Nuclear Physicist Reacts - Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Nuclear Physicist Reacts to Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
In this video, I react to Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? video from the perspective of a nuclear physicist. I go through the Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? video and look through what is accurate information on Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? video, and nuclear Physics and react to it.
Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist Reacts - Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
Don't forget to like and subscribe!
I’m thrilled you guys enjoy this video! You can check out my support page, where you can become a member, support the channel, and get exclusive access to awesome unseen content! ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou ☢️👩🏽🔬
How do you feel about US robber barons (1930s) and the UN (1960s) having banned Hemp worldwide, and all the possibilities it might have yielded?
If someone said that demonizing nuclear power, taking reactors offline and willfully forgetting the technology _wasn't_ about protecting the environment but instead about denying people something that would make their lives immeasurably better, would you call them crazy?
Some people don't steal to enrich themselves, they steal to weaken those they're stealing from.
Those managing the economy demand its growth... ua-cam.com/play/PLhH8w0wcKSeDpkunKyRWBkPCcjiEk6AL7.html
For a scientist u look 😍
Stop pretending that nuclear power will solve any problem. In France, the country with the highest nuclear power production in the world, just ONE new power plant is being built. For more than 20 years! And it is still not finished and has already cost 16 billion euros. You would have to build about 2500 power plants in the next 20 years to have any noticeable effect on climate change. So from now on about 2.5 new power plants per week. THIS IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION.
You're a nuclear physicist who reacts to online videos. In a way, you might call yourself a "nuclear reactor"
Ahahahaah this is hilarious! I’m taking it and quoting you on it 😂☢️👩🏽🔬
There are some very good analysis of nuclear energy in these comments, and yet this might be the most brilliant comment here lol 😂
quite a radio-active pun!
I almost had a meltdown reading this hahaha
My state went critical after reading this 😃
It's awesome to see Kurtzgezagt getting fact checked, and even agreed with!
Absolutely!!!! But I LOVE KURTZGEZAGT!!!!!!! SO MUUUUCH!
I love how she stated facts and her opinions, only to play the video and have them say the exact same thing
Those nerds would love that 😂
Yeah. Cause last time they were fact checked by another big physics channel, they deleted their comment & tried to burry other comments mentioning that.
They made a apology response years after that & then too they didn't credit the channel & still had an ego about that
@@DolphinsAreBetterThanHumans tell us more about it, what video and what topic, which channel gave corrections.
Kurzgezagt is one of the most accurate, thoroughly researched and serious channels currently on UA-cam, so I'm glad to see that you agree with this video after hearing your regular "true", "that's accurate", "exactly", "precisely", etc. and just adding extra info that the original video didn't have time to address in detail. Thanks!
I wish there was a "well-researched" filter on UA-cam.
Couldn't agree more with you. Kurzgesagt has became a reference in youtube not only in science videos but also social, psychological, theoretical, etc...
thank you for posting this comment. I only came here to see if they were trustworthy, but I'm tired and don't want to watch the whole video before I go to bed lol 🤣
That's what happens if media is properly funded and held to a high quality standard. I'm well aware of the opposition and arguments against tax-funded (some would say "government controlled" but that's far from the truth) news outlets, but Kurzgesagt is constantly proving them otherwise.
Kurzgezagt is obsessed with reducing CO2. They literally have a video about how to use space mirrors to redirect sunlight and cool down Venus, but on earth "The only way to stop climate change is zero emissions"
Our world needs more experts explaining things in clear ways that a layperson can easily understand. Thanks for your hard work.
Thank you I appreciate it 👩🏽🔬☢️
Especially the internet where misinformation runs rampant.
Well the problem is that no "layperson" will watch an educational video. Even more so when it's on yt.
The videos tha people at Kurzegsagt make are epitome of "simple"
They even have a video that explains why and how they lie to us durimg these videos so we can better understand the concepts that we are not knowledgable to understand.
One burning question I have is "how is she an expert"?
She just says she is and that can be a misinformation as well. Disclaimer- this is her first video I watched so I have no idea who she is and she makes almost no effort to show her credentials.
While this is a "react video", she gives or takes legitimacy from knowledge she comments if people believe her. Having her credentials verified should be a standard procedure.
Yes! Finally!
People need to move past the false dichotomy created by political and economic interests and I'm glad to see the increasing amount of expert coverage of such an important and nuanced topic.
Thank you for the support and your comment! Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!👩🏽🔬☢️
That username is amazing.
Unfortunately, it is not a complete false dichotomy. Nuclear plants aren't really a good complement to renewables for both economical and technical reasons. That's a little bit a blind spot in the video but not a reason for me to be completely against the use of nuclear power. As long as a country blocks the construction of renewable plants politically (i. e. Germany in the last ten years) and the construction could be much faster it is more a question of building storage or nuclear reactors. For the latter we'd need to accept an enormous amount of public interventions. So, it doesn't surprise me that it works bad in the west and better in the east. If we are honest about it and consider that for our plan to become CO-2-neutral, it's ok for me to take this path.
For my country I highly doubt that it would work. That's because I'm fine with leaving nuclear in Germany.
@@adalata Hey Flo, I thought Germany was blocking nuclear, not renewables? Also, when you say that nuclear is not a good complement to renewables - can you expand? Usually, people mean nuclear is good for baseload power supply, and by renewables, people mean solar and wind. Obviously, hydro is good for baseload too.
@@clancyjames585 For about ten years Germany blocked the construction of solar and Wind politically. The new government this year brings for times as many to the net as in the previous years. But one problem our market faces is that baseload become incompetable when too much electricity is produced by wind and solar. For that reason renewables are switched down by the Bundesnetzagentur when there is not enough demand for both. And they have to be payed for switching off because there is enough wind and sun.
So, in combination with wind and solar you need suppliers which can be easily switched on and off instead of baseload capacities. Gas is an example but it should be green gas relatively soon, of course. Nuclear power is much to expensive (LCOE) to compete without subsidies even today. In such a market the problem would be even bigger. And so probably it is not a coincidence that states with much electricity from nuclear are far behind when it comes to renewables typically. That seems to be an odd bridge technology to me then.
I love seeing videos like this as a huge nuclear energy advocate and a student studying nuclear physics there are so many misconceptions about nuclear power and its safety and the possibilities of the future advantages of nuclear power
Thank you! I appreciate it ☢️👩🏽🔬 best of luck with your studies
Just found your channel and really love your content, thankyou for doing what you do. I wirk in the environmental industry here in Australia and i regularly have discussions with colleagues regarding our challenges with energy in the not so distant future.
It always fascinates me that the major of my peers either don't know or don't understand that 'long term energy storage' is one of our biggest problems. Particularly in a country as vast as Australia. I mean 80% of Australia is still without telecommunications coverage. The idea that we will somehow be able to capture, store and supply clean energy throughout this country is a fantasy. Necessity is the mother of invention. Hopefully it won't be desperation. 👍
It's unfortunate that fusion always seems to be "20 years away." I'd like to think that, with the recent successes in testing fusion, we're actually closer to truly being 20 years away than ever before. Perhaps you could cover some of these recent tests and give your opinion on how close we actually are to the final breakthrough necessary to make fusion a reality.
Thanks for the support ! I will consider making a video about fusion 👩🏽🔬☢️
Twenty years is very optimistic. The "recent successes" you mention aren't really very successful. The good numbers being reported only compare the energy going into the plasma, and the energy coming out. They disregard all the energy required to run the machines, and all the losses, greater than half, involved in converting the heat produced in the plasma to electricity. See this video by Sabine Hossenfelder: ua-cam.com/video/LJ4W1g-6JiY/v-deo.html In other words, we aren't close at all to fusion energy.
From what i've read, ITER should demonstrate fusion producono energy in 2035, but commercial fusion is then only expected to work commercialy around 2070
@@Kob1yashi And in 2035 they will say fusion is only fifteen years away. Right now, they are claiming that Q_{plasma} is 0.7, while Q_{total} is maybe 0.1. There is a very long way to go to reach break-even.
@@michaelsommers2356 I'm not sure I think the progress is exponential so I believe we will see fusion in 2080 for sure but until then fast neutrons reactors seem to be the best bet
I read in a scientific magazine (no not a peer reviewed journal) that interviewed a group of scientists who were doing a study on radiation from power plants. What stuck with me was that coal power plants actually produced measurements from the outside of the power plant more radiation (I don't know if there is different types of radiation and the interview never asked) than those in similar locations of nuclear power plants. The article was written with trying to make the readers be shocked and maybe a little afraid of coal power plants. It always amazed me that we don't know that nuclear power plants because they deal with radioactive materials try to prevent radiation leaking. Which would mean that they would build to protect radiation from affecting the outside environment as much as possible. Which would mean that you would get less radiation from the building outside.
Here in Georgia (the US state, not the country), we are trying to expand an existing nuclear plant from 2 reactors to 4 and actual construction on the expansion has been going on for 13 years now. It's been a year or two away from completion for 5 or 6 years now... And that's just actual construction - the planning took I believe 3 years as well. And that's just expanding an existing plant, not even trying to build a new one from scratch. "A decade or more" - a LOT more... We needed to have been building nuclear plants starting 20 years ago.
I 've heard that during the Trump era nuclear was slowed down in order to enhance fossil fuels
That is because of your anti-nuke Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Other countries get them built in 4 years or less.
You’re not wrong. This is actually the sad reality. Building or expanding nuclear power plans that are different per location or country etc is like reinventing the wheel, EVERY TIME. We need a way to mass produce and stream line the production of nuclear reactors and I believe small modular reactors (SMRs) can over us this possibility.
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist It's funny how the US (and other countries) can build small modular reactors in two years or less on ships and have them deployed all over the world, costing millions not billions, yet have these anti-nuke organizations in their countries that stifle NPP building since their inception for almost 50 years now.
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist The US has been building small modular reactors aboard ships for many decades in two years or less, costing millions not billions.
Sadly, this is how general public works. No nuclear, no fossil fuels but don’t let me get any blackout and have expensive electricity. That’s why in Taiwan, some propose “Use love to generate electricity” to the activists
I've seen a lot of videos that deal with the subject of energy (nuclear vs fossil energy vs renewable energy) and it only very rarely talks about mining (how it is more and more complicated to extracting the minerals, how much it destroys the environment, the geopolitics around it). I think it's a key point
You're absolutely right and we'll do more videos going into depth on this topic ! Thanks for the comment! Please subscribe to not miss out on future episodes ☢️👩🏽🔬
If we invested in seawater and/or granite extraction, Uranium extraction would be cleaner than any renewable by such a massive margin, and it could be done around the entire world, rather than be localized in exploited regions
Finally someone else who understands there are pros and cons to almost anything! 15:00 One of my people!... I feel like there should be more of us but people do really seem to enjoy black and white answers rather than swimming in the grey areas
Thanks for the support and your comment. You can check my support page where I post exclusive uncut videos and more awesome content ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou
If it makes my electric bill cheaper I'm all for it, and I live 90 mi downwind from 3 Mile Island. And although as 9-year-old you can't comprehend the danger that you're in, you can comprehend the fear and anxiety on the faces of the adults around you. Speaking of which how stupid was the designer of the control room who only put one phone line in. After the accident happened the designers of the nuclear reactor were trying to call the control room to tell them to turn the pumps back on. The phone was busy , they had a call the governor of the state of Pennsylvania and have state troopers drive there and relay the message . Thank you for the time and effort you put into your video thumbs up.
Love the video (both)!
What I do have a huge issue with is their categorisation of burning of Biomass as a low emission powersource. There are plenty of sources that show chopping down trees to make pellets to fuel biomass powerplants. Per definition you can categorise wood as a renewable powersource, that doesn't make it a good thing
Yup. Wood is perhaps the highest-emission power source there is, since it’s a pretty useless fuel. Trees grow back, sure, but they use CO2 from everything. So by that logic - burn things but grow more trees - coal, oil and gas are also low-emission 😂. Biomass is also a silly term. Organic chemistry is called that for a reason.
@@mikesrandomchannel yes, i don't want to make it too political but there lies the flaw of a lot of green parties. The word bio sounds wonderful, the word nuclear sounds like the apocalyps.
@@brdl6192Yeah, the names we give to things are important. Take "renewable": what does that even mean? Do we "renew" sun, wind, water, thermal energy? Of course not. The only thing that has to be renewed (because we set fire to it first) is, of course, all that bio-stuff, whether biomass, biogas or biodiesel.
Trees absorb carbon while they grow and then release it when they burn. As long as forests are allowed to regrow, the process sounds carbon-neutral to me.
Quick note: Kurzgesagt is produced by the german public television. Its not a single person making these videos, and they put out an entire video explaining their process ("Can you trust kurzgesagt?" on youtube).
Good video tho!
Kurzgesagt is NOT German public television
@@OlivierNovel Well; It is produced by ZDF and ARD, and is backed by funk which is part of the german public television group.
Correction: It isn't produced by ZDF and ARD, but its still part of FUNK.
@@annikentogo then not all the money paid for the Rundfunkbeitrag is stolen and some of it is very well spent, what a relief, thanks! 🤣
I work as an engineer in the renewable (offshore wind) sector, and have for 12 years now. Its not the future… far too expensive, inefficient and costly. It can only serve as an addition to a more effective source of energy: nuclear. Why do you think all oil companies rebrand as energy companies and support wind and solar? (Because it can never compete with oil, and therefore they can continue to sell oil)
Thank you for taking the time to review this video.
But if Nuclear isn't renewable. Then Solar panels and wind turbines aren't renewable either. As the quantity of mining required for components is at least equally as much as nuclear.
Fossil fuels are renewable too, just not in the time frame man wants.
As an Australian, I do not understand the Australian federal government ban on nuclear energy, whilst they also benefit from the country being one of the biggest exporters of Uranium in the world.
At least we have the Lucas Heights reactor, making isotopes for nuclear medicine available to those that need it in the country, and in the region.
Even if nuclear isn’t a renewable, it’s INCREDIBLY energy dense leagues above any other energy resource available. And with zero emissions and very little waste that cannot be recycled even by current technology.
Another major issue that is not often discussed, but can definitely be seen today and throughout the last century is the effect of fossil fuels on geopolitics and worldwide power imbalance and conflicts.
It has worked in France for decades. It’s a solved problem.
More than that, it's a non-problem. We know what to do and how, it's just the unpopularity of nuclear
Yeah no...
If it's all safe fun and games,
Why are all ur plants placed along the German Border 😳
Great video, i honestly appreciate a more "serious" and in depth approach like this video (by the way i highly suggest all kurzgezard video, for the high value in accuracy and accessibility).
Maybe you could give an opinion about Scott manley "Going Nuclear" series or a single video from it, i would sincerely appreciate
Thanks I appreciate The support and I’ll check the suggestion ☢️👩🏽🔬
I just landed in the right side of UA-cam, it was amazing to hear an expert's opinion over a channel like this. Thank you!
I know I'm late to the party, but I was one of those who opposed nuclear power, though I was never adamant about it. I have since come around to it and even argue it as an excellent stop-gap measure for electricity generation. While I am still somewhat hesitant on how much nuclear power should be utilized on earth, it is mostly due to a general lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject - and I see it as one of the major power sources should we ever truly become a space-faring species.
Much of my knowledge on it came from my father, who had served as a nuclear engineer in the US Navy before he married my mother and had me and my brothers. He served predominantly on submarines, but his final years of service were as an instructor. He was medically discharged for overexposure due to a severe radiation leak at the training facility he was stationed at - the first line of sensors had failed, but the second line detected it. He and the other instructor there were the only ones there qualified to fix it, and while they succeeded and prevented any accident, they both absorbed more radiation than what was allowed across a full 20-year career. My father took the medical discharge while the other instructor became a radiologist and continued serving.
He had said that Chernobyl was the perfect showcase of everything going wrong when something goes wrong, whereas Three Mile Island was the perfect showcase of everything going right when something goes wrong - and the latter part was long before that questionable Netflix series.
No, we need nuclear energy for reliable, inexpensive energy ... unlike "sustainables" which are suitable for niche applications only.
I loved that the video in question ended with an opinion piece. So many videos focus so much on being strictly unbiased and neutral, that they really miss the point in (public) education. Leaving the end of the video with an educated opinion and conclusion helps the viewer really understand how to put together all of the previous facts and statistics. (Especially since so much of this topic is really about public policy.)
Ending with a well-constructed and nuanced opinion or speculation also shows that the video producers do have ample knowledge of the subject and critical thinking to provide real practical solutions.
Anyone can go look up facts, quotes, and statistics and put them in a script like some kind of News broadcast. But I don't think the News reporters are experts just on their own.
This is not related to the video it self, but I love your hair, it's like mad scientest but it looks somewhat worked on, I can't explain it but i f love it , you look great!
I also really liked the video, I had already seen the original Kurzgesagt one, but I really apreciatte the info you added.
I didn't watch this one but saw Kursegast's video on how safe it was. I highly recommend their channel
Another important thing not mentioned here is the vast amount of space renewables would require to even come close to making a dent in the ever increasing energy demand.
Solar takes quite a lot of space, wind farms take up quite a lot of space. GreenPeace are for renewables, but in order to get the amount of energy from them to meet demands get ready for mass deforestation to do it.
Taking on Kurzgesagt is bold!
I really like Kurzgesagt for their rational, well-balanced take on most issues. One should not forget that Kurzgesagt, as the name implies, is from Germany. For whatever reason, people in the German-speaking world are biased against nuclear power beyond any rational reason. With that in mind, it is even bolder of them to make such a sensible (and yet politically very controversial) statement!
Yes to all. They are very well read, their sources are there for anyone to see.
Also they also correct themselves when wrong.
So yes,they are accurate.
I really enjoyed watching beauty and brains at play. I have such admiration!
In a Nutshell usually gives very accurate information and they did put out their sources everytime.
we need apple to advertise nuclear power plants so people start wanting them.
Μπράβο, πολύ ωραίο βίντεο και πολύ καλές επεξηγήσεις. Το αγαπάω το κουργκεζαγκτ, και μου άρεσε που μου πρότεινε το βίντεό σου. Χρειαζόμαστε να ακούγονται περισσότερες απόψεις από τους ειδικούς του κάθε πεδίου. Μίλα περισσότερο! Ευχαριστούμε!
it's clear the kurzgesagt birds did their homework or even had a nuclear physicist in the team because Elina used basically the same language, as if they read the same reviews or saw the same information lol. Really great to get the stamp of aprooval from a person in the area. loved this.
Kurzgesagt is one of the best science channel on this platform.
I am from *Sweden* And I can say we used to have more Nuclear reactors. But right now we only have 2 plants working and the 3rd recently shutdown.
And I was very into Science (climate) in my college years. I can't tell you enough how frustrating it is to fix. But god! Why so many people are against nuclear is still really really, troubling.
Norways population have 2/3rd using *Electricity Cars* so they are already ahead of the game in that race. Own dad works at *Volvo* so I hear about a lot of Good and Bad things in that area.
Most people say they're not that accurate while they knew it's just a theory might be like that and try to make dramatic from this little mistakes
Idk why would they did that but do we need everything to be a perfect? That sounds boring if it is..
Just imagine if this world everything is perfect no need to improve anything, no challenges
Its extremely disheartening that even people who understand the issue, still refuse to see that nuclear energy is the only viable option if we want in any way to maintain our life and population.
The worst thing about nuclear power plants is the fact that we use uranium because uranium can be used to make bombs. This is the reason we use uranium. A better alternative would be thorium since it can’t be used for military purposes and is way easier to find and more abundant in our world. But, like with a lot of things, some rich people do not like the idea…
I would say that one thing that is missing from this is that nuclear is much, much, much more efficiant than wind and solar. So much so, that we literally can't use those INSTEAD of nuclear - we simply don't have enough raw materials here on earth to build that many wind farms and solar panels.
70percent of the energy in France does not come from nuclear.. its far lower than that. Energy and electricity is not the same
My kids and I are big fans of Kurzgesagt
My main concern regarding Nuclear energy is time and cost.
In the UK we are expecting 2 power generation projects to "go fully live" in 2025-26.
Hinckley C Nuclear, and Dogger Bank Wind farm.
From conception, Hinkley will be a 20 year project
.
Dogger Bank, being the first of it's type, had a long consultation period, however
Onshore construction began in 2020 and is currently underway for Dogger Bank A and Dogger Bank B, while offshore construction on Dogger Bank A began in Spring 2022.
*First power is expected in Summer 2023 and Summer 2024 for Dogger Bank A and B, respectively, with commercial operations to follow around six months later. Turbine installation for Dogger Bank C will begin in 2025*
.
As Indicated, while Hinckley will be essentially "Binary", only producing energy when finished, Dogger Bank will not only have a rapid construction time, but will ramp energy production as each unit (Turbine) is completed.
This wil hugely reduce the carbon footprint of dirty energy still on line over the construction period.
.
The wind project will also be rated 12% higher output (3.6GW vs 3.2) at 40% of the construction cost (£9bn vs £23bn) and with energy costing £48/ MWh vs £114/MWh.
This of course could leave a considerable amount of cash "spare" to spend on associated storage if desired, or possibly build *another* project of similar size while still saving +/- £5bn (!).
I mention that because it seems the government may soon be commencing a similar Nuclear project at Sizewell on the East coast (almost within sight of Dogger Bank!)
.
That project will as mentioned leave about 3.2GW of fossil generation on the grid up to the day it's switched on (they "estimate" 10 years this time, I won't hold my breath)
Seems like a folly to me.
.
*P.S*
I WAS WRONG!
I just read a report stating that EDF "admitted that Hinkley C will now cost an extra £3bn(!!!) That's £26bn total for 3.2GW.
Literally 3 times the construction construction cost of offshore wind, and double the time, for power 2.5 times the price.
.
Can't be justified?
..
Still way cheaper than solar or wind with storage.
There are plans that would allow a timely net zero transition in Europe and north Africa without any new nuclear or tech we don't already have, but it would be harder and more expensive than including new nuclear.
One thing I never hear mentioned though is when people are advocating for nuclear as a solution to global energy demand, they don't think about how nuclear energy provides the raw materials for nuclear weapons (the main reason the main belligerants in the Cold War built the kind of reactors they did), and how it would enable dozens of countries with extremely dodgy control over their own resources and grudges against their neighbours to start enriching uranium on the quiet, claiming it was all about electricity. I know some new techs can't be used for weapons, but if we start spreading nuclear energy, we have to accept that at least some places that don't have any chance of getting nuclear weapons now, probably will develop them in the next few decades.
15:25 It's important to point out that renewables ARE NOT CO2 free and that they are actually a big source of pollution. The mining and treatment of the materials needed for them is very polluting, the building is made using machines powered by fossil fuels, the disposal of solar panels and wind turbines is very polluting, etc. The source of their energy (sun and wind) may be CO2 free, but the technology itself is far from being CO2 free
I find the argument against nuclear power tedious, emotional, and without impact at all.
There are a lot more solid arguments against the use of nuclear power that are grounded in reaiuty. First a little about myself. I'm old enough to remember Chernobul and I live in a country that was on the path of the massive cloud of fallout that was poised to destroy the entirety of Scandinavia and trigger a human catastrophe and diaspora that makes all the others combined seem like minor stuff. This has nothing to do with Chernobul specifically and has to do with the effects of a nuclear accident generally.
First off, while fossil fuels are ruining the planet, it's ruining the planet for US and if we die out climate change will stop with court extinction and something new will raise that's adapted to the new reality. If we use nuclear power then eventually we'll ruin the planet for every future life form.
It all hinges on an understanding of time beyond the immediate future. Nothing we can do can seal the nuclear waste away for as long as it sends out dangerous radiation. We can contain the waste for 500 years if we're lucky, the waste satays dangerous for around 5000 though, and 500 years out of 5000 years is rather unimpressive even though for us with our limited life span it seems like a really long time. And if we bury it in a mountain then there's no guarantee it'll remain geologically stable for the entire duration of the half-life. And eventually, we'll run out of places to dispose of the waste since it's rather difficult to reuse locations since they have to be sealed off. This is just us kicking the can down the road and while we do it out of fear instead of greed the sentiment is exactly the same as the one that got us into the current mess we're in with climate change, "what do I care about the consequence, I'll be dead. Future generations will be the ones that have to deal with this mess." And the time frame for the waste is so impossibly vast that linguists are working on figuring out how to warn people with pictograms that it's dangerous to go here since the English language is expected to change massively in that time frame.
Then there are also the nuclear facilities. Even if there's only a 0.0001% that something will go wrong as time progresses so will this chance also increase as the logistics in and about the facilities are ravaged by time and there's a limit to how much we can upgrade those systems and make repairs before you have to build a new plant.
There's also an economic factor. Who should run these nuclear plants? Given how private corporations act I'd like them to have nothing to do with nuclear power plants whatsoever. So, that leaves the public sector to run them. The public sector also needs money for infrastructure and development and now also for operating and maintaining nuclear plants. For them to maintain the current level of spending taxes either have to be raised or general spending reduced. Raising taxes is generally a non-starter anywhere in the world. Scandinavia in particular is already taxed a lot in order for us to maintain our social security net. Reducing funding would be a lot more likely. Healthcare fund reduction? That's also a non-starter, reducing infrastructure spending? Unless you want the rest of the world to end upå as the US that's also a non-starter. Same with education. That leaves non-profit investments in R&D. What comes from that investment? Research into the improvement of green energy. The avid defense of nuclear plants to save the planet has just doomed it to slow ruin And while it's from another source than fossil fuels, it's still ruin. Only a lot more serious since the ruin would no longer destroy the environment for just us it would destroy the environment for everything that will lever live on the planet. What are developing nations to do? How can they afford both the development and operation and maintenance of nuclear plants? The movement for nuclear power is coming from a place of incredible privilege and without any understanding of how societies work comprehensively.
There's also the question of human resources. Where would you get enough people to run all the nuclear plants adequately? And where should developing nations get the human resources for it?
It would be a lot better, and safer, in the long run, to just put all the money that it would take to build, operate, and maintain to put it into R&D of green energy. We're already seeing impressive results now. If we took all that money then we would see equally impressive results in the same time as it would take to get to build and get those power plants running.
There are a lot of good reasons to support using more clean, reliable, low environmental impact NP.
the evidence all demonstrates that historically, nuclear has been the fastest way to decarbonize, requires the least raw materials and land, and results in fewer deaths per unit of energy produced.
The problem with places like Sweden & France, is that they don't have the problem of having massive populations. So they can get away with using nuclear power since they don't have to worry so much about the costs of nuclear power plants as much unlike other countries like the United states for example. - For reference the populations of Sweden (10.4 Mil.), France (67.75 Mil.), and Canada (38.25 Mil.) put together don't even equate to the population of the United States (331.9 Mil.) -. And just to point out if anyone is wondering, I am definitely not a hater of the idea of using nuclear energy (in fact, I very much support nuclear energy thank you very much!) , I'm just simply saying that small well-developed countries generally have an easier time dealing with things like this.
Okay, I loved the "renewable" vs "sustainable" distinction.
How great is this video! It just seems to me that we must invest heavily into nuclear research right now more than ever. It is a bit frustrating that we have a view on the nuke plants based on designs that are decades old. Of course, we can do it better and safer if we simply commit to trying and investing. It is quite simply a choice we need to make.
Great channel, and yes, I love Kurzgesagt as well. I subbed, as I am very interested in nuclear energy. (And not afraid, I live close to one even!)
you should also mention that energy production via renewables is much more efficient, as are the electric consumers. you dont need to replace primary energy 1:1, its actually way less because of efficiency gains
Nevermind the fact that our current methods of storing power are almost as bad to make as the fuels that we are trying to depricate our use of. It's a shame it's not an easier process.
3:57 about this, a lot of energy consumption is caused by the inefficient capitalistic economic system.
If the economy gets way more efficient , like bus instead of cars, homeoffice instead of bureau, no more private jets, mansions, bullshit jobs etc. , then the energy consumption could decrease quite a bit in my opinion.
As an economist I'm not 100% sure about your statement about fossil fuels. They won't ever finish.
The reason behind that is because as we increase its consumption, we also increase the efficiency of machines that use these fuels, so the general compute is the same. If we increase the efficiency of our machines, the available fuel is virtually increasing. Also, if we switch as many things as we can to electricity or other renewable energies, we are also "producing" new fuel (that is, consuming less of it, so it'll become more available)
CHeers!
Regarding "increased electricity demand of Electric Vehicles"
I suggest investigating reports by Graeme Cooper, "Head of Future Markets" at the UK National.
His reports indicate that the requirement for energy increase specifically for vehicles is essentially zero, or very slight, being absorbed by the expected requirements for technology in general.
.
Much (all?) of the energy will simply be diverted from fossil fuel production directly to the vehicles, at much higher overall efficiency.
If that energy is "dirty", it already was when used for refinement of the fossil fuel.
Well on this planet we will need a grid with a capacity of about 30% greater than what it is now if the Greenies are successful in their subterfuge.
I have thought it makes the sense to bury the waste at depth along a tectonic subduction zone, eventually it'll work its way into the lower mantle without any further intervention. Would be a very slow process but it would be a sure way to dispose of it somewhere we wont stumble across it in 10,000 years
Burying the material in an active earthquake zone seems to me not the safest idea
Energy storage would even make nuclear more effective since most nuclear reactors are not good at quickly changing loads and a reasonably sized storage can even out the demand on the reactors. Energy storage makes all power sources more effective.
I am a fan of Nuclear power, solar, hydro and fossil fuels. I am unsure of wind farms, though I feel they are more consistent than solar, there seems to be a lot of unintended issues that I do not fully understand (ie people claiming they have medical issues since a wind farm has opened in the vicinity). Right now we cannot afford to remove one type of electricity generation or stop building one type without an increase in another type. Solar and wind farms do not provide consistent and reliable electrical supply. To me, nuclear power stations are not just a compromise, but the best solution until renewables and the ability to store the energy created by renewables is 100 percent reliable and is 100 percent able to meet the electrical needs 24 hours a day, every day, including in peak demand periods.
That chanel's name is " that purple sciencey animation chanel with colorful animation and soothing narrative "
You missed it just as kurztgesagt: PROVIDED the greenhouse effect hypothesis is real. But as of yet, it's not proven. Nuclear's main point is energy abundance and diversification, not environment protection. The environment is perfectly fine on it's own.
So I watched video where sciemtist explains that if we were to replace other plants with nuclear in the whole world, we would have uranium for maybe about few decades and that next gen reactors are at least 50 years or more away...
Please, it'd be great if you could react to SoupEmporium's "Chernobyl Death Toll" deep dive. Like Kurzkesagt, there's a ton of research involved, although that video is much longer and less watered down. "building nuclear power plants is too expensive" and "they're super safe" now sound like red flags after watching that video.
One issue with nuclear power is that it is extremly slow and unflexible -it is slow to shut down and very slow to start up again, and once it's giving out power that power can't be trimmed -most reactors have two settings, 0% output (when off/cold) or work at 97-100% power output (when on/hot). Thus nuclear power is good at providing a baseline power output, but can't stabilyze the unreliability from renewables. And then, any solution to the unreliability of renewables (grid storage?) will also increase their abbility to be the main power source all day long and all year long, specially with grid storage solutions worth months of power supply (since, seasonally, we use more energy when there's less wind and less sunlight, when it's dark and cold). And so far the political cost of nuclear energy in the West is nigh unbearable, even in France when they're struggling with a peak of offline nuclear stations as the system grows long in the teeth and needs replacement.
Underlying problem of nuclear energy is not what most think , its not as much technology and "fear" of it but..money
nuclear powerplants are the most expensive plants out there , not needing a lot technology but a lot things , from security , good placement and "perfect" manufacturing , know few polants who were canceled mid production due "too many flaws in construction and cost was getting too high"
medium sized nuclear powerplant costs 10-20bilion euro , bigger can be up to 30 bilion and more
fuel is cheap yes , but once that power plant nears its "end of its life" , decommissioning costs are 3-6 times of powerplant cost , so that 20bilion will be more like 60-100
if you look at "how expensive its to produce" in total cost nuclear power by far is the most expensive power to produce , yes it is clean , yes you condendse a lot power in 1 spot(who can be both bonus and flaw) , but world is ran by capitalism and money , and seeing french nuclear corporation go bankrupt several years ago , and lots nuclear plants being canceled due rising costs , inflation and other factors
in world ran by capitalism , nuclear power wont have place. , this is also why i hate capitalism , trickle down never existed , open market was a lie , and it was alweys "privileged for the rich" who dictated what can and cant be done.
this is one of hundreds if not thousands of problems we struggle now becouse "we have capitalism ran economy" , if it was about "safety" and "population" concerns they would not care , just look at oil or coal who kills milions of people every year , yet rich people not care:P
during cold war there it was subsidised by goverment , literaly throwing money so they can use "weaste" to make plutonium for nuclear bomb , noone today uses plutonium exept maybe nasa and some reserch , demand is really low today.
Your hairstyle is so pretty! Love it.
How can new generation reactors be safer than older reactors ?
The people selling the older reactors said they were perfectly safe.
hi Elina, great analysis, but you mentioned the energy we can extract from uranium can last "hundreds of thousands of years".
do you mean fast breeders with U238? as it's still prototype and the IV gen reactors will end demo only in 2030, and will not be operational until 2040 at least.
It is a shame that Nuclear has been condemned so much because of the Weponisation of the technology, it's just clear Nuclear will play a huge part in the transition. Would be great to hear you opinion on Thorium-Salt type reactors? Instead of the Plutonium/Uranium-based reactors.
WW2 and The Chernobyl Disaster.
Nuclear energy is like the Concorde of energy.
Fun fact on nuclear, uranium is more abundant than tin, Thorium is 3x that!
@Elina Charatsidou: Is it possible to create fissionable material from energy? If so, said material could be the "battery" that renewables charge during peak production hours, and nuclear power plants could provide the on-demand, consistent power.
Excellent video Miss, i m impressed by your skill and knowledge. I m also glad Kurzgesagt took your attention, those people are doing amazing work!
Maybe relying on renewables when the produce enough power supply, and then using nuclear energy as a backup may work out, in this case we won't need to store energy and everything may get fine.
And reusing radioactive waste can also make nuclear power plant more safer to environment, all the thing we need to to do RnD and develop newer,better,safer technology for us and environment.
Expecting a heart ❤️!!!
11:20 One important thing to remember here is that nuclear also faces alot of problems that is not mentioned in the video, it is the least flexible power source, where wind and other generators that use converters can instantly adapt to the needs of the grid.
That is not really a problem, because you will always need at least some amount of electricity produced, and that can be done by nuclear because it is pretty stable and constant in its production.
I love there videos andI like that you didn't try to point out flaws which were not there. They had come out and said it out loud that they dumb down there videos for the average person which leads to leaving out a lot of details which might make people think they just push out misinformation wherein its the rather opposite (check the sources)
Well, this year I have found myself saying 'I told you so' a lot more than before.
Here in sweden, they have shut down nuclear reactors, partly because of the cost to renew, but also perfectly good ones. I said from the start that it was too early. You can't shut that down before you replace it and here we are 2022. Winter is coming and we have an energy crisis.
Of course renewable instead of nuclear but it's just moronic to remove nuclear before it's replaced by a well-functioning renewable source.
That's why, in the video, they say that it's 30% nuclear in sweden but if they would have made that video 2 years earlier that number would be 51% (if I remember correctly)
All I can think of when someone says nuclear is save is "It sure is, untill it isn't ... then what?"
Nuclear is always safer, you could have looked that up.
Hey! Could you react to "Undecided with Matt Pharrell" if you haven't already? Especially "mikro nuclear reactors" and "we already solved the nuclear waste problem". Would be great!
I liked this video because it points out the Idiocy of being Anti-Nuclear Power… She almost points out, if we replace all Gas burning powered vehicles with Electric powered vehicles, we will burn more Coal to make electricity to power our vehicles and… How to make everybody happy, even…
Don’t use a square mile to build a Nuclear Power Plant use it to store High Voltage Batteries that are charged by Coal Burning Power Plants. After the Batteries are fully charged turn off all of the Coal Burning Power Plants in the sector that can be powered by just the Batteries for 24 hours.
After the 24 hours the sector, 90% of the air pollutants from the coal will be gone and it will take 4 weeks to return, but it just takes a week to charge the batteries, I hope… The Activists will need to find something else to complain about…
I don’t know what would cost more money a Nuclear Power Plant or a square mile of Batteries.?? I think the Climate Activists should get together with the Nuclear Activists and spend time “Priceless” to convince Governments around the World…
Sorry for being so blunt but this should have happened in the 60s, but then what would you do today, besides breathe easier…
I am really baffled that people think that renewables, namely wind and solar are the future while nuke is the past. If you actually look to history, windmill and sun dryers where what were used in the middle age while nuke has been develop in the late industrial age ....
Nuclear reactors are extremely expensive and require buy in from a lot of parties. And of course perfect design and maintenance. Not only that, but you'd have to overcome the public perception.
The reason those other countries can deploy reactors cheaper is because those countries generally don't have many hoops to jump through and they don't care what the public thinks. They just do whatever they want. Neither India or China care one iota about the environment. The reason they choose it is because it's cheaper overall.
Whereas in Western countries (like mentioned), it takes a very long time to make those cost effective.
And unfortunately wind power is either a net negative or a break even. They've done studies that prove they are not environmentally friendly.
Electric cars just shift combustion to another location. And if you're thinking globally then they aren't currently the answer either. What does make sense is hybrid vehicles. If they can get semi trucks to use hybrid diesel systems, we will see a huge increase in efficiency.
What we really need to focus on in the meantime is nuclear powered cargo ships. Cargo ships emit a hugely disparate amount of pollution. But doing so will increase the cost of Chinese goods dramatically. Are you willing to pay a lot more for your cheap Chinese crap that you order on Amazon to save the planet?
Once nuclear re-establishes itself as safe, we can start investing into it again.
There are a lot less renewable energy sources that actually make sense than you think. If solar panel efficiency increases substantially we'll be in a much better spot. But right now we need to stop investing in wind power. It's been an expensive experiment that hasn't produced what we hoped it would.
Oh and the reason cost is important when it comes to sources of electricity is because that cost gets passed to the consumer. If your electric bill went up by 40%, would you be happy because it was helping pay for nuclear?
WARNING: Very loud and high pitched ping sounds at about 15 minutes into the video!
Do not use headphones when listening to this!
The TL,DR is Yes. We do need it. The sooner the better.
He is just saying that all good ideas is the best ones
Hi Elina very nice review of Nuclear VS Renewables! However the Missing Pieces from Kurzgesagt & your videos are 1. Cost & 2. Time.
Please consider a video on The Next 10 years, where you apply $10 Trillion Dollars to build Wind, Solar & Storage VS New Nuclear developement minning Waste & Construction.
We have No Time left & we know how to do Wind, Solar & Storage & they are the Lowest Cost Electricity NOW Today
Still. We need to look at our wasteful use of energy. Soooo much energy is wasted. As long as this problem is not addressed in earnest energy production will never catch up.
If we charge EVs during off-peak, it helps a lot the grid if you have a lot of nuclear plants, like France, as you help reducing the TWh cost of the plant as the plant will run with a high load longer. Most of the cost of a nuke plant is the construction cost, not the running cost (unlike a fossil fuel plant).
At the end, EV won't need that many new nuke plants as most will charge during the night.
Also, in France, we have voted a new law requiring big parking lots to install photovoltaic sunshades within 3/5 years. This will help charging EVs during the day when the sun is shining for people won't can't charge at night, and it will reduce the peak loads on the grid during the days when the sun is shining.
I hope that we will build as fast as possible EPR2 and breeder reactors (China has some already) as fast possible as well as electrify everything as fast as possible.
I would say that a mix of nuclear + solar would be great for many countries - with nuclear delivering base load at an acceptable cost, and solar delivering very cheap electricity for those, who are able/willing to adapt their consumption to production. It would be something like 30% nuclear and 70 solar.
I work with PtX from renewable energy, so I have the opposite of a job security incentive to claim that nukes+solar would be great.
Btw, Greece (mainland, I suppose) was supplied 100% with renewable energy for 5 hours on 7th October.
I agree we should not close any nuclear power plant before we reach zero émissions for all energy production.
The first part of the video, before the opinion part is not presenting solar and wind energy fairly though.
It tells that these require lots of storage when they are not producing. This is not actually true.
Solar and wind have are predictable and intermittent.
Storage is only one of the solutions to deal with intermittency. Although this is the most obvious solution, it is also the most expensive solution to this issue.
So to be really fair, one need to present all these solutions, especially those that are much less expensive.
So let me briefly present these solutions:
1/ demand management. This is the cheapest solution of all. It is the idea to consume electricity preferably when it is the cheapest. It actually allows to reduce the cost of electricity for all. The more we have renewables, the more of that cheap electricity we get, and the less we need to manage intermittency with more expensive methods. Doing so can also take care of the majority of the problem.
2/ Sobriety. The idea is to choose to not consume electricity when it is produced using fossil fuels. This comes at a reduction of service, such as reducing space heating in the winter. In that case one can use an additional pullover instead. This is therefore also a form of energy efficiency. Very cheap and massively available immediately.
3/ adding exterior insulation for buildings which is much more efficient than interior insulation, reduces the need for heating energy, while allowing internal thermal mass to store heat. That last part is cheap and available storage, in addition to the increased efficiency. In buildings, most of the energy use is actually for heating and cooling, so this can play a big role in the transition to renewables.
4/ using excess productions to power high intensity industrial processes such as hydrogen production for metallurgy oxide réduction, chemistry, synthetic fuels, glass production, fertilizers. All these final products can be stored at little cost. So this solution is both cheap storage and demand management.
5/ using heat pumps everywhere we need to heat spaces allows not only to reduce energy demand through 3-fold better energy efficiency, but also reduces the gap in energy consumption between summers and winters. As such it plays a big role in seasonal energy patterns. This is both energy efficiency, a renewable source of heat energy, and a solution to seasonal intermittency.
6/ using hydropower only for intermittency management, typically in the winter. This comes at no cost and is available in all countries having hydropower.
Once you have done all this, it is debatable whether or not we still need any battery storage.
Yet storage might be useful to reduce the cost of electricity at times of higher demand and lower production. But my no means it is necessary to the transition to all sources of energy towards zero carbon.
So the problem for nuclear is very much a cost issue. Small nuclear reactors are for now more expensive than the most expensive nuclear power plants such as EPR.
The biggest cost issue for nuclear is due to its fixed costs that require it to run most of the year and compete with cheaper renewables that will over produce most of the time.
So, the more renewables you add into the mix, the more expensive nuclear energy costs. They eventually compete, and are not that complementary. That's a problem for nuclear, not for renewables.
If we are to transition the whole world to zero carbon emissions, it will have to be at lower or equal cost to fossil fuels. This requires the cheapest energy sources, and for now it is renewable energy, especially solar energy that allows for local distributed energy almost everywhere in the world.
A way to be fair with the comparison of nuclear with renewables, is to either not present intermittency as an issue, or to consider it thoroughly.
Thank you for reading this far. Have a great day.
Factually accurate or not, anything nuclear has a bad rep and many country leaders are not willing to embrace the backlash from public by investing in nuclear for rewards that they'll probably not see during their time in the office.
That's due to 50+ years of media anti-nuke propaganda. I see the tide starting to turn with many mainstream media sources starting to correct their nonsense.
Renewables will likely cause more unforeseen problems than people assume. Wind and Hydro is probably the least impactful in the long run. However, I feel that solar will eventually cause problems due to capturing so much of the cosmic rays' energy before it can transfer the heat to the planet and other foliage, and once it gets to that point where we are noticing the change it will likely be too late. Wind has its own problems, malfunctions and oil fires cause a huge amount of gasses and then there is the amount of waste caused by old unusable solar and wind devices. they aren't recyclable and they will never decay away. I do not honestly believe that renewables is the future, I just believe we will run out of time before we realize it as humanity.
Thanks!
Why isn’t anybody talking about the meat industry which produces more greenhouse gases than: all cars, planes and boats on the planet combined?
The Greenies attack meat all the time. Maybe they don't on your planet.
Well, I have always thought this way and those eco activists that make EU governments ban nuclear make me mad since now they will have to burn fuel to power the country during shortages. Don't even make me started on batteries, lead-acid and lithium-ion manufacturing, running costs and lifetime... Water-gravitry "energy capacitors" may work yet I still have my issues imagining those to power a city during an evening (also an energy loss due to turbines inefficiency).
I really hope that countries will invest more into nuclear as well as renewables. Hell, at least gas burners instead of crude oil and coal (the thing that ACTUALLY produces nuclear pollution).
Also we are kinda screwed without nuclear fusion or exotics like Dyson swarm in the long run.