are being spewed into the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans. More deaths from lung and heart disease caused by air pollution will continue every year, because people do not understand that radiation is not as dangerous as they are lead to believe by media and some environmental activists (I'm looking at you Greenpeace). More than half of ionizing radiation comes from the ground in the form of radon gas, other forms of ionizing radiation comes from other natural sources, like the sun. However, less than 0.01% comes from man made radiation. Radiation waste from nuclear power can be contained and stored safely in geologically stable rock formations (the Canadian Shield has not changed in millions of years and will not change for millions more) deep underground for thousands of years. The problem is that there is so much opposition to safely storing this waste, that instead the nuclear waste is stored above ground in containers, that will not last more than a hundred years. Nuclear and renewable energy is the way to reducing GHG and to ensure clean air for future generations to breath. Closing nuclear plants and opening coal fired power plants and natural gas plants is to ensure that CO2 output will continue to increase, see Germanys increase in emissions over the last twenty years since they have decommissioned nuclear power plants, even though they have invested heavily in solar and wind power. This is a dangerous experiment to play with the only atmosphere we all share, and we will continue to cause preventable pain and suffering to future generations from heart and lung disease caused by air pollution. But for all the evidence, you'll probably not change your mind.
Ask President Jimmy Carter and the other 26 of his team about Chalk River
No safety issues? That is false. The correct statement is that the people of Ontario were not notified of the safety issues because they keep safety failures secret.
The funniest thing I've heard about nuclear energy is that the smome coming from the reactors is co2, methane etc. when it's actually just water recirculating in the atmosphere
I am trained as a engineeer and an attorney. I would agree with more than 90% on with Mr. Shellenberger says. What frightens me however, is the knowledge that everything he says was known and explained 50 years ago. But it was drowned out by people such as him, with a larger microphone than the rest of us, who encouraged nonsense and emotion to override common sense. It should be obvious that if you want to lessen the impact on the environment, you should focus on systems and sources of energy which are energy dense, yet we do exactly the opposite. The real question is why? I think there are a number of reasons one is simply money. If one can force people on this planet into stampead like behavior, then one can figure out how to easily profit from that. Like creating and selling toxic solar panels that we don't even know how to recycle. The other is Geo political advantage by the various countries. The US is blessed with lots of energy resources both fossil and otherwise, and the best way to hamstring the US is to keep it from becoming energy independent.
Fusion is the prize. Once we can master it, our macro energy problems (electricity via power lines) will be solved- pretty much permanently, with virtually no risks.
We have made a fusion reactor before, the only problem was that it took more up more energy than it created. We need to create a way more efficient form of fusion before its even advantageous to use it at all
@@dallascopp4798 We cannot do such without mass investment. But yes, I see we're in the same boat on this matter.
@@dallascopp4798 this is true, and there are independent projects worldwide dedicated to making it work. Linus Tech Tips has a great video about a reactor in Canada that has a working reactor that they are tuning millions of variables on to make it efficient. They believe by brute forcing the variables they will have a working config in the next 10 - 30 years at the absolute most.
Hahaha, working fusion will always be 30 years away.
@@silverhawk1045
Not if we invest in it.
sleeping next someone is a higher risk of ionizing radiation for decaying potassium than working in a nuclear reactor.
Except that people don't rupture and spew 10,000 years of radiation when something goes wrong. Course you might get a toxic fart once in a while... but that's a different kinda risk.
Nuclear reactors are the safest form of energy we have. Yes, when things go wrong, they go wrong big, but they almost never go wrong.
We humans tend to be more concerned with big events than actual impact. 50 fatal car crashes a day is no big deal, but the moment a plane crash kills 300 people all at once, people freak out and think air travel is super dangerous. The same thing happens with nuclear reactors. They kill a few thousand people a century, but we ignore the fact that other energy production methods pull that off every year. It's just that nuclear reactors do it all at once, so it looks scarier.
@@300fans Safe like nitroglycerin... sure as long as you follow all the procedures all the time and never, ever f up, it's perfectly safe... uh huh...
@@300fans Every 20 years or so, that's NOT the same as "almost never".
Yeah, I'd like to know more about the waste and how you want to safely contain it until it is "safe"
Throw them in a big hole or something, however you store it is better than pumping them into the air
@@enderallygolem
What if the toxic waste gets into our freshwater supply? Or in out food? Even if the radiation isn't as bad as usually thought, if we are constantly surrounded by it, it can't be healthy.
@@eden1925 You are constantly bombarded from the waste from the nearby landfill, which is highly toxic, is a biohazard, and an air pollutant. Now tell me how it's different from the depleted uranium fuel rods.
@@hijarian It isn't that different, but I'd guess that you could also reuse the material inside, I think he mentioned something about the EU recycling solar panels. And I'd guess that it is toxic for a shorter period of time and not multiple millenia.
@@eden1925 You'd guess wrong then. Lead, for example, doesn't stop being toxic over time. Million year old lead is just as poisonous as day old lead, because such terms are meaningless in a practical sense. Lead isn't really being created or destroyed to a significant degree on Earth, it's mostly just being moved around. Nuclear waste is an issue that must be addressed, but as far as waste from power production is concerned, it's actually some of the EASIEST to address. It is a much smaller amount than the waste products from other forms of energy production, and it comes in a form that we can capture, transport, and put somewhere far from people or groundwater.
Waste from things like fossil fuels only seemed to be less of an issue than nuclear waste because society thought that dumping it into the air or into the oceans meant it went away. That if we couldn't see it, it was safely disposed of. And that's simply not true.
If more people were willing to speak out against orthodoxy held by their “tribe”, the world would be a much better place..I wish I lived in CA so I could vote for Shellenberger
"nuclear is the only way you can create massive amounts of power"
There's another option... don't use massive amounts of power.
As a proponent for working against climate change, i think it's without a shadow of a doubt that nuclear power needs to be a significant part of that transition.
I think (but am not certain) that the energy (thus emissions) required to excavate and refine the uranium for fission nuclear is bad, possibly (but here's where I'm not sure) worse per kwh than coal or gas. Irritating that this guy didn't address that, I get that he is addressing the huge stigma and fear from most bogan's about nuclear though.
@@alexbuilder6983 It might take more to excavate to get the same amount of mass, but here's the thing, but nuclear is a hugely magnititude more energy dense than any fossil fuel is. Also not to even mention the fact that Thorium is often a bi-product of other mining operations, there's large quantities of it that's already dug up not being used. Obviously it'd take some refining and purification, but that's already the case for petroleum too.
Basically no form of energy comes without it's drawbacks, but i think by and large, if we could get it to work on a large scale, Thorium would be our best bet for energy.
@@TehIdiotOne super interesting! I wasnt a hundred percent sure so thanks for clearing that up. Nuclear should definitely be the go to source of stationary energy (which is most of it), I think hydrogen may be a better alternative for some petroluem applications rather than batteries, its much more energy dense (and lighter) than both batteries and fossil fuels and would probably require less change of infrastructure (concrete, steel etc). Especially since theres people working on ways of using the sun to seperate hydrogen from water (hopefully sea water). It would be interesting to see carbon dioxide emmissions per joule or watt of hydrogen as compared to fossil fuels or batteries.
I had the same conversation with my parents and they wouldn't listen to me. I think that this might help convince them.
Excellent presentation. Nuclear is the way to go for all the reasons explained here.
@Ch Erry oh i know. Don't apologize
I used to be afraid of nuclear power because I thought a nuclear reactor worked like a nuclear bomb, and that it could potentially explode like one. I was half wrong. What goes on inside a nuclear reactor is the same that goes on inside a nuclear bomb; they do the same thing, but they do it very differently, such that a nuclear reactor actually has 0% chance of ever exploding like a nuclear bomb.
I think it was the youtuber _thunderf00t_ that made a video where he explained that difference. Not sure which video it was. Might have been his video(s) about fukushima or something.
Basically the nuclear bomb has a high density of uranium particles and it makes them all release energy at the same time, and that's what generates a brutal force that causes the explosion. The nuclear reactor is the opposite: it has a low density of particles and it make them release energy more sporadically. It does only what is enough to generate electricity, and that's it. According to thunderf00t, the process of the nuclear bomb is also very difficult to get right, so you can't even cause a nuclear explosion by mistake.
This, alongside Michael Shellenberger's talks, made me change my mind completely.
Your parents know that this kind of thing is industry-paid. That's why they won't listen.
“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.”
Genesis 8:22 NKJV