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.
(Worldwide Shipping Available)
Do you have a new link to the bomb video?
Nuclear power is bad
Ah 2015, when we thought climate change was still 50 years away and going back to fossil fuel reactors was an option.
Кто с английского +
Me and a friend of mine built a deterium-helium reactor that worked. We got a good grade on our school project 😁
whats a TARDIS doing between those powerplants
thiS hiTS a hell of a lot hArDeR wiTh THE CurRent EvenTs ThAt ARE bEgiNninG tO UnfOLD..
We actually need Nuclear Reactors and FAST cause estimation told us 4 years ago that United Kingdom's supply of coal will run out by 2026
A risky yet advantageous power that can help humanity in it's feet.
I agree with the sentiment, but the visuals are way too manipulative
The TARDIS isn’t Nuclear powered, it uses time energy provided by a suspended Black Hole
I don't know what this video meant when it posed the question "could nuclear power help settle the Antarctic."
Nuclear waste might be the main problem we may face
I have been concerned for some time that nuclear is touted as the 'clean' ie non-carbon emmitting, energy of the future to tackle climate change, but the reverse is true, all the nuclear power rleased since the atomn was first split is added to an already heating planet caused by CO2 trapping energy. Unlike fossil fuels, uranium has never been part of Earth's energy cycle, without humans causing a nuclear reaction, this energy would remain trapped forever.
It is 1950s technology, using steam power, an even older technology of the 19th century when global warming was just being started, to run turboines. It has thus added the sum total of energy released to the problem of a warming world, and cqannot be considered any part of a solution. Yet nbuclear cultists continue to claim it is thechnology for the future, that anyone who opposes it is a Luddite and doesn't understand, that nuclrear supporters are advanced and hampered by the ignorant. Actually the reverse is true, modern technology is harnessing power from wind, water, tides and sun, this technology did not exist back in the 1950s when nuclear was started principally to supply plutonium for weapons. The mind set of its fans is thus fixed in the 1950s, and no amount of raqtional argument or logic seems capable of persuading them it is not what it seems. That's why I call it a cult; based on false beliefs, mired with secrecy and misinformation, and growing every more costly so much so that nuclear builders demand a high energy cost paid by consumers to profit them into the future. So electricy bills would need to rise and rise to pay for the costs whiuch run into many billions and are revised upwards during the course of the ten years or so build time. Renrewables at the sdame time are halving in cost annually and are now the cheapest and fastest means of supplying actual clean cheap energy, something nuclear constantly claims when what it produces is worse than dirty and costs the Earth.
The only possible future is 100% actual renewables, and not those claimed as renewable which are simply not, such as geothermal, which again adds all the energy created to the already warming planet, energy which would otherwise remain deep in the planel's crust. Nuclear power pumps billions of gallons of hot water into the oceans, considered waste by the blinkered nuclear cultists and of no consequence, illustrating their total ignorance of not just the ecosystem but of energy reality.
It would be good to see Wikipedia reflect this reality and not be so encouraging and complacent about nuclear. And I haven't once mentioned nuclear disasters, of which there are hundreds but only t5he biggest are mentioned, and the continuing problem of sp-ent fuel, which has always going to be a problem for future generations to cope with, I think future generations are going to have trouble enough simply surviving the shattered world we will be leaving them. Another problem o9f nuclear never considered or mentioned is the fact of sea levelk rise and the inconvenient fact that nuclear power stations are almost always situated on coasts at sea level for access to unlimited cooling water, the energy so transferred being pumped straight into the sea. Perhaps nuclear fans can enlighten everyone on what will happen to a flooded nuclear pile?
And with Thwaites Glacier due to break off into the sea in a matter of 2-5 years, I wonder if any politicians are considering how to decommision all the existing nuclear plants in the world before that happens. Building any more is folly of a kind not even hominids have indulged in before.
What's needed is clear critical thinking on this subject, not the usual simplistic, complacent, patronising 'experts' who think everyone failing to support their pet megafix needs to be educated on the process which will somehow banish all doubts.
tbh Nuclear bombs are just like private firearms. You need the weapon to scare away the threat of the same weapons. Vicious cycle. Most American thing ever
Bro i am from india and i wants to made a nuclear bomb after completed 12thstd which course is best to study about bombs and refer some books for me
that is not nuclear physics , that is nuclear eng
These are pop-sci books . You need serious texts with utmost rigor , like the ones of ....
K.S Krane , B. Cohen or S.N Ghoshal.
nice collection! I also have some of them.
Very nice books
I got the introduction to radioactive mineral collecting and mineralogy of uranium and thorium in hopes of learning how to identify different minerals but to be honest, I'm more confused after reading them than before 😅
Anyway, these are great books worth having a look at!
Do you plan to make a novel device like applied science did when he made homemade electron microscope? If so it would be fantastic for the audience and your reach! It seems you do have a great taste for science and are disciplined enough to read so you must have an idea or two for such novel projects. Looking forward to it!!
How did you read all of them? Especially topics like these which do require going over a certain section or two over and over again?
Like, Comment, and click Share for the algorithm 🙃
What did you think about Nuclear BEFORE this video, and has this video changed your opinion?
Nuclear testing is the reason background radiation is twice the pre-war level. Unless designed by Elon Musk himself, I won't trust a nuclear plant
The problem is we now have an alternative to Nuclear energy. That is both renewable, clean and safe. Now if you wish to spend 28 billion to just boil water - you are on your own. The tech for the 21st century is “Liquid Air.” (That’s air not wind, two different techniques) There is no waste and cost about the same as a coal fired power plant !!!
Thanks for this video
We are not in a climate crisis (8:40). AGW is the greatest lie ever perpetrated upon the human race. Go nuclear.
Why don't they want nuclear energy? because they want us to be dependent on oil so they can hold our necks
Definitely? Really, just because there hasn't been a huge mess recently means it's safe?
This is quite comforting knowing I live about 9 minutes away from one
Thanks for great references!
Chernobyl was due to more than human error. A very poorly planned and thought through 'safety' test, a reactor with a positive void coefficient (a very unpleasant and dangerous behaviour to have within a reactor), a complete lack of a safety culture, numerous smaller design and manufacturing defects within the nuclear plant.
How about we just go back to the way things used to be before humans ever had electricity and then we won’t have anything to worry about Both are bad for the environment it doesn’t matter how safe they say it is or how much better it is it’s still bad.
Actually a lot of people contracted cancer with in the 10mins radius after the reactor did melt down and produce a massive radio active release that has since killed people around 3 mile island…
Yeah umm put down the banana ☢️
(not a native english speaker, so please excuse me if my writing is not that good)
The TRUTH ??? Looks like pro-nuclear propaganda to me :
Please stop comparing nuclear energy with fossil energy, it's like comparing shit and vomit. Renewable energy is the futur, allied with "sobriety".
I nearly turned off the video when you mentionned the deaths at Chernobyl. 51 ? You should be ashamed of yourself. 51 is the number of people who died directly in the accident or a few weeks after due to radiation exposure. But people are still dying today of Chernobyl radiation : the cancer probability is higher. It is difficult to get a specific number due to the duration of the effect, but estimation varies from 4000 to much higher numbers.
The diablo canyon reactors produced 9% of California ELECTRICITY not ENERGY. Electricity represent 20% of the energy used. So Diablo is like 2% of the energy.
Nuclear waste reject : well maybe you don't know but a nuclear power plant rejects radioactivity in the atmosphere, the water, the ground from time to time. Those rejects are controlled but still exist.
High level waste are dangerous for 200.000 years. USA exist since less than 250 years... Good luck predicting what will happen during that period.
>51 died at Chernobyl
Yeah cancer rates man? Let alone the Red Forest. I ain't against nuclear, I'm a big fan, but that's understating the damage massively. It also wasn't caused by human error, Dyatlov was right - you can't blow up a RMBK reactor. You can if nobody told you the control rods are graphite tipped.
That's it I'm pissed cause they lied, I'm now going to jump off a one foot bridge
I'm scared of ghosts
51 people died of the Chernobyl incident, but 7.1 million have died of pollution... You guys have lost it.
what about Liquid Flourium Salt Nuclear reactors ???
You didn't factor the labor costs. Politicians in the US don't have term limits except the president. You didn't factor new developments like thorium and small modular. Also didn't factor in subsidization of costs. The fact that climate change is a natural security threat and this would be a real solution.
Levelized Cost of Production of electricity misses several factors in comparing power plants. The biggest one is when the electricity can be produced. Like electricity that can be produced, like in winter, when there is a shortage of electricity is more valuable than electricity that can't be produced during these times. Electricity that is not subjected to commodity fuel price fluctuations is also more valuable. Newer designs of nuclear power plants are also incorporating storage and on demand power production which have value over generation systems that do not have this ability. Of course the cost and the time it takes to build a nuclear plant needs to come down. I do think this is possible and should be worked on. As to the value of a nuclear plant I think the other values these plants provide should also be considered.
The question is why are we being taught that nuclear is a dangerous fuel source?
The only reason Diablo power plant can't compete is because of how California sets up their grid. The state does not put baseline nuclear first which means there are periods where with excess solar and wind energy. During those times power becomes almost free.
Battery storage isn't the solution, its expensive materials wise and we've got limited resources to make them.
you conclusion is so fundamentally flawed, nuclear is baseline, over a lifetime they generate 95+% of their rated output. peaking should be done with mass based storage (pumped hydro ect)
The energy industry is subsidized and regulated 20 times over. What is truly profitable and efficient should be questioned. On the whole for energy grids gas and coal is the cheapest, but by how much and for how long who knows
LCOE fails to account for safety, environmental impact, waste remediation/storage, subsidy, etc.
Nice and useful. But please put carbon taxes into these calculations.
I think this video showing the graphs are a copy of Illinois EnergyProf, video and channel, not bad but not original. :)
There is an increasing amount of attention being put towards LFTRs (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors), a molten salt design that uses Thorium-232; as opposed to current PWRs that use Uranium-235.
I hope it gets enough attention so that the distinction is made in the global discussion.
You omitted the factor of regulatory agencies forcing longer construction times by manipulating approval process.That's the lever fossil fuel and "green" energy advocates use to destroy Nuclear.
You also for some reason decided to include a false narrative about Solar Energy - we do NOT have an efficient way to capture it, if you consider the life-span of solar panels, the cost of maintenance, and the cost of pollution involved from end of life.
I would much prefer other renewables to nuclear, as nuclear has very long term waste handling challenge that can have a massive impact on public health (even if it's a small chance), and costs related to that. However, since we've collectively squandered the last 30 years to turn ourselves around, I view it as a necessary risk. Keep current ones online as long as safely possible, build new plants, though only as many as needed. Streamline the process, use established, safe designs. And research long term storage facilities. Hopefully renewable storage will be more developed in 10 years to be enough to complement nuclear, and take over as older nuclear facilities retire. Perhaps fusion, we'll see
Focus Fusion is coming! It will be an order of magnitude cheaper than ALL other forms of electricity generation!
This is totally inaccurate description of the revenue involved with nuclear energy. Which is insanely unprofitable. This video doesn't account for interest rates and the fact that electricity is a utility right meaning people are expecting to be affordable. Affordability and the interest rates are totally against one another's objectives. Unless nuclear energy will be used to power some montriosity of a project it makes no sense to use this as answer to power regular homes. Renewable energy will always be the answer for a long term affordable solution.
if the US can spend 12 TRILLION dollars on the fucking Corona virus I think we can set aside a couple billion for some nuclear energy
We need a fireside chat with Real Engineering and Kyle Hill
9:10 was like counting nuclear sheep, and helped me fall asleep 😅
This video sucked. Only worthwhile part was him explaining a better video on the topic. First time I'm disappointed
All National infrastructure takes a while for the benefits it brings to justify its costs. Relying only on private investments for such a thing is a sure bet on failure. By now we should not be burning half of the hydrocarbons we use for energy if we really wanted to make anything significant to slow down global warming. Only massive investments can make a difference now. As expensive as they can be, they will be nothing compared to the costs of recurrent dramatic climate events and the loss of crops. The impediment Is not the lack of resources or technology but the lack of will.
What about insurance for nuclear power plant?
this video didnt age well for Germany! lololol