3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Awesome! 3/3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2024
- Nuclear energy might have a lot of unused potential. Not only is it one of the best mid term solutions for global warming bit despite what gut feeling tells us, it has saved millions of lives. By investing more into better technologies we might be able to make nuclear energy finally save and clean forever.
Why nuclear energy is terrible: bit.ly/1bPzeol
Brief Introduction into nuclear energy: bit.ly/1CdmAIk
Nuclear energy saves lives: bit.ly/1lttjFa
If you want to support us and get a free audiobook go to www.audible.com/nutshell
Also thanks a lot for the help to Michael Büker! Follow him @emtiu
OUR CHANNELS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
German Channel: kgs.link/youtubeDE
Spanish Channel: kgs.link/youtubeES
HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT US?
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
This is how we make our living and it would be a pleasure if you support us!
Get Merch designed with ❤ from kgs.link/shop
Join the Patreon Bird Army 🐧 kgs.link/patreon
DISCUSSIONS & SOCIAL MEDIA
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Reddit: kgs.link/reddit
Instagram: kgs.link/instagram
Twitter: kgs.link/twitter
Facebook: kgs.link/facebook
Discord: kgs.link/discord
Newsletter: kgs.link/newsletter
OUR VOICE
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
The Kurzgesagt voice is from
Steve Taylor: kgs.link/youtube-voice
OUR MUSIC ♬♪
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
700+ minutes of Kurzgesagt Soundtracks by Epic Mountain:
Spotify: kgs.link/music-spotify
Soundcloud: kgs.link/music-soundcloud
Bandcamp: kgs.link/music-bandcamp
UA-cam: kgs.link/music-youtube
Facebook: kgs.link/music-facebook
The Soundtrack of this video:
/ kurzgesagt-nuclear
epicmountainmusic.bandcamp.co...
epicmountainmusic.bandcamp.co...
www.epic-mountain.com
🐦🐧🐤 PATREON BIRD ARMY 🐤🐧🐦
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Many Thanks to our wonderful Patreons from kgs.link/patreon who support us every month and made this video possible:
Stephen Bassett, Raphael Hviding, Sam Elitzer, Andrzej Rejman, OpenGG, Andrew Jagasothy, jordan gardner, AgentK, Mehmet Sevil, Carly Tawse, K A I, Kevin Dam, Charlie, Christopher Lang, Nat Ryall, Jeff Le, Nicholas Holtz, Devir Islas, Arnas Valeika, Kirstie, Francesca Monteiro, James Craver, Broderick, Duncan Cheong, Derek, Juan Manuel Corredor, Osric Lord-Williams, Scott Zell, Jeroen Koerts, Patrick Eyrich, tekbit, Chris Linardos, Tony Morley, Jónatan Nilsson, Nat Thomas Golder, Zr4g0n, Cody, Michal, Caroline Andrewes, Alex Kaplan, Tom Alexander Kutil, Vincent, Okan, Sasha C, KokLiang Lim, Marcelo, Mikel De Uranga, Dean Herbert, Anton Efimenko, trefmanic, Adam Smith, David Garcia Quintas, Gaëtan Duvaux, Eduardo Barbosa, maarten ligtenberg, Ghitea Andrei Paul, Ozan, Ryan, Larry Bunyard, Josh Maleszewski, Volodymyr Khomenko, Sebastian Laiseca, Chase, Michael Slade, Scarlet Barton, Matthew Gill, Aaron, Alexander Heavens, Alexander Ahn, Arrngrim, Fluffy19, Adam Primaeros, Jan Schmid, Sara Shah,
Gard Fredrik Skuland, Veselin Kostadinov, Jonathan Velazquez Gore, Daniel, Philly Cashion, Seona Tea, Clayton Fussell, Daniel Gonzalez, Stephen Joseph DCruz, Morten, Dan Q, Thomas Lee, Finn Edwards, David Taylor, Corbin, Fabricio Godoy, Charles Kuang, Alan Feyaerts, Maximilian Ritter, Jesse MacLean, Matt Collins, Yousif, Jesse Powell, Dan Treasure, nga⁴, 冠瑋 陳, Wei Wong, Praveen Muthu, Jon Davis, Bahjat, Mike Mintz, Jem Arnold, Steffen Weng, Igor Benicio de Mesquita, Lars Vas Dias, Greeny Liu, Tibor Schiemann, dante harper, Bünyamin Tetik, Eli Fisker, Joe Pond, Jørgen Smalås, Gustavo, Tommi Mansikka, Dario Wünsch, Matthew Macomber, Daniel McCouid-Carr, Neelfyn, Muath, Edgar Duarte Ortega, Stephen Chen, Alipasha Sadri, Kevin P, Steven Ratner, Theo Alves Monteiro, Brucelow, José, Tony Montuori, Philipp Weber, Brad Wardell, David Davenport-Firth, Alexander Scheffer, Eric, Austin, Enrico, Hamad, Andrew Connor, Ignacio Flores, Tom Langford, Vaelohs, Peter Schuller, Bear, Brandy Alexander, Mark Govea, Alexander Kosenkov, Eric, Wesley Sheridan Montgomery, Artem Anchugov, Brandon Liu, Erven, varinder singh bal, Scott Laing, Philip Freeman, Gizem Gürkan, George Chearswat, Tim, Victor, Martin Fink-Jensen, Josh Allen, oscar gautama, Karl Snickars, Jennifer Hiller, Bruno Araújo, Maarten Bremer, Daniel OCL, Carlos Bohorquez, Elchus, RobPT, Hugo, Lethargicpanda, Amdrew, Minghan Ko, Mark Scheurwater, David Harbinson, Rikard Nyberg, Collin Banko, Florian Guitton, Jezariael Demos, Ajay Shekhar, Nick Yonge, Jon Moroney, Eugene Cham, Renaud Savignard, James, Viktor Asklund, Ryan, somersault18:24, Ben Shackman, Pranab Shenoy, Terry Lipstein, Tim Carll, Javier de la Garza, Rory Bennett, Jan Berdel, Sieglinde Geisel, Jeff Churchill
You want to learn more about science? Check out our sciency products on the kurzgesagt shop - all designed with love and produced with care.
Getting something from the kurzgesagt shop is the best way to support us and to keep our videos free for everyone.
►► kgs.link/science
(Worldwide Shipping Available)
The bad arguments said nothing about Thorium.And since it is safer than uranium i think the answer is obvious!
no ur bad
do video why i got bones
There was 1 dead by fukushima
read my comment
You should probably have pointed out that cooling towers in nuclear plants only emit water vapor (H2O). You'd be surprised at how much people (at least here in my country) believe that "radioactive stuff" comes out of the "chimneys".
I agree blazer some people don't know what they are talking about
xD
In what country do you live?
What is a cubicwatt
Also, citation?
I really hope we develop Thorium reactors.
***** Ok. Last thing i heared there were no thorium reactors yet.
*****
Those are CANDU reactors I think. They can even run on LWR waste, but not as much energy as a breeder.
Paul S
Actually, the first working prototype was made back in the 70's when people were deciding on which path to go with, Thorium or Uranium. They choose Uranium simply because the byproduct of it was Plutonium which can be used in military, while the with Thorium you don't really have any byproduct other than smaller and smaller chunks of Thorium. The project was chucked for a long time and since the only working prototype is in US and they're not willing to share it, this technology path has been forgotten till recently.
Ivan Hrenovac
They are sharing the info right now with a canadian company, terrestrial energy. It doesn't look like a LFTR though.
Yeah, "we". More like us engineers and scientists.
As a German I can tell you that closing many nuclear plants in favor of coal was a very dumb idea. Sure we have invested plenty in renewable eneregy, but these sources aren't reliable to maintain the electric frequency of the power lines at 50 Hz, so when there's no wind or sun, coal is our only main option. Meanwhile in France they have 70% I believe of their electricity produced with nuclear energy, it's the cleanest country (at least CO2 wise) in Europe with Norway.
I’ve heard of that stupid protesters protested the nuclear power plants and then you guys replaced them with lignite. Coal but worse
Yeah, politicians know that pretending to care about climate change is much better than actually doing things, so since people think nuclear is bad, they just close them and make the problem worse. In France, they just closed part of Fessenheim nuclear power plant for no reason.
Well, there are gas power plants as well, which are way more flexible than coal p.p. and produce less CO2. Unfortunately, our german government is too incompetent to follow countries like England who have completed such a process already and accordingly have a much better emission record. But, yeah, the timing of the phase-out of nuclear power was horrible with regards to what climate protection would require. It simply was a rash, populist decision at the time. Anyway, building more nuclear p.p. now wouldn't solve the problem either because planning, waiting for approval, building and commissioning would take roughly 20-30 years. But we need low-carbon electricity generation now, not in 30 years. Also, the political climate makes it practically impossible to pursue nuclear energy in Germany.
When there won't be anymore poor suckers that'll get paid for burying your nuclear waste, you'll be happy you got rid of them. Nuclear waste will be poisoning future generations for thousands of years.
@@paulalexandre3358 not for no reason, but because of Germany and Switzerland! They forced us to close Fessenheim !
kurzgesagt make a video explaining how a Thorium reactor would work please.
One can dream. I honest to god think I might have to personally become a physicist and try to research and build it myself smh.
@@Azakadune please do it for us all
You'll be our hero
And we'll keep your comment as a heritage of the new era
Here's an idea on where to look at: India has got some real thorium projects, check them out
Samonella made a video about thorium
@@joshuaestrada6042 many did, but I guess nobody would argue that Kurzgesagt is a whole another level in delivering such things to the masses.
@@user-tt5lf3ft9j true
I just read up about Thorium reactors... why the hell is this receiving minimal funding?
+Soulless Jack It is called Iter.
+Omeggia Monopoly of evergy market most likely
+Omeggia Because it's actually not the best method. Thunderf00t, goes into detail why. Also, yes, he's worked in Science, in Nuclear reactors. So he knows his shit.
+DeadPistolsBrainGerms You're an idiot.
Some people are afraid of progress
Virgin Uranium vs Chad Thorium
Sam O Nella sent me here
@@cowboyjonathan3676 me too
Alen Delon32 lol yeah
@@cowboyjonathan3676 lol same
@@infantjones
Source.
Before watching this video I was one of those pepole who are against nuclear energy due to ignorance and its bad reputation.
but now I think it's our best option until renewable or fusion will take off.
Thanks Kurzgesagt for enlightening me
*fission not fusion
no, they meant fusion
@@DomWPC oh sorry i didn't read the comment properly.
@@user-ij6xw8rg4b yeah? so what?
@Zangief The Red how is it so bad then? its the best option up until we get nuclear fusion, and thorium reactors are even better then uranium or plutonium and doesnt need to be refined, also its not a well earned reputation, its just chernoble was due to a poorly made reactore, human negligence, and fukishima couldve also been avoided due to the fact that they shouldve seen an earthquake was prone to happen due to the fact that it is an earthquake prone area and also it was a 9.0, unordinarily high earthquake and very rare. if you think nuclear energy is bad, please explain why.
"Nuclear energy is arguably less harmful to environment than fossil fuels".
Correction: "Nuclear energy is INDISPUTABLY less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels."
@Gavin Gamble not every energy source is perfect. We still don’t have a permanent long-term solution for nuclear waste.
@@harrisonkarn2078 Yes we do. You obviously know nothing about physics. I’m a physics major. Nuclear waste is small and manageable and most of it is just stored on site. France has even started reusing their own nuclear waste.
@@harrisonkarn2078 Deinococcus radiodurans is a polyextremophilic bacteria that is chemoorganotrophic (relying not on food but on radiation). This means that nuclear waste can be treated by this thing since genetic engineering allowed it to digest solvents & heavy metals in radioactive environments
@@maxwell8758 they used deinococcus bacteria family?
Not only that, but even if there's a meltdown somehow radiation leaks, the containment zone is actually a paradise for wild life. 😁
Thorium reactors sound pretty badass.
It'll take multiple decades to get politics rolling on implementation of that technology, though.
The problem is that we don't have that time anymore since the climate is already fucked up. We can't wait another 30 years when we should have gotten rid of fossil fuel usage 30 years ago.
Orillion123456 Well then it sounds like the best we can hope for is mitigating the disaster at this point. Our forbears dealt us a shitty hand so now we have to play it.
Those damn hippies back then should have informed themselves before protesting against nuclear energy. A big reason why we didn't get rid of it is money. Why should the rich part of humanity spend more money on saving the earth when they can earn even more money by not doing anything?
Yeah it does!
that's why its called "thor"-ium cause thor is badass too
So we have been working on this project for more than a year on and off. now The only way we found to be really neutral was not to be neutral. We did a pro and contra video - the pro video is *really* pro, the contra video is *really* contra. Together they should even out and become a neutral statement. So before you write angry comments about how we totally did misrepresent nuclear energy, please watch both of them. And share them if you like them!
very nice i really think everyone who knows what he is talking about should be "for" nuclear energy
***** great job trying to balance the arguments on facts
kurojima i really think the favor is for nuclear
***** You guys are great about being scientifically accurate, but in the future could you refer to global warming as "climate change" as it is not JUST the warming of the earth.
ttam 809 But it is global warming. The dominant trend in climate change is the warming of the climate. The changes that are occurring are because the climate is warming.
In france we are producing 70% of our energy with nuclear powerplants i have got one at 80km far from my home and they are usually targeted by greenpeace... i dont understand theme i hope they will watch this video the biggest problem actually is the global warming and nuclear powerplants are the best solutions to dicrease it, so ecologist arent realistic and that s a big problem...
bonjour je suis francais gay et j'aime manger des baguette mdr non c vrais tous les fr sont gay
@@grostv7298 j'habite à la frontière belge ducoup on peut dire que je suis bi mdr...
iSoTz & highdopvp ⌉ PvP faction ⌈ but France this summer has stopped and decrease power of many reactors due to warming and lack of water to cool down the reactors. And many of them are in the ending of their lifetime and dangerously old. Decomissioning will cost more than waht needed to built.
thought it was 80% now? anyways, your doing better then the idiots i have to deal with in the US. stupid people think solar and wind power are better then the evil radiation producers, ya know its not like nuclear reactors put less radiation into the environment then coal power. no thats obviously not true!
@@notlogical4016 It's 72% while in 1995 ,it was 74%
"This will probably offend no-one and lead to very civil discussions."
Nice.
"but nuclear contra"
I've never understood why the green party prefers fossil fuels over nuclear. For me global warming always seemed like a more pressing problem than nuclear waste storage.
Karlo Schallibaum Which green party are you on about?
softrockification The one in Germany. The one that caused a boom in coal energy.
Same deal with the 'green' party (and like 80% of the rest parties) in Sweden, they speak about Nuclear power like it's the most dangerous thing in the world and are doing everything they can do to shut down it all together, they've even managed to shut down funding to scientists researching gen4 and other nuclear technologies...
They actually think it's feasible to go 100% solar+wind, which is absurd in a country like Sweden.
Bart Bols Honestly, it's just misinformation. The perception is that nuclear is incredibly dangerous while it quite simply isn't
Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Also it's probably just a more likely platform to get them voted in.
The first Green Party was founded in Germany by an ex nazi who basically wanted to fuck with the world economy, knowing that the worst effected would be the poor (and mostly black) parts of the world. Thus everything that provided a good, scarcity free future was opposed.
This being the first Green Party, his book and ideology spread rapidly, and he basically became the patron saint of green, permanently ruining what would otherwise have been an ok idea.
I thing there is a new movement called "blue" that aims to become what the greens could have been, but I haven't looked into it much.
I am all for Nuclear Energy
im not...
1srtBass i am
1srtBass Let's put it this way, it's better than the alternative.
I am
Fuck the hippies! Nuclear energy is our only viable option. Solar and wind are shit. Nuclear energy gives us more power than wind and solar combined times 5.
Thorium for president!
Till fusion shows up at least.
Ok
Absolute traitor talk to all of humanity..
Excellent pro-argument. Those that are against nuclear ALWAYS forget that the alternative to nuclear (coal & gas) is way much worse. It will be decades before renewables are a viable alternative to nuclear, coal, and gas.
That's right.
THE WORLD NEEDS ENERGY
*Deal with it*
Jacob Hunter Have you heard Drake's new album? He's got a whole song about his energy. Drake is the solution to the energy crisis.
TC Coltharp The only reason renewables are not viable is because corporations and companies are not investing in it (that was similar to the case in the explainer video). Nuclear may reduce emissions but renewables will stop them.
Dylan Storer Actually fortunes are being put into renewable and progress is being made, it just isnt good enough yet.
Dylan Storer renewables are not viable because the costs of the plants are astronomical, while the gain of it is minimal (compared to other sources).
many governments invest heavily into renewable energy sources and subsidise them, in order to artificially make them lucrative, especially in central europe.
i watched the anti nuclear energy first, and then this one. the anti made me think that nuclear energy maybe wasn't a good idea after all, but this video quickly changed my mind again. so i'd say that these videos did exactly what they're supposed to do.
Huntracony If more people started in the middle for nuclear and other issues like climate change, i think the conversation would be a whole lot better. Glad to see these videos are doing just that.
Christopher Willis i have a lot of people around me against nuclear energy, so i guess that kept me in the middle too.
Aguila701 yep
***** I wish life was magical, but i think this is as close to a miracle solution as we'll get. If you want to generate a lot of energy in one place, it will always be relatively dangerous, and if you want to spread it out, it will always stupidly expensive.
I hope that i'm proven wrong about this.
Huntracony ***** My goal, as a future nuclear engineer, is to design reactor systems that are basically boring. As boring as that highly dangerous but super well engineered lithium ion battery you hold up to your face everyday :D
Also of note...Solar panels are not permanent. High quality panels need to be replaced every 25 years, and cheap panels (like the ones most of us get from China) need to be replaced ever 10 years or so. And since we don't have a good waste/recycling program, all those heavy metals wind up in African landfills where they leech into local water tables and endanger the indigenous populations.
Wind ain't so good, either. In addition to killing thousands of birds every year (many of which are endangered species), the rare earths used in their magnet-brush systems are highly toxic to refine, and it's mainly done in China (Bao-tao, specifically) where it creates vast lakes of radioactive toxic sludge.
But hey! Those feel-good Clean Energy pictures, right?
It's not about which energy source is good, it's about which one is better, or more specifically, less bad.
Let me balance the argument: Fossil fuels, while cheaper and great for developing countries, produce large amounts of CO2 that gets pumped into the air. The side effects are clearly visible in China... literally. On some days the smog is so bad it's not recommended to go outside without a mask (before covid, now everyone should always have a mask). Not to mention the fact that it's a greenhouse gas, and climate change is no small thing.
@@autumn4442 Not to mention the nasty stuff that fossil fuel plants put out OTHER than CO2.
Personally I'd love to see more development and implementation of Thorium, as well as treatment of Uranium waste to be re-burned and then stored for 300 years, rather than 300,000.
@@somedandy7694 in india there are plans for creatng thorium reactors but we'll see how it goes
Yea actually the production and disposal of solar panels makes them as harmful to the environment as coal or natural gas.
@@sadslavboy Not really. While the production and disposal of them ARE harmful, it comes nowhere near how bad fossil fuels are for the environment.
Humanity’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
Both sides on the argument agree on two things:
1) Nuclear energy will have to be out of use eventually.
2) The current method of nuclear energy harvesting is poor.
I say we switch to Thorium until we can move on to forms of renewable energy, as fast as possible.
hell yes have thorium reactors until renewable energy is viable for everybody
+Manuel Campins thorium will outcompete & throw renewable energy out of the market, after thorium & generation 4 nuclear we will go to nuclear fusion
+Manuel Campins Nobody said that nuclear energy will be out of use. The theoretical productivity of nuclear energy is such, that in the far future it will be the only viable form of energy. Instead of using a minor percent of what our sun is spewing out, we will create our own stars. And we will prosper.
+Manuel Campins Renewables are a great supplemental power source, however they are not grid viable and never will be. Thorioum will be used for thousands of years, until it runs out, and in a few hundred years fusion will be making power as well. I actually see Thorium being used primarily to make liquid fuel alternatives from gasoline out of seawater, ans fusion providing the brunt of electricity production.
The best place to throw money at renewable energy is in bio fuel pellet mill operations and methane biodigestion.
But the world just demands too much for renewables. In order for humannity to get past our own planet we need nuclear.
+Manuel Campins Nope. As a pro-nuclear supporter, nuclear energy should never be replaced. After all, how will we colonize deep space? Solar panels won't work at the edges of our solar system. Fear of nuclear power should not hold us back. It is and should be a permanent solution.
Yes, thorium is the future, up until fusion reactors.
I agree but until the powers that be get out of the way and allow someone to build one its not going to happen ,it needs a high profile person to get on board ,Elon Musk Richard Branson or someone like that.
I know ITER is currently building a prototype for a nuclear fusion reactor to proof that it is possible and from what I could see it looks rather promising.
True It is a long road till we get fusion reactors, but if we developed thorium reactors which would be viable for a while, this would give us a lot of time to engineer fusion reactors and they would be pretty great.
Fusion will be commercially ready in the year 2500. The first generation of breeder waste will be pretty much inert by them :P
Maybe.
0:06 This will probably offend no-one and lead to very civil discussions.
Good insight, Kurzgesagt.
Ng SzeHon they never implied it would do that
@@ozein-wr7np it was sarcasm on both the comment and the video
I'm a teacher, this series really saved me when I had to teach a physics class with almost no notice
Yeah but Would be good if they showed sources.
You're a sh!t teacher. Resign. Save the kids.
Watching the contra video: "Nuclear power got to go!"
Watching the pro video: "Nuclear power actually sounds pretty good.."
Really? Because from the sounds of it. For a nuclear standpoint, this is at least 95% favorable towards nuclear energy.
Huh. weird. I swear some of the facts in the contra video directly contradict the facts in the pro video.
Really, I thought some of the contra theories were disproved by the pro theories.
Watching the contra video again: "Nuclear power got to go!"
I thought they exaggerated the dangers a bit. Nuclear disasters like the one in Fukushima were always caused by stupid and easily preventable human mistakes or unsafe reactors. These things won't happen in Europe were there are strict regulations and no corruption. Nuclear waste is the only small problem, which could've been solved years ago if ignorant hippies wouldn't protest nuclear power and stop research.
Number 2 is basically my argument in favor of Nuclear energy
It's not something we want to keep forever, but it's better then what we're currently using
For long term energy usage, I'm currently very intrigued by geothermal, I know a guy who has a neighbor that has geothermal air conditioning/heating, and he won't shut up about the money it saves him
It's actually kind of annoying
I would argue geothermal is probably better than nuclear. But so far nuclear is one of the best ways to do things. Solar and wind is very limited and batteries used to store energy that isn't immediately used is very toxic. If we don't use batteries, we still need alternate power to make up for the down times these systems get. Hydro is also pretty good but considering that it have other major environmental effects, Nuclear sounds the best. Particularly the 4th generation thorium reactors with minimal waste production relative to the current ones.
If we can get nuclear fusion ready, that would be even better. Even cleaner, less catastrophic risk and even more power.
Deathnotefan97 geothermal is for primitives. Nuclear fusion is the fusion
alternative nuclear energy sounds like the best option. The arguments are definitely compelling against nuclear energy in it's current state but if we just had technology to automate it we wouldn't have incompetency to cause meltdowns and uninhabitable areas of land and it'd be less harmful to the environment. If we had nuclear accidents every 10 or 30 years eventually the amount of uninhabitable land would exponentially increase deaths as population density becomes larger and there's less land to inhabit.
you know that the inside of the earth has only stayed this warm for so long because of radioactive decay.
I would argue geothermal is dumb since its slowly(very;0) cooling down the Earth's core which would lead to our demise heh
Nuclear energy is the way to go. The worst nuclear accident was caused by stupid humans and is very much preventable.
And even then, it has required disabling automatic safety interlocks.
Nuclear is NOT THE WAY TO GO FREE ENERGY FOR EVERYONE!!! Nikola Tesla DID NOT LIVE AND DIE FOR NO REASON. WAKE UP!!!!
ShaunDoesMusic I don’t think you seem to understand how suppressed these free energy technologies are in black budget projects... the deep state puts people down so fast when they advocate for free energy that’s why Tesla died penniless. They SUPPRESSED him. Do your own research and you’ll come to similar conclusions I’m sure.
@@Nuuk_Nuke_Nook He watched that Doctor Who episode probably
and the sequel was provoken by natural causes
Who the hell managed to die from solar energy
solar energy causes more pollution than nuclear energy. I'm too lazy to provide my sources but you can check by yourself :)
@@plamenferdinandov5083 You really can't make claims like that, then claim it's backed up but "you're just too lazy to cite sources" :)
@@daedalus7286 sources are specific to different indicators... And of course you can check them too. For pollution - it may be similar to wind and solar but there are other indicators like human (only human) deaths per TWh in which nuclear is more profitable
... here I'm just trying to make you research...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
no, but it's expensive and inefficient
"This will probably offend no-one and lead to very civil discussions." Oh, wait til you see the youtube comments ...
Sarcasm alert!
Lets not talk about that deadly nuclear waste, lets just talk about the energy it gives us.
Btw stop saying that nuclear energy is deadly, its helpful but the only thing that is dangerous (what I know) is nuclear fallout and random places on earth where we dumped nuclear waste.
SuicideBunny6 exactly what I thought xD (yes I know that it was sarcastic)
CaptainCrazyCarrot cough cough Chernobyl cough cough
Cat Loving Trio in that case humanity either has to make solar panels a lot more efficient than ones we use today which is practically impossible or we could cover the entire Earth with solar panels which is also impossible.
Really glad you brought up thorium plants, more people need to know about them. They've had great results with them in India, and with better design structures that they use it's almost impossible to have a "Nuclear Meltdown."
Timothy Richter we need to end coal
They wont cuz money is better then life right???
Thanks for info
Also, India is Great....
Ye a thorium reactor would be very very very hard to have a nuclear meltdown due to thorium needing plutonium to work and the reactor would be able to instantly separate the thorium from the plutonium stopping any meltdowns to happen
Do you have more info about the Indian reactors?
I'm on this side of the argument...
Thanks for the great video 😁
@Ater DengI- what
@Ater Deng The disasters are atomic nuclear bombs, not nuclear reactor. The only bad thing with nuclear energy is the wastes.
And scientists are even trying to find a solution to solve this problem, just needs deepest researches.
So... What ?
@Ater Deng Yeeeeeeee right of couuuurse yeeeeee tottaly right
Sad they didn’t develop Thorium in the 60s because it was rhe cold war and couldn’t provide weapons...
Well... Mutual Assured Destruction probably did prevent the Cold War from going Hot.
Those who develop nuclear plants either already have a nuclear bomb, or don’t want to have any (like Germany, because it would be impossible for their international image). A country that makes plants already has the industry and R and D to make nuclear bombs, so the risk of weaponisation is irrelevant really.
not sad it was stupid. Sigh....
Much like the Space Race without the Cold War it's doubtful that they would have been serious interest in nuclear power to begin with.
Mr. Burns is pleased.
Excellent.
+Zippy Ragu Rich Texan dislikes this video and your ocmment
It's Kerns, stupid!
apple54345 haha timeless
Mr Snrub
I honestly don't think we have any choice not to use nuclear energy. It is the only form of energy that can replace fossil fuels completely.
Ieuan Hunt Why?
Renewable energy can as well. You're just making a blanket statement.
Renewable energy is expensive and at the moment requires a lot of empty space to operate.
*****
Of course, but it seems rather irrational to switch to energy sources with so lower energy density...
***** No, because renewable energy cost a LOT, and as it turns out not so ecological after all. A solar panel doesn't polute does it ? Yes, it does: during the making, and it's not even that durable.
*****
What I mean is you can shut down coal power plant and replace it with a nuclear power plant. You can't do that with renewables. The tide only moves twice a day, wind turbines only work when it is windy, solar panels only work during the day.
Nuclear power works all the time.
"We'll have flying cars by 2115"
2115: Danker memes
Why would you want flying cars? They have so much problems with them.
Problem 1. They wil use lot more fuel
Problem 2. They wil be more dangerous. When you crash you wil also fal down. And imagine how hard it wil be for a drunk driver to get somewere without crashing.
Problem 3. Learning the rules wil be a harder, because there are more rules.
Problem 4. How do you want to g
Keep the roads save and organized. Or wil there be no roads.
Problem 5. Flying cars wil make a huge amount of sound
Problem 6. It wil br easier to do bad and illegal things. Like flying away from the bank after you stole a lot of money. How is the police going to stop you. It's not like they can cut of the roads.
Problem 7. People crashing in people's homes wil get a lot more common.
And there are more. But i am going to keep it at this. I know that what you said was a joke, but it just didn't make sense. People just think that flying cars wil be great but it wont be.
@@abolfazlamiri735 STFU ITS A JOKE
@@abolfazlamiri735 yes, the solution is helicopters. Problem is that they're expensive.
@@BbY1231 He literally stated that he knew it was a joke.
20:00
How did solar power rate a higher death count than nuclear power?
Is it people falling off roofs after putting solar panels up or...?
@Tuna Sevinç Oh, that would make the solar panel death count rise.
Fighting with nukes would be more effective though.
Solar panels contains very dangerous chemicals
Also, nuclear is actually really safe, according to math and stats and whatever.
Markus Ok. Is it the same for wind power?
@@markus4180 Solar panels contain toxic chemicals. It's Uranium that will run out pretty soon. Thorium will hold for several thousand years, and probably even longer as we get better. Fusion will be possible pretty much forever.
tbh before watching this video I thought that we should totally avoid nuclear energy at all costs, but that Thorium model sounds amazing
Yes. Thorium sounds great, but if we can get Cold Fusion up and running, then we have a good chance of reviving nuclear energy!
+Maximilian Baade Cold Fusion is purely hypothetical at this time. However, other fusion generators are currently being developed.
+Tavo Hapson Thorium sounds awesome, but the liquid salt reactors have huge problems with corrosion. Turns out 450°C flouride melts are not the nicest stuff to put into steel reactors...
Btw: There are also standing wave breeding reactor designs (for uranium fuel) that could utilize natural uranium/spent fuel rods. I'd rather bet on that.
+Maximilian Baade You see, your reference to cold fusion makes me wonder whether you are a sarcastic douche who knows exactly how unlikely cold fusion is and is saying that Thorium reactors are equally unlikely, or if you are uninformed and enthusiastic....
+Doping1234 China has a 10 year program to have an energy producing liquid thorium salt reactor, they announced and started it in 2014... so by 2024 would be the estimated time of having a working LFTR reactor.
ITER first plasma reaction test is scheduled for 2027.
Germany just this month December 2015, tested and successfully ran a low energy plasma in their twisty tokamak reactor.
I think fusion reactors would be available about 2040 to 2050.
I think a LFTR model bridge would be good until then to avoid adding CO2 into the atmosphere, and LFTR is actually cheaper in the midterm than using fossil fuel energy; thorium is very abundant and the amount of energy per unit of thorium as it mentioned in the video is huge, like tokamak fusion, you get so much energy per unit of fuel it makes making other energy distribution methods via electrolysis to make H2 or a synthetic hydorcarbon chain using water and CO2 from the atmosphere cheaper than using gasoline or diesel.
Only draw back LFTR vs Fusion Deuterium lithium-tritium breeding blankets is LFTR does have some waste mostly cesium, which has a high cross section (it absorbs neutrons more than it will split and release energy) so you can introduce too much cesium waste back into a thorium reactor, you'll likely end up with some storage of radioactive cesium. Fusion deuterium has no waste products at all, the tritium is incredibly small amounts and it's alpha decay is very weak doesn't break skin, 9 hours after an immediate shut down, you can go into the plasma chamber and do repairs without any worries of radiation. Neither can "meltdown" and neither can be used for nuclear weaponry.
Two comments, because I *love* your videos.
Annatala Wolf The Co2 thing is painful. Somehow this made it through multiple spell checking rounds. About neutrality and balance - we did strongly opinionated videos on purpose - the information density is as much as you can fit in about three and a half minutes - if you want to try it just for fun, one script has about 3200 characters (including blank ones) it is really impossible to get much more into detail while covering a lot of different topics. We did a lot of research and had an expert as an adviser. About the bias. From scanning the comments we see that people read into that, most of the time on the side that they are on. We have no overall contra bias on nuclear energy. Our team is split on this topic. The pro side was more involved with the pro video, the contra side more with the contra video. Both sides got to say their favorite arguments in "their" video. Overall we think this is a fair representation of both camps.
Knock it off you two, no civilized conversation/debates on UA-cam comments.
Annatala Wolf The first thing you learn in journalism 101 is, "Remain unbiased always". The second thing you learn is, "It is impossible to be completely unbiased. Everyone has opinions and ideas".
Kurz Gesagt
Neutrality doesn't mean arguing for a side that's wrong. It means stating the facts. After all, when you made your evolution video, you didn't also make a creationism-explained video. Being neutral doesn't mean arguing a side that is wrong. Nuclear is our best option.
***** I'm not sure it was a good idea to delegate only members who believed themselves to be in the supporting camp for a point of view to put forth the arguments for that point of view. I understand and appreciate what you're saying about an attempt at neutrality, though.
I have a psychology degree (prior to my work in the hard sciences) and it is not surprising that people tend to see a neutral argument as being oppositional to their personal point of view. Nonetheless, I am not by any means a strong supporter of nuclear power, and the direction of this video still seems to undermine the arguments it is making. First, examples with the script like those I illustrated in the original message. Second, the direction of the video such as the labeling of containment of toxic waste a "bad idea" when the depicted form of containment has never actually been implemented (due to cost rather than lack of feasibility or risk, high-level nuclear waste remains uncontained). But third and perhaps most of all, the notable omission of two of the most important aspects of nuclear power: economic feasibility in the long-term (once infrastructure is in place), and its existing footprint (many European countries are already highly dependent upon nuclear energy to meet their energy needs).
Anyway, all of that bitching aside: you make nice videos. Please keep making more of them. :)
Nuclear reactor: who are you?
Nuclear bombs: I'm you, but *DANGEROUS*
Yeah, you can't make bombs out of coal. What can possibly go wrong?
@@LukeVilent oh idk, maybe a global catastrophe of coal and other fossil fuels that can heat up the earth to a point where climates will be changing so fast the current mass extinction will grow even more? am i in the ballpark here?
@@LukeVilent did you watch the video
@@SNAFreddies Yes, so?
Finally a meme!
1:20 CO2 not Co2!!
if it's Co2, then it means two cobalt atoms together which doesn't make sense at all
Sorry mr. I take shit too seriously
@@kiryot6799 nah, he's right.
@@kiryot6799 facts
@@kiryot6799 shouldn't he though? It's 1/3 of what the video is about.
Toby Huang he still communicates the point well. This statement is irrelevant, people know what he’s talking about. Just because you took 8th grade science doesn’t mean you are the arbitrator of what is an informative video and what isn’t.
The information about the Thorium-based reactor was interesting. There is also the option of Molten Salt Reactors. Furthermore, there is an extremophilic bacterium (I believe it's called deinococcus radiodurans) that may assist us by consuming any waste products reactors produce.
Yes, it's deinococcus radiodurans
@@franzicoy As was stated in my comment. Still, gold star for you!
01:10 It says ''Turry gets great at handwriting." LMAO
What's a _Turry_
Freemasonry An AI that writes handwritten notes
ThorirPP oh ok
Who is Turry?
I'd honestly rather see Humanity Adopt Nuclear power more now than ever than going straight to renewable energy, for the time being of course.
I mean recent studies are showing that Nuclear Radiation from Power Plants is less than what they used to produce and now we're seeing scientists find new ways of actually neutralizing the Nuclear Waste, rendering it harmless but also a possible ignitor for new Uranium
Absolutely. Especially where i live in Australia. Our country is so reliant on fossil fuels despite having the largest uranium reserve in the world, itd be the perfect location especially since we have hardly any earthquakes... and its obvious that coal and other fossil fuels are killing the planet so nuclear power couldnt be any worse
@CringeyCrud Finland is building a place where they could put all of the nuclear waste we could make
@CringeyCrud Thorium plants would solve that. Plus some of the wastes are even used in spacecrafts as fuel AFAIK
@CringeyCrud organic filtration (using the deinococcus radiodurans bacteria family to digest solvents & heavy metals in nuclear waste)
@@plumebrisee6206 do they have a deinococcus bacteria species colony?
Fossil Fuels
- Releases toxic gases when burnt
- Very old old, people started using them since the 1300s
- Greenhouse gas emmisions are very high
- Ranks first in death per energy use
- The toxic byproducts are pumped into the atmosphere
Nuclear energy
- Only releases water vapor/steam
- People started using it since 1951
- Greenhouse gas emmisions are low compared to burning stuff
- Ranks least in death per energy use
- While nuclear waste is really toxic, it's usually stored somewhere
I wonder what the solar-related deaths are.
Deaths during installation. I.E. people falling off roofs.
Hahahahhaha, that's good xD
David Blakeman "Fried by the sun"
Really bad sunburn!
The vast majority of solar panels are made with silicon which is not harmful. We are fossil fuel dependent because billionaires are making money off it and will go far to keep it that way,
I don't know if I'm feeling what they felt in the 1950s, but nuclear energy seems to be the way to go (For now anyway) Every time I consider a world powered by Thorium, the world seems greener and better. Cars and vehicles powered by electricity generated by the non-CO2 producing Thorium reactors makes it seem like global warming would no longer be a concern. But this might be me looking at it through rose tinted glasses.
+Mr.chang cooler even without thorium, nuclear fission can last us thousands of years, and as space flight gets easier and cheaper, we may be able to mine uranium from other moons and planets, not only to power us on earth, but any colonies on mars, or titan or the like. nuclear has a world of possibilities, its a shame the world was so quick to turn on it.
+superskiier50 current uranium reactors only have an efficiency of 0.5%, while thorium boasts an efficiency rating of up to 54%. not only that - but uranium is about as common on earth as gold or platinum, while thorium is as abundant as lead or neodymium. huge, huge, huge gains.
the only problem with electric vehicles, however, is that they require efficient and long-lasting batteries - which we do not really have just yet. until then, they will be unable to really compete with gasoline or diesel vehicles on a large scale.
+Kevin Keel You mixed up 2 different percentages there. That 54% is a thermodynamic efficiency while the 0.5% is fuel utilization.
You can burn 100% of uranium with fast spectrum neutrons and you can burn 100% of thorium using thermal or fast neutrons. They can both use the same 54% efficient turbine if they can reach the correct temperature. There is also a lot more accessible uranium in the oceans (than the crust) which would be economical to extract if we could burn it 200 times better.
+Kevin Keel you know theres electric cars with over 250 miles per charge right? thats more than enough......
hwfanatic
That would also require abundant power production as well. Making synthetic fuels is far less efficient than using electric cars and requires more overhead.
After seeing this video, I apologize for my ranting comment on the previous nuclear video. This pointed out pretty much everything right about nuclear that my comment outlined. My appreciation for Kurzgesagt has been raised even more. Thank you for being so thorough in your work! Glad to be a Patron!
Kurzgesagt has provided us with a thesis and an antithesis !! It really remarkable
I know im 2 years late, but the antithesis is actually a joke video, thus why its a shit video with incorrect event dates and biased topics
THORIUM! THORIUM! THORIUM!
chris hemworth
@@1Mayoii chris hemsworth-ium
@@5ksubswithnovideos236 yea boii
GROND! GROND! GROND! GROND!
The prevailing reactor for thorium is the liquid thorium fluoride breeder reactor, where 233U is used, but people want the bombs from plutonium, so....
In both videos, you portray nuclear waste as a liquid held in simple barrels. Neither of these attributes are true; spent nuclear fuel is a solid, and it's stored in large, well-shielded casks.
Er.
The argument you just made would be equivalently applied as "guns and bombs use chemical energy, therefore we shouldn't use chemical energy"
I'll put it this way: the use of nuclear energy makes nuclear weapons less likely.
How?
Uranium-235, in a country with nuclear energy, has an economic value of something like $36 million per gram - that is, the electricity that one gram of U-235 can produce in conventional reactors is worth $36 million. So to waste the 10kg of the stuff on a weapon requires significantly more motivation if a country has nuclear power than if not.
Now, if you want to talk wasteful, let's talk wind power. For the same amount of energy output, a wind turbine requires about twice as much concrete, steel and aluminum as does nuclear, and around 10 times as much land. It also requires us to use a significant amount of neodymium - a material we're already straining for, and on the order of 100 times as much as the same amount of nuclear.
Meanwhile, wind generation and demand rarely coincide. If you don't store the excess power, its wasted. If you do, you're wasting batteries on what could be load-following, and wasting about 20% of your energy as battery cycle losses.
o0
go do some real research, instead of repeating what your mom's friend heard from some fear mongering chain email
***** holy crap it's like you just ate up the fear mongering handbook. Uranium doesn't kill you nearly that quickly, in fact the alpha particles (the most dangerous) can be stopped with... nearly anything, because it reacts with nearly anything. A thin piece of paper or even a couple feet of air is enough to save your skin, and even then your skin is fine, it gets shed off (in most cases) before harmful effects can occur. IF you decided to eat it, then yeah, it would end very, very badly for you.
Beta particles are meh, and gamma rays are just high energy light. The farther they go, the less reactive they are with your cells. That doesnt mean walk up to a nuclear reactor though, keep in mind if the chances of a beta particle causing a DNA mutation are 1 in a trillion, there's already trillions of beta particles zipping around. good shielding has always been an issue (that is, other than super-thick walls of concrete or other dense or ionized materials. But will these kill you in 5 seconds? not unless you're standing inside the actual reactor. In fact there's videos on youtube of people handling pure uranium with their hands, and even using geiger counters. It's not nearly that bad.
Also they wont blow up randomly. It takes an intense amount of energy to start a nuclear explosion
"Uranium kills you in about 5 secs that your not wearing an hazard suit."
Well shit. Don't I feel all "Sixth Sense".
No, seriously, I've got a small rock of uranium ore sitting on my desk at work. I've handled it directly for more than 5 seconds at a time. I must have died in like 2010.
I figure you're talking about spent fuel; it _is_ extraordinarily dangerous (despite what Calvin DiBartolo says, there's enough gamma flux there to kill a man at a meter or so) - which is why it's kept in big thick concrete casks.
"Also Uranium is rare and very costly"
It's about $100/kg. In a conventional reactor, 1 kg of uranium will produce about 750 MWh of electricity - about 15 American households' worth for a year. In terms of economic value, that's about $75,000 worth of wall-juice. Most of the cost of nuclear electricity comes from financing, regulation, operation and maintenance of the reactor. The fuel accounts for 0.01 cents / kWh of the cost of electricity.
By comparison, 1 kg of coal - the "cheapest" form of electricity costs about $0.10, and can produce about 4 kWh of energy - about $0.40 worth.
So compared to its economic value, uranium's not in any sense "expensive"; it's easily the best cheapest fuel we have available.
"won't last forever"
No, probably not. However, it'll outlast fossil fuels by a couple orders of magnitude at least, no matter how hard we exploit it.
At present, uranium extraction isn't particularly aggressive, and in sum, we've only got easy access to about 6 billion kg of the stuff. At our current consumption rate, this will last us about 1,360 years.
If we were to replace 100% of our energy consumption - including non-electric stuff - with nuclear electricity made in conventional reactors without reprocessing, it'll last about 35 years.
Reprocessing is the act of taking spent fuel, taking out the fission ash that limits its ability to burn, and putting the fuel back into the reactor. This is reasonably energy intensive, but would only account for a fraction of a percent of the fuel's embodied energy in a single cycle. Doing would enable us to reuse the same fuel about 8 times - an aggregate burnup of around 60% turning the 35 years for full deployment into 280.
But that's not the _best_ route. There are reactors on the near horizon that achieve 98% burnup - converting 35 years to ~460. Additionally, they can consume thorium - which has a prevalence in normal crust about 4x that of uranium - 1,840 years.
Of course, we can't assume our energy needs will remain static. Various sources have predictions for the world's energy growth needs - but if the entire planet gets to American levels of prosperity and energy consumption, we can expect the world's output to triple. Assuming that this tripling happens every hundred years or so (which is an extraordinarily generous assumption), that brings the 1,840 down again, to 265 years.
However, I stated above that the 6 billion kg is only what's _easy_ to get. If you double the price you're willing to pay to get uranium (to $200/kg), the availability of the stuff increases tenfold, according to current geological research. Taking into account growth, that still brings us to 475 years. Double it again, and it goes up by 10 again - 684 years, assuming centennial tripling.
Another doubling of price - to $800 / kg - and something changes. Seawater extraction of uranium becomes economic, and the availability of uranium increases by a factor of about a million - 2,000 years worth, again, assuming we triple global energy consumption centennially.
Incidentally, at 2,000 years in this scenario, we'll be consuming at a rate of 52 zettawatts - high enough that I not only had to _look up_ the appropriate SI prefix, but thought it a bit high, and looked up global insolation - 52 ZW is 520,000 times the 100 PW or so we recieve from the sun.
That's not going to happen, but it does give an absurd lower limit on the total possible available fission fuel. Realistic estimates say that the human race should top out at around 50 TW, all said and done, which should burn up all of our fission fuel over the course of 4 billion years.
I didn't even bother going into the efficiency increase that would come from switching from high-pressure, low-temperature reactors to low-pressure, high-temperature. The increase from 33% efficiency to 40% should push us that last billion years until the sun burns out - assuming we haven't worked out fusion and left the planet in the meantime.
"lets talk if it blows up its taking the whole dam area with it"
There has been exactly one fission-driven reactor failure in the history of nuclear power - Chernobyl - and there's a simple reactor property that caused it (though there were several things that exacerbated it, most pointedly, the lack of any secondary containment whatsoever).
RBMK reactors have a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity - the hotter they get, the more power they produce, the hotter they get. It's surprising to me that more haven't gone up.
LWRs have a negative coefficient; if they get to hot, reactivity falls off until the reactor falls back into normal operating range. However, they have a different problem: pressure.
Now, I trust good engineers - but not even good engineers trust pressure, regardless of how well-contained it is. Pressure vessels are, as such, notoriously overengineered. RPVs and secondary containment domes are no exception here, and as a result are both the main drivers of cost and danger from a conventional reactor.
Again, those reactors on the near horizon are, almost without exception, of the atmospehric pressure core variety. No danger from a core that very much doesn't want to be where it is. No giant cost driver from an overengineered containment.
I don't expect you to get on-board for future tech, of course - no one got anywhere betting on fusion in 10 years for the last 50. But with at least 8 different projects approaching this at small variants of the same angle (molten salts), and another 15 approaching it from another (metal-cooled), mass commercialization of an atmospheric pressure reactor of one flavor or another is pretty certain within the next 5 years or so (Russia's already selling a 600 MW metal-cooled, but they're reserving their big sales effort for the BN-800 they're working on).
"lets talk if it blows up its taking the whole dam area with it"
Can't believe I missed this initially.
LWRs can't blow up, at least not in the nuclear sense. Fukushima's explosions were based on hydrogen, evolved from the overheated fuel cladding interacting with the coolant water - a chemical explosion, and one that damaged the reactors.
Meanwhile, people _could_ move back to Fukushima right now; the I-131 (the only demonstrable health concern from the reactors) had all decayed away by the three month point.
What's left - Cesium isotopes - have not been shown to increase cancer odds or radiation exposures significantly. They don't concentrate anywhere in the body, and their biological half-life - 100 days - is significantly shorter than the radiological half-life of the isotopes in question. Meanwhile, radioactivity measured in the area is presently within the range of natural radiation throughout the world.
So even using the loosest interpretations of "blowing up" and "taking the whole damn area with it", LWRs are demonstrably incapable of this, even in the worst situation.
Still, I'd like to see us get low-pressure reactors to the point where they're readily deployable.
With low-pressure reactors, we would never have to worry about the safety of nuclear energy again, as the main mechanisms by which a core is moved into its surrounding environment would be _gone_. Nuclear accidents would be strictly industrial accidents - with their harm strictly limited to on-site damages, instead of the weak radioactive contamination that causes so much media apoplexy today.
I am the son of a nuclear physicist and while still having been relatively young (7 years old) when the accident in Tchernobyl happened, I still remember very well when my Dads beeper went off that evening (he was working for our governments radiation protection agency). Being in Europe and therefore close to where the wind blew the radiation, as well as getting first-line information from radiation measurements all over Europe I believe i was a bit "more involved" than the general public.
All the "fuzz" after the incident, over many years to come, made me grow up with a very negative mindset about nuclear power. After having had a discussion with my Dad about nuclear power about 10 years after it happened, he was nonetheless convinced that nuclear power was definitely the path to proceed forwards, as it is more efficient and better for the environment. Eventually I changed my mind and now I do agree with him, however we need to find a way to take the biggest risk - the "Human factor" - out of the equation to make it safe in the long term.
Gen 4 cannot have a meltdown. :)
Just saying, the future is here.
Nuclear energy is the only way we can sustain ourselves and our environment for the foreseeable future.
The Generalissimo Yeah my main problem is that Thorium and Uranium are pretty non-renewable otherwise I’m game
@@emiledlund9559 that's why we use energy gained from thorium and uranium to get off this rock and start mining/colonising other planets
The Generalissimo coastal nuclear power stations are good because In case of a meltdown we can flood it and cool it down
@@emiledlund9559
Known uranium reserves+thorium+ seawater uranium could power humanity for billions of years, approximately the amount of time until the sun burns out. Is that renewable enough? Collected seawater uranium would be replaced by more uranium leached from undersea rocks.
How about using Light as a source of fuel.
thanks a lot I got 3rd position in a speech competition just by watching your 3 videos and will do same for tomorrow's competition
sneaky
0:29 My god Doctor, *GET OUT OF THERE!*
Don't worry he knows what he is doing... right?
i know its been a few years since the video release but, i just wanted to say that the reason we aren't using thorium reactors is because of what the video says, its really hard to make nuclear bombs and stuff with it (including the waste, its very safe) and apparently that's bad and the only reason we use uranium reactors is because of one simple google search, its backed by the government because it produces plutonium from the waste, which is handy for bombs.
Angela Merkel:
_How about we do it [shutting down nuclear power plants in favor of coal]..._
*Anyway!*
invest in thorium, if safe mostly = proceed, if not = make it better
Okay, I've watched both vides and I have to say Nuclear comes out stronger. The two of the three criticisms of Nuclear outlined in the 'Nuclear energy is terrible!', accidents and waste, are effectively addressed in this video. Namely that Nuclear saves lives relative to Fossil Fuels and that CO2 waste is far worse than Nuclear waste.
The Nuclear weapons thing is the only argument not really addressed (aside from the Thorium bit). But we are not in the Cold War anymore. Full-scale conflicts between states are very rare nowadays (see Kurz Gesagts 'Is War Over?' video) and conflicts bad enough to devolve into nuclear war are difficult to imagine. Besides, at this point any country determined enough to develop nuclear weapons (at the cost of losing face internationally), already can. A fear of nuclear weapons alone is not a good enough reason to block nuclear power.
You may want to check, how much CO2 is released in the production of the fuel. That could change your mind. And don't get me wrong, I don't argue for coal/gas, I'm just arguing against nuclear energy in its current state.
sxfreak I know Nuclear plants produce CO2 at some point in their life cycles, but so do renewables like hydroelectric.
According to the IPCC, emissions over the life cycle of Nuclear Energy are comparable to those of renewables. After doing some additional research, it's very difficult to find an agreed upon comparison of CO2 emissions from different energy sources. However, even the most anti-nuclear sources seem to acknowledge that Nuclear is better than Fossil Fuels.
Sxfreak
Solar panel.manufacturing emits more co2
sxfreak The total life cycle carbon emissions of nuclear, including fuel fabrication and uranium mining ect, is similar to that of wind
www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
It's even not just the CO2, coal emits shit like mercury and even uranium. It's an incredibly dirty source of energy.
Can you do an updated video on this subject? I also want to see one on new desalination plants.
Becasue of all the people that still think that nuclear energy is bad is why I believe that this decisions should be made by scientists that now what they’re doing and not politicians
You are sadly mislead my friend free energy already exists invented by Nikola Tesla!!! Wake up!!! Demand free energy from your government!!!
Casden Simonson I’m so confused...
Are you any type of conspiracy theorist??
@@evyiennetla9416 ah yes free energy, very real
Video was made 1st of april
@@yellowdire9552 so what
I'm such a fan! I love your art style and media references! I subscribed after just a couple weeks!
A teacher was having everyone write questions bout society problems and I wrote one about nuclear power plants switching to Thorium reactors. He did not know what that was so I said I would make a presentation.
+SamThe RandomG1rl Teachers- people who get paid to be dumber than their students.
That's a bit harsh. I would consider a school teacher to just be a normal layman in most areas outside their specialization (and this one seems to have been specialized on society?). After all, their job is not to be up-to-date on cutting-edge knowledge, they're paid to teach the very basics to new generations.
And just because this one teacher didn't happen to watch random "bits of knowledge" videos online for entertainment doesn't mean he's "paid to be dumb".
I'd love to see a video about EBR, breeder reactor. It solves almost every problem for nuclear.
Nice to see a video about Thorium reactors!!! they are really amasing!
great video! love this channel!
As per 2019, I'm still supporting exactly the same arguments showed here. It's "cleaner" (not clean; but it can buy us time to figure out how to solve this problem, maybe an alternative like thorium or somewhen fusion), it's safer (the security is much tighter as letting them go ballistic is indeed a problem). And the third is actually the solution for the two fromer's issues: research is needed. Renewable energy is my fav, but way less efficient for now in terms of not only power generation but ressource and real estate needed to generate the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant. And considering we are now starting to switch to electric mobility (public as well as private transport), we will need much more energy. Trying to solve an issue with another issue is not the way to go, but denying possibilities involved by not turning the back to it by making it safer or based on it's principles apply other techs is. I support this thinking since I'm 15 and 20 years later I still do, and nobody could convice me about the opposite without a "well, yes, but renewable is still better. why? It's renewable and has no impact" (no impact my butt; can't produce generators out of thin air and maintenance is still required. And for example the Three Gorges dam? Don't let me get started on that)
France is the most nuclear country in the world, they need to continue like this to save the world !! Germany, take example !
Germany announced to close off all its nuclear reactors by 2040......
@@zhengyangwang214 Germany's CO2 emissions went up as a result of closing nuclear plants.
@ShaunDoesMusic please give examples on what to do with the waste. There is no long term solution!
@Invictus but it is not finished yet
@ShaunDoesMusic dude, you are putting words in my mouth, coal is the absolute worst, but dont present nuclear energy as perfect. We as a society can not put this burden on the back of future civilisations. The waste will remain longer than humanity exist. What happens should there be a war in a far future, then what to do with the waste that no one is able to exploit its danger, what about the enourmos costs to store the waste: THEIR IS NO LONG TERM SOLUTION!!!
I am really happy that you mentioned Thorium reactors. They seem very promising especially security-wise since they operate using a liquid fuel opposed to solid uranium.
For anyone interested search for the term _LFTR (Liquid fluoride thorium reactor)_ - there are interesting documentaries on that topic.
thanks for good info and unbiased videos!
Plutonium can be recycled using Thorium Reactors and Integrated Fast Reactors. Also what are your thoughts on SMRs (Small Modular Reactors)
Go thorium
or
Go home
KaleiCarrillo
Make a profitable reactor first
it expensive so....
Goverment: fuck life I rather have my moneh......
go antimatter
or
do something more smart
go anywhere that isn't warheaded
@@tententononce2570 you mean smarter?
Could you guys do an episode on Thorium Energy(Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor(LFTR)). It's a new and exciting up and coming source of energy and I believe if you do just a little bit of research you will love it.
I will always support you keep up the good work you reach even better than my science teacher
Great three part series, thank you
I have NEVER heared of the positive arguments of nuclear energy. We often just hear the negative aspects of it. Thank you very much for showing (again) how important it is to see both sides of the coin.
I love how this channel at least TRIES to be as unbiased as possible!
Seeing how those 2 videos have the same amount of views brings smile!
Thanks a lot for the portuguese translations, guys! Awesome!
Really great video. I think Nuclear Energy is a path we will inevitably be forced into. Hopefully we we use the Thorium option as it seems overall a more productive and safer method. That or we need to find a way to use the massive amounts of refined plutonium in a safe method.
Could you please make a video on artificial intelligence and its threats and benefits to humanity?
I'm sorry Ayy, I'm afraid I can't let you do that
^ This guy gets it!
it would be kinda a copy of same topic that science AI did???maybe idk 😐
1:10 oh shit. It's THAT Turry
Reason 1 and 2 are basically the same argument...
And I think this topic should be revisited in a future video.
if we can create a nuclear fusion reactor, we'll be able to turn hydrogen and helium into renewable, clean energy that provides as much energy as a small star
+zach kelly We're running low on helium, we could just grab water and extract the hydrogen and make some helium.
+Big Macintosh. A nuclear fusion reactor would be genius.
+zach kelly The Problem is that to the current State, a Fusion needs such Amounts of Energy, that the Energy '''won''' looks pretty damn small.
We just need to find a way to contain the energy and find a way to start the reaction without using fission
+zach kelly Yeah, and not to mention that otherwise we will eventually run out of helium, and I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WITH NO HELIUM BALLOONS.!!
*Yells in abnormally high pitched voice:
Go Fusion! (And nuclear!)
The idea of getting Thorium reactors into widespread use gets my geek side all hot and bothered!
I read that when it comes to Thorium reactors , they are atleast a Decade ahead . So I did search about it . India is having a 3 stage nuclear program. In which they use thorium as a fuel. The reactor is expected to obtain criticality soon.
ive seen both sides of the argument and think that overall it would be better to use nuclear energy than to stop but we need to make some major improvements such as improving efficiency (incorperating betavoltaic cells into the reactor walls,actually using plutonium,using thorium,insulation to trap heat with a heat valve to release extra heat,pyroelectric cells,reflectors to reflect radiation back into the reaction chamber,reuse of irradiated water[water containing tritium and deturium] for fusion experiments,ect) we also need to improve safety systems to avoid nuclear disasters and convince investors it is less risky.
Solar wind hydro and nuclear cause the least death's. So we should those for as our energy sources. Solar on rooms, wind at coasts, hydro in large rivers and waterfalls, and nuclear for the rest.
Mike Bishop flying (me you can't be perfect), cars can be electric (not saying we can switch overnight, but promoting electric cars is good), and heating can use a boiler like many other places. The point is trying to pollute as little as possible
Drama_Llama_5000 Electric cars today need to be plugged in and the electricity they get usually comes from some nondescript coal plant somewhere... A boiler will need to be heated and you would use either electricity or burn something to do it...
The main problem of all these green ideas is that they only "look" green at the consumer's end. but the production usually involves some nasty chemicals and whatnot or burning of fossil fuels.
-ACHTUNG- Electric cars running on coal is actually better than using gasoline because coal plants are more efficient. It's not that much better though.
My grid at least has no coal. live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
Sometimes you see Ontario's net exports of electricity are higher than our only CO2 emitting resources, that being biomass and natural gas.
Drama_Llama_5000 Fuck dude, million dollar idea right there. Coasts would be BEAUTIFUL with huge windmills out in the water a bit.
***** Yeah, just try to sell that in Massachusetts.
Thorium reactors are being developed in India
Cool
Lol
yay india knows whats up
@@StarGazerHere You are wrong
There is also transmutation of nuclear waste which can transform one nuclide to another via neutron interaction in a reaction thereby creating shorter lived nuclides. This can be a potential solution to stored nuclear waste.
1:11 “Turry gets great at handwriting”
"Thorium reactor [...] and it's hard to make a nuclear weapon out of this"
But... My nukes!
damn those sensible idiots!
Just out of curiosity what materials we can use that are still available to build a Thorium Reactor and how much will they cost for each unit?
There's no one answer for that question.
+kokofan50 no I meant whenever we decided to use nuclear fusion which will probably take decades
Possibly ten million or more?
The only issue I've been able to find with thorium is the lack of readily available super alloys in large quantities such as cupernicle
They are build a new modern reactor in Korea for about 3 billion and it was estimated it would be even cheaper to build a Thorium Reactor, whereas the same capacity would cost about 15 billion if wind was used...
Something I’ve been curious about but have not been able to find any resources on, can traditional reactors be enriched with extremely small amounts of thorium? Of course that wouldn’t make as much sense as full blown thorium reactors, but would it have any useful aspects at all?
There was 1 reactor, which was running on Plutonium (waste produced by nuclear reactors) in Fukushima.....
This three-parter left me more uncertain about the topic but more informed. How does that happen
That's the nature of being informed about something. Nuance exists.
SCIENCE BITCH.
My stance on the subject is, if we go full nuclear then there will be more research done in making it cleaner and even safer. Then there is also the Eventuality of fusion which will replace everything. And he is the other thing, what if more money in nuclear research causes the fusion research to speed up? Then wouldn't that be the best decision to make?
The way it should be. Only uninformed people are ever truly certain.
Yes, I believe what your saying is correct the problem is nobody cares about this issue, as everyone is more interested in the stupid arguments being brought up by the current presidential candidates. Our Earth is bleeding, and if we don't do something about China in the next 5 years it will be too late
You are right that Nuclear energy produces NO greenhouse gases but renewable energy produces NO waste at all and cant pollute anything. (And I know that solar panel production is not that clean...)
GO FUSION!
The 1 tonne Thorium to 200 tonnes Uranium claim is misleading. In a theoretical Thorium LSR, 1 tonne is equivalent to around 200 tonnes of Uranium in a Light Water Reactor, however LWRs are the least efficient Uranium reactors. You can achieve similar performance using Uranium breeder reactors.
what’s the waste produced by the uranium breeder things like tho.
@@jib6689 breeder reactors "breed" more fuel than they consume. There are several designs that fit that description. That means they can continue to burn nuclear fuel that would be considered way too depleted for other reactors, or even make fuel for new reactors. They generate virtually no transuranic waste (the "bad" waste), as it's just more fuel. Their waste consists of non-fissile fission byproducts that go inert in a relatively short time (think 100 years as opposed to thousands of years)
Can you make another video about this, going deeply into it because this didn't go viral at all and it's the thing that should go viral
Thorium is my new favorite element.
+Abdou Menouer Then you also like Uranium :D
But yeah if the molten salt reactors become production ready it would be awesome.
+Abdou Menouer Then you also like Uranium :D
But yeah if the molten salt reactors become production ready it would be awesome.
+Abdou Menouer That,s very agreeable, but I quite like oxygen myself
Cobalt is my favourite. It's blue, multivalent, and one of the only metals that can create its own magnetic field. Also, Cobalt-60 is the material used in chemotherapy
It's my life goal to figure out how to harness fusion on earth!
+x Lunar Tip: don't try to buy nuclear material on the internet. Found out the hard way.
+MegaKwijibo thanks man xD
+MegaKwijibo Now tell the whole story, I want hear!
+MegaKwijibo Yeah, I wanna hear about it too xD
Lunar, my uncle works at general atomic a in San Diego and they already have done nuclear fusion in reactor model just saying. Though you could attempt to make it usable and efficient enough to be commercially used.
We need more of this!!!!
While fission energy has its downsides, they are way lesser and way more manegeable then anybother energy source!!!
Also when it comes fo land and resources invested for energy output, fission is The Most efficient energy production.
Even if we go by an average of what weve experianced so far. At worst we'd get an average of 1 fukushima event per 1-2 decades, and 1 chernobile event every 3-5 decades. And thats not including how much that would go down based on what we learn from each fukushima and chernobil like event.
Thus we can reliably say that the chance of a fukushima or chernobil event happening, will decrease exponentually, until its effectively non existant anymore.
Meanwhile, the same cannont be said about any other form of energy production.
Not a single one.
So, as usual, scientists could create something amazing that could benefit all of humanity, but nobody's funding them (whether that's because of denial of the problems it'll solve, specifically climate change, lack of interest, or over-awareness of possible risks).
Whenever I watch these amazing videos, I'm always left feeling frustrated that I'm not completely rich and able to fund whatever projects will benefit our planet. Scientists really can do amazing things. I wish politicians could see that.
The video was made first of april