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 support fossil fuel. I don't believe in climate change, global warming, or global freezing.
looks like nya just found a new ninja team at 7:54
Use all
People praise nuclear energy but what about the waste it makes?
So it seems most of these problems (lack of much innovation, no wide scale implementation etc.) stem from a lack of funding. If only there weren’t 2000+ billionaires and millions of millionaires who just sit on their wealth just to get onto the leaderboards of worth at the end of the game.
Go With Both.
Yes, we need nuclear, but which one? This is such a tired and frankly deceitful story simply because we have already completely solved the Fusion Nuclear energy problem
Imagine blanketing the world in wind turbines and calling yourself an environmentalist.
Here’s the thing,,silent deaths seem less scary than sudden deaths. Nuclear can cause a lot of problems in a shot amount of time, however in the long run it will be dwarfed by fossil fuels.
What about north korea there is no way that they eill agree to this
Whoever’s reading this, I pray that whatever your going through gets better and whatever your struggling with or worrying about is going to be fine and that everyone has a fantastic day! Amen
Have you taken a look at Thorium Reactors?
Nuclear energy has its downsides most of which are the concerns that nuclear waste being misshandled and improperly disposed of, but nowadays nuclear waste is carefully disposed of deep underground, in basically massive storage units, and then filled with concrete and buried, and the history of catastrophic nuclear reactor failures the most notable being Chrynoble, but as long as we foucs on the idea of making these nulear reactors safer and reduce waste product to an absolute minium then truly nuclear is the way to go, and as stated in the video this could be a great way to bring in better versions of renewable energy that casuses less damage to the enviroments that they are placed in both when being constructed such as the large amount of achers needed for both wind and solar farms, and when there are being disposed of such the fact that some windmills are made up of fiderglass and solar pannels being made up of several toxic and enviromentally damaging chemicals that are either disposed of in burn pit or buried under soil where the toxic chemical can spread. I in general believe that we as humans need to get rid of all if not most fossil fuels and only ever really of them for emergency purposes in the future, but starting now we need to put the past behind us and lok at the facts decide what is truly the next best step in order for everyine to achieve the goal of making this little blue rock a little bit healthier.
You forgot to mention that if you want to replace internal combustion engines with batteries, you will need much more rare earth metals from which they are made. And its extraction is a very dirty business. So it is not known what is worse for nature - fuel or renewable energy and nuclear power
Personally, I think it all lies more in the field of politics. Indeed, those countries that do not have oil and gas are advocating for "green" energy. It can be understood, but not that under this they cover the concern for humanity and nature.
Nuclear is the future, with or without climate change.
So funny why don't newscasters ask dems or john Kerry what a stocks he owns?
After watching Michael Shellenberger's Ted talk, I am 100% for nuclear since then. I am from Australia and we still burn tons of coal for electricity. Nuclear is a taboo word over here, not coal.
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!
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.. ):
“Nuclear energy doesn’t produce air pollution.” Lol must of never heard of 3 mile island or Chernobyl.
Which nuclear and which is better? There are two nuclear fuel elements:
Uranium and thorium.
There are three nuclear fuel cycles:
Fissionable uranium-235 isotope representing 0.7% of all uranium.
Fertile uranium-238 isotope representing 99.3% of all uranium which when it absorbs a neutron will eventually breed into fissionable plutonium-239.
Fertile thorium-232 which when it absorbs a neutron will eventually breed into fissionable uranium-233.
He makes an excellent argument but we can’t all have our own nuclear reactor and most of us would like to be self sufficient
Nuke power accidents or mistakes are rare, but when they happen they are huge and permanent. Research the terrible effects and problems that Chernobyl and Fukushima are still producing today.
Good presentation. Planet of The Humans helped make me more aware of some of these issues. However, as well as Michael spelled out the benefits of nuclear in contrast to solar and wind, he made no mention of the nuclear accidents, particularly Fukashima. Fukashima continues to spew out radiation, or I should say that they continue to release contaminated water into the ocean because they don't have any other way to cool down the reaction. The solution to pollution is not dilution. We are way past that. Essentially all infants born in the US have 30+ toxic chemicals in the umbilical chords at birth. Now we are discovering micro plastics throughout the body. We could survive using a lot less energy and chemicals but will we?
Hopefully the Dutch go to LFTR. And not uranium based nuclear.
No one wants to live next to a nuclear plant. France has different types of nuclear plants than the US.
We need more nuclear, but via LFTR and Molten-Salt….but such reactors have a life span of about 30-35 years. And uranium plants have such hidden costs with their used rods.
Thermal depolymerization banned in ny state . Why because it works
We could solve a huge chunk of these energy problems by building H3 fission plants on the moon then beaming back the energy. Anyone could set antennas to catch the energy on earth.
Renewables are a 70+ trillion dollar business that SAVES the planet while keeping the rich rich. This adjustment in global economics and human activity will happen. The only question is, will it be in time?
If nuclear power is soo deadly, why do they use it in all big military ships, are they trying to kill their sailors? LOL
SMR stock. Thank me in 10 years 😉
“Nuclear waste is the only waste from electricity production that is safely contained and internalized.” At 10:35. I did not watch the whole video to see if he he talks about documented nuclear waste leaks and compares it to other waste. But this would have been the time to talk about it. He goes on to worry about children being exposed to toxic elements while taking solar panels apart. But no mention here about nuclear accidents and other leaks and health and environmental impacts. So he lost credibility for me.
The issue isn't just the public's aversion to building nuclear plants. The problems extend to avoiding research, too. The nuclear industry is on the verge of tremendous innovation in areas such as safety and cost, including technologies such as Thorium reactors, but is being inhibited by oppressive regulation, driven by irrational fears.
The ultimate solution is something you can never, never mention much less ever think . Reduce and then control, as in limit, the human population. It is not possible to fit an infinite human population in a the earth's finite space. Humans can control their population deliberately or let nature do it through devistating catastrophes but it will happen.
Michael thanks for saying this
This talk is even more relevant now due to the Ukraine-Russia war and Europe, Germany in particular, caught in the middle of that due to their reliance on Russia gas.
Geothermal. All of the benefits of Nuclear, without any of the downsides, and less than half the installed cost.
The planet doesn’t need saving . It was here before us it will be here after us.