Head over to our shop to get exclusive kurzgesagt merch and sciency products designed with love.
Getting something from the kurzgesagt shop is the best way to support us and to keep our videos free for everyone.
►► http://kgs.link/shopkgs
(Worldwide Shipping Available)
I like to watch this in Bengali. English kinda hard to digest for who knows English a little. Please consider
jaaa, raus mit unseren Rundfunkbeiträgen! Produziert zeugs für andere Nationen!
Nature who knows moving climate change one causes the humanshowship werk ,nuclear cannot help climate change which human abuses fection... 🙏
I usually use coal burning machines in my modded Minecraft server, but then switch to nuclear generation the second I gain all the materials and required machines. The reactors pay for themselves in no time (energy-wise). Come on, nuclear, we need you, I don't want to drown in my own lungs.
Kurzgesagt is the only show I can binge without feeling guilty...
respect 👍
As you mentioned very well in the video, renewable energy sources require a lot of batteries to supply the energy. Does this seems like another problem to you? I would really like to know you opinion as a channel upon batteries.
Homework is made out of paper that are made out of trees in 3069 they will be no trees so that means no homework like homework was made for punishment for students in the 1900s and Now they are made for more money for the teacher and more work for kids
GEENK
No, no we don't.
Huw much so you get for such stupid takes?
nuclear energy esspecialy when you use thorium is one of the clenaest sources of energy but as you can imagine some god damn lobbies prevent it for decades
easier fix = Minecraft lever ( unlimited power without energy )
you forgot to mention that nuclear reactors can produce massive amounts of energy quite fast
I think one of the biggest reasons people freek out when it comes to nuclear power is the Chernobyl Disaster. If the Russians had acted a little less stupid 35 years ago, we could be using nuclear energy more effectively now, despite all the side effects.
You can't fight for climate change and simultaneously disregard nuclear energy as a solution or atleast worth considering
Was it not in a previous Kurzgesagt video where it was said that about 40 50 % emmissions come from the livestocks burping and farting?
We also could use thorium reactors. They are much safer, eficient, and not very wasteful that plutonium.
The downside of why USA dont use it is that: we cant use them to create nuclear weapons.
When I can hold barrels of oil equivalent in the palm of my hand, that’s a great alternative.
Slovenia has no nuclear plants, and has been doing fine.
I found a good way for the no weaponry excuse, just have 1 uranium plant and the rest should be thorium plants, but I dont really know.
Dear community, thanks for the comments! We really appreciate the discussion.
In this video, we looked at how nuclear power makes decarbonization easier — keeping old plants online is cheap, and building new ones can stabilize a clean power grid with baseload electricity. We debunked some common myths, like the idea that nuclear power has been dangerous. We also explored societal trade-offs, like the cost of building new plants (compared to renewables) and how securely the waste should be stored. The IPCC and IEA show nuclear power growing in their decarbonization pathways but not becoming a big part of the overall energy mix.
Could a new generation of reactors change that faster than they think? China plans to bring the world's first commercial, waterless molten salt reactor online in 2030. What would you like to know about the new generation of reactors designed and prototyped today? What do you think the public should know about them? Can they be scaled up fast enough to decarbonize economies by 2050? Let us know your thoughts below!
The only viable "renewable" energy source is hydroelectricity, and it's intensely geographically restricted in where it can take place.
Nuclear is the only option. Stop demonizing it.
How can you find a new but proven way of getting rid of niclear waste ? everything has to be tried first to be proven right or wrong.
Knowing that many German politicians have ties to Russian oil companies, when Fukushima happened and there ware protests in Germany about shutting down nuclear power plants, ware these Russian paid german politicians instructed by Putin to use the protests as an excuse to shutdown the nuclear power plants knowing full well they will have to replace them with Russian gas? I always found it strange how easy and fast the German government gived in to those protest demands especially considering how expensive nuclear plants are.
Omg lol
At 3 30 ...
turn the music louder
We are going in
Wow all the nuclear scientists in the comments!
I'm wondering how Germans now feel about shutting down nuclear plants given the increased dependence on Russian gas. Especially now with the invasion of Ukraine. You have to consider those plant shutdowns gave Putin the additional leverage he needed for the invasion.
Read my lips, Geo thermal energy is clean and it is not intermitant.
i was hoping theyd mention fast/breeder reactors as a solution to waste
Some people advocate a major expansion of nuclear power. If this were to happen though, our uranium stocks would only last 20 years or so. Switching to thorium would solve this, and reduce the nuclear waste problem too. But this option seems to be completely ignored by nuclear advocates.
Typical DW bias on nuclear power. I'm four minutes into the video and have already lost track of the number of distortions that wildly exaggerate the dangers of nuclear, make no distinction between the type of plant at Chernobyl versus those used in the West. So far, this video is literally *reducing* the level of understanding of the public of nuclear power.
Geothermal is the answer. Unlimited, 24 hour. Power forever.
France has a storage facility underground too. You should put some math in your videos, because saying that solar and wiind is clean is just a lie (solar made in china with coal electricity is not clean). without the right numbers it's hard to believe your videos and you're misleading people in the wrong direction.
Just stop having kids. Fewer people means fewer problems caused and fewer problems experienced. No one needs to exist or experience cancer or WW3 or nuclear annihilation.
Thank you! Great video
quick question: since we have a giant nuclear reactor kinda hanging in the sky can't we like... shoot our atomic waste into it?
I think nuclear is worth the risk, at least until we can make the transition to green energy over fossil fuels.
I would be happy if a nuclear plant would be built near where I live in Hamilton Ontario, Canada.
Having nuclear waste buried underground seems like a much better thing than pumping CO2 into our lungs to me.
For the Netherlands the best option is to keep the old ones open en invest a lot in renewables, because it takes too long and too much money to make a new one and to wait for when it starts giving off energy. It is faster to make energy now with renewables. It is a safer bet here to put the money in renewables and the innovation of them(and still some stupid politicians here didnt read the science). It is even better for the economy. like how.. ):
Going completely nuclear would still costs way less than the "green" new deal
Okay, I read your comment directive. Big deal. Look, nuclear energy is not the problem. The united states still has the best program in the world. What is needed is a different form of a reactor. If any one, this video submitter included, had done any research you would realize there's this young man who PROVED used thorium salt reactor you would get a better cheaper cost energy producing reactor with damn little possibility of melt down issues. Talk about those possibilities as opposed to all the negative expounded issues you've presented here. You're sounding more like a crying tree-hugger than showing practical applications with out dated information.
we would be fully nuclear energy today if it hadn't been for all the enviro-zealots that halted it.
Now we are stuck with coal and gas and it is entirely their fault
Chernobyl as a matter of the laws of physics cannot happen today due to how reactors are designed you really need to do better research before making statements
Washington (google Hanford) is not a power generating plant.
They have their chance in the 50s but they screwed it up instead of using thorium which is nonradioactive the government wanted to make weapons so they used plutonium instead
Blame the democrats. like that "green" energy that takes massive amounts of fossil fuels to creat.
Wind and solar are produced by nuclear power, the sun.
So you start out with a flat out lie. There was no near disaster at 3-Mile Island. At no time was there any danger. At all. All safety measures were in place and worked exactly as they were designed to. At no point was _anyone_ in danger. It was yet another example of MSM lying to the public to force an agenda.
Yeah. LFTR is safe, clean, and viable. I have no idea why people think it's a bad idea. Solid state rod tech is less safe so I'm not all in on it. But liquid state fuel provides safety mechanisms that are pretty much fool proof as long as gravity is a thing... So...
*confused shrugs*
For me, I don’t trust capitalism & private markets to run nuclear power plants safely, long-term, with the proper maintenance. I would trust one of those “socialist” countries in Europe to run them though, and I do believe you mentioned France never has had any issues.
That’s probably why you don’t see them so much in the USA anymore, it’s probably just less profit savvy to deal with all that hassle of proper nuclear safety measures.
Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. It was a thermal explosion caused by a runaway nuclear reaction that melted out the bottom of the reactor. It wasn't "explodie" as you described it. It was a meltdown. France has had nuclear reactors that can self stabilize without the need of a cooling system since the early 90's.
The saddest part of nuclear power's disasters is how preventable they were. 3 Mile Island resulted from a faulty sensor(something backups would've prevented) and wasn't even that bad. Fukushima was any one of a half dozen adjustments away from avoiding disaster entirely. Chernobyl is the end product of a Soviet experiment to try to get more power out of a plant than it was designed to put out and required disabling basically every safety feature the plant had.
3Trillion dollard is expensive to solve energy crysis and stop fossil fuel use but 700billions on military every years.. not a problem, make the transition over 10-15 years.. the problem is not money, its human nature, human are stupid
for starters with the decreased demand on fossil fuels and excessive supply, fuel prices would completely plummet.
Could you also look at the uranium refinery process and the hazards associated with this? Not just mining, but also the concentration process.
Thorium nuclear is superior in every way to Uranium nuclear.
So why is there no serious project underway to commercialize thorium reactors?
Because catastrophic global warming only works for the Global Leftist agenda when everyone is afraid, and having a solution underway eliminates that fear.
No, Chernobyl was a steam explosion not a nuclear explosion. No, other nuclear power plants can't explode like Chernobyl did. That's Nuclear Power 101 dude. Nuclear power is expensive because the government wants it to be expensive. I can't believe you're supposed to be a nuclear power advocate while knowing nearly nothing about it. jfc
I tell my friends this and they call me crazy
Ignore the poorly designed reactor at Fukushima (They underestimated the height a tsunami could overtop) and the experimental reactor that was abysmally mismanaged at Chernobyl (When the designer of the reactor explicitly warns you to NOT try an emergency shutdown at low power because the reactor is unstable at low power and could explode, you really should pay attention and NOT "test emergency shutdown at low power") If well designed and not mismanaged, nuclear power is by far the least polluting and safest power we can currently make.
See this video for the truth on nuclear waste: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
"Should the existing nuclear plants be kept running?" is a totally different question that wasn't emphasized at all.
Didn't Rus sia support nuclear energy for decades, but was laughed at by Europe?
So, what happened to nuclear power???
Nuclear should be used more together with Hydrogen.
No problem, France will keep on building reactors, and then sell their cheap and green energy to the Germans.
Fluctuating, unreliable, weather based power is the future. Atomic is too steady and reliable to mesh with intermittency (the preference). Oh yeah, "waste", certainty of failure/disaster. Laughing so hard now...!
"...a ridiculous discussion" indeed.
If only you had 100 nuclear plants...France has a mere 56 plants generating 70% of its electricity.
How much does the coal industry pay you?
Yes it is.
MSR molten salt reactors are completely safe, don't generate nuclear waste like the weapons program reactors of yesteryear.
The "father" of India's nuclear program stated India should have implemented MSR reactors in the 1960s instead of the weapons grade nuclear plants they built. The USA has a MSR reactor that ran for years without incident until it was quietly closed down.
Why? Because it didn't produce weapons grade material like the uranium reactors.
What makes nuclear energy work for France?
I have heard so much about how Nuclear is not safe they may blow up. the other side is they make so much power we all are rich. Here in Australia we have only 1 and it is old now, no-one here fears it exploding. Here we are arguing about what to do with the waste it produces, no-one here wants it buried near them did I say we have ONE. Please someone in EU what is done with your waste ?? France alone has 58 ?? that`s a lot of radioactive waste and you guys are happy with that ?? I mean is it safer than the slag from a coal plant. For me here is sounds absurd to have this waste in the name of a greener planet?? I always thought Hydro dams were the only true green power. We are talking here about making hydrogen plants,
I don't know where these "activists" come from such a stupidity to say that a nuclear plant is riskier than solar or wind energy when these sources depend on the climate which is already CHANGING
Its best for EU to adopt a single Nuclear reactor design (EPR-2) & mass construct them.
This will allow "scale of economies" to lower the cost of construction & operations of Nuclear reactor throughout EU.
If a single Reactor-design is used throughout Europe then use easier to have:-
(1) Large number of technicians & experts
(2) Lower MRO & Operations costs in thr long term
(3) Lower construction costs in the short term
Rather than Nord-2 Pipeline, it's best for EU Nations to sign a deal with Russia for Construction & T-o-T of BN-800 FBRs.
This will solve the Nuclear waste issue to a great extent.
good on you DW for your Nord Stream 2.
Well these nuclear that harms environments were been going on somany countries questions remain does that means to interrffer to those bssniess that fully not involved with any of you plus solarenergy same between all of you the best way is making decissions timesnd serious decissions wether tomake it more worse ? thereare still list of other point spoilsive we dont spreads those ideas to between each others secrets rivalry so on still is nice time making proper nd serious decissions
What's the point in interviewing a "renewables expert" on the topic of nuclear power, isn't it like asking a food critique about the opera??
Oh, what an expert... Please tell as more ;)
Very one sided story
The country that is dependant on Russian gas and has closed its entire nuclear industry down, is against Europe becoming energy independent, to shift away from energy dependence on Russian gas… are the Germans working for the Russians?
Nuclear power is green, until it’s not. Problem is, when things go bad, everybody else suffers as well, not only those nations that are as selfish as France and the likes.
Nuclear is much better than solar and wind and much cheaper