You are using the wrong map of China, Taiwan is also part of China
This mostly right but one thing is missing afghanistan had nuclear weapons back then
If there were half the nuclear power plants as there are nukes there wouldn't be energy problems.
We do have nuclear weapons in israel, there is a nuclear reactor in demona
Okay so hows our atom bomb development in the present day? Or they dont that anymore? From hydrogen bomb to anti matter, maybe.
Geo facts: the first successful nuclear test
Russia everytime like this kid with down syndrome.
Why should anyone listen to the UN treaty of Nuclear Peace? When some countries hold a large number of Nukes. Everyone should hold some for themselves so that no country can threaten any other.
600p nukes and not a singal anti-nuclear weapon
World war 2 never stopped
*"Many prominent British scientists were soon transferred to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project. The team of 19 scientists from the British project who worked at Los Alamos included Chadwick, Peierls, Fuchs, and William Penney. *Nevertheless, General Leslie Groves, who disapproved of collaboration, put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information.*
In September 1944, a second summit was held in Quebec City to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. A few days later, Churchill and his family went to Roosevelt’s estate in Hyde Park, New York. The two leaders pledged in a memorandum, *“Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement”* (Goldschmidt 217).
Despite this promise, the death of Roosevelt in 1945 marked the end of wartime collaboration. *President Truman chose not to abide by this second agreement, and United States nuclear research was formally classified in the 1946 Atomic Energy Act.*
*The British had contributed to the successful creation of an atomic bomb, and yet after the war were faced with the reality that they had been cut off from its secrets."*
Truman: "If you want to build a bomb, develop it yourself. Thanks for your assistance btw.I'll tear up this *scap of paper* now. What are you going to do about it?" (smirks smugly)
we NEED nuclear fusion
I like the changes in the map like france gaining alsace lorraine after ww1
China nuclear weapons before coming rich that's why
Everything started in France :o
I have grown up with the lie of "einstein didn't found nuclear technology so that governments take it and make a bomb"
(If what is said in the video is true) reality of what happened: Einstein : Hey u there in the US I can help you make a bomb that can accually could destroy the whole earth! Xexe.
"interesting" information about "the most famous Hero of science".....
This is my favorite history channel that keeps me learning daily
Prometheus gave us fire, but we decided to explode things
The old Cold War the biggest dick measuring contest ever take place
bary din hogaye zaleel kia hua ha
Pakistan not included
Very Good Video
Who is Marie? And where can I buy that shirt.
I'm not discounting the direct effect on wildlife of wind and solar power, however, the risk to all life on this planet is much greater from pollution and climate change.
Stopped watching when he called nuclear 'clean' after dissing windmills over some bird hits. He should read 'nuclear disasters' page on wikipedia, or just read about Fukushima, Chernobyl or any of them.
I'd be mesmerized by the notions expressed here if the nuclear waste topic wasn't grossly simplified. Sure we can build ginormous storage units for spent fuel and "problem solved". But every now and then you hear how these things tend to leak. And they have millions of years to do so. Superb. What about the rare but still happening disaster level events that result in millions of tons of radioactive gas and water escaping? What about water just getting mildly radioactive all the time used for cooling the 600-700 reactors 24/7 all around the Earth? Are all of these somehow magically incorporated into the "nuclear versus renewables" statistics, in which nuclear comes out as an obvious winner?
Didn't that solar farm go Bankrupt. Green new deal isn't the answer right now. On Long Island they built a nuclear plant and it only ran at 5% then they shut it down . Evacuation was an issue. But we still have a nuclear reactor at Brookhaven labs to this day. We have had a surcharge on our electric since 1989 to cover the 6 billion wasted.
For anyone doubting this man his qualifications speak for themselves - he holds a bachelor’s degree in Peace and Global Studies from Earlham College and was once a self proclaimed renewables activist.
Sure some folks might say that his background doesn’t make him an expert on climate policy or that he is oversimplifying the issues in this presentation with a bias against renewables in order to promote his climate denial books but to those people I would say: so what? He confirms my preexisting views and therefore must be correct.
California is an irrigated desert. There problem is overuse of the water resourrces.
Problem is majority of population don't understand graphs....
A very interesting presentation.
But renewables can definitely save our planet with advanced technologies yet to come. Nuclear is fascinating. Both these are our future energy resources.
What about using less energy and buying less stuff and ride a bike. Just saying. My house is off the grid, but I do use a generator but a small amount of fuel is involved. So it's not entirely off the grid. I think the answer is a major reduction in consumption, not another energy source. You have convinced me as a proponent for nuclear though.
talks how great the BMJ is, cause it is, yet facebook labeled bmj false news last year. BMj is the british medical journal fyi
Shellenberger for governor of CA!
You far under reported the cost of cleaning up the average decade plant meltdown. Plus, including the cost of superfund site costs to cleanup decommissioning plants (30 ish year lifespan). Plus, impacts on human health from these recurring core excursions is not as simple as number of deaths. Nor the impacts of recent improvements in cleaning coal and natural gas plant emissions. Technology in these areas even 10 years ago has exponentially improved. You would need to factor this looking forward not backward to provide a more accurate externality cost comparison.
I believe we should be good stewards if what God gave us. That said, mining lithium, replacing batteries after 10 years, burning coal to get electricity, smelting to make new cars and what? Throw all our current cars into a landfill? Also California is a place the Natice Americans claimed was uninhabitable. With all the wildfires and such. So perhaps it isn't us, but the land and the way it is naturally. Is nuclear safe just because of air pollution? What about water pollution etc? Interesting stuff though.
Nuclear is a big answer but solar and wind are far better than coal. Point being, it is Capitalism that is the problem.
How do birds catch fire over solar farms?
Who is Marie?
We just need more solar panels, more wind turbines, more, more, more...
Never stop believing in wind and solar. Wind and solar will save us.
It is interesting that this TED Talk never made it to the mainstream media. It just does not face today's push for expensive fuel.
False. The problem with the planet is that carbon traps heat. Light comes from sun and warms earth. Earth releases heat. Carbon in the air keeps that heat in the air. Carbon absent from the air emits that heat back out into space. The more carbon in the air the warmer we get. We are digging carbon out of the earth and burning it, releasing it into the air. We need to stop doing that. Renewables can accomplish this. Whatever other environmental impacts there are, none of them involve more carbon in the air. Nuclear can maybe do it, too, but it's a little more intense to manage.
350, 000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste worldwide now after 50 years of civil nuclear power - a terrible longterm problem.
290 GW of new renewables added last year, and only 0.4 GW new nuclear
The United Nations (UN) has an agenda of depopulating the earth, because the world population is regarded as being too large and unsustainable. The IAEA is part of the UN whose purpose is to promote nuclear fission technology for civil power generation to supply Plutonium to nuclear weapons manufacture. The purpose the nuclear weapons is to be used to destroy the earth's biosphere and severely reduce the world's population of human beings. Thus, the agenda of the UN is suicide of the human population. The UN is thus a death cult, and rolling out its death cult agenda via the Fukushima Da'ichi accident, wherein the reactors were deliberately positioned to be maximally vulnerable and also built on a river bed to enable a maximum rate of leaching of nuclear contamination into the Pacific Ocean. When the phytoplankton in the Pacific Ocean are killed off, carbon dioxide in atmosphere will rise rapidly causing massive anthropogenically-forced climate change, since human civilisation is presently dependent on burning of fossil fuels to function. Thus, Fukushima Dai'ichi is a deliberate extinction level event. Human civilisation fades away with a whimper despite Nobel prizes for distinguished scientists, including nuclear scientists.
Cool then the companies can take up the insurance of the energy source instead of governments and we dump the waste in your backyard
Consider changing the thumbnail to "OECD" instead of "OCDE", even though it might have been meant for the french youtube it looks a bit silly when shared on other forms of social media.