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.
(Worldwide Shipping Available)
Good thing Germany got rid of their nasty Nuclear reactors. Now they can get clean energy from coal and ensure peace through commerce by constantly needing fossil fuels from stable, reliable countries such as Russia.
And batteries are expensive to make.
I mean people won't acknowledge how bad things are till they start to experience it in first hand, by the time we start to get the renewable energy and Fission Nuclear Reactor running in larger scale, I am afraid the world is damaged beyond recovery or worse, getting consume by war and chaos for resources
Number 3 please
why won't ted ed and kerzgesagt do a colab
Between this video and Kyle Hill I firmly believe in Nuclear Energy now
Hydrogen boom based on solar and wind power is just a medias fake but long time possible based on new nuclear and cold fusion shooting into water with deuterium or Hg power and near 100% efficient compressor backflow cooled isolated CO2 turbines that can save also much heating gas etc. or used for Sabatier process double dense 700+ bar CNG out of H2 + air CO2 easy cheap out with gas centrifuge since more heavy than O2, N2 and Argon usable also as green house fertilizer. Most hydrogen mad in Abu Dhabi out of CH4 + water + heat.
Proton cannon used in china also usable for fusion shooting into D2O ?
First fusion with proton in deuterium with 1 neutron cannon was build 1940 a cyclotron shooting into uranium-238 for making plutonium-238 over (d, 2n) reaction with following decays where 1 proton shoot into uranium-238 clearly a fusion without fusion energy because big nucleous but shoot into H or D in water (Gel) with fusion energy set free.
I've been pondering this thx to mumbo jumbo
Hell No! This video has no idea what they are talking about, it's all BS
2:08 its a pokemin its a magnemit
Have you found the oldest meme at 6:21?
Well it would be easier to focus on using LESS electricity for our daily lives. Also focusing on new ways of generating the power. Best way right now is to deploy smaller safer reactor types, and once thats done focus more on renewables.
I appreciate the "opinion part starts here"
It would have been easy for you to just push your opinion, but saying "these are the facts, there are good arguments for both sides, but here is my personal view" and not getting it mixed in the facts part takes true strength
Universities filled with people arguing over weather women have penis or not while we for some reason can't find the time or money to research into better nuclear energy.
2:10 did anyone else other than me notice the pokemon magnimite in the bottom left
I live in yukon canada 🇨🇦 and it is now cheaper to use the power company to heat my home when I used to use wooden stove to heat my home, cords of wood now is $500, more than double from this time last year.
That name is not confirmed
I rather have a forest of trees then a forrest of ugly solar panels or windmils, so I think new and safer nuclear power like MSR is more viable until we can have fusion power. Installing solar on rooftops could also be made mandatory requirement for new and old buildings. But no solar roadways please.
Wind and solar are a pipe dream. Nuclear and hydrogen fuel cells are the best way to go for now
It's too late already
We already crossed the threshold 175 years ago.
Solar farms should be discouraged. Only Solar Rooftop should be allowed. For Going Nuclear too, the issue remains same, just like we have about 200 years of coal, similarly we have about 200 years of Uranium Reserves.
Maybe we should be able to find something in solar panels that makes them recyclable.
The Ultimate thing it makes is for sure :- We get all the energy we need from Sun.
But I guess, we may still come up with something or the better .
Step 1. Let the oceans and seas return to their natural state and use farms for food only not wildlife and also expand existing parks and wildlife preserves by 10x.
Step 2. Human population control is important to keep our earth from becoming a used-up world so stop this growth to a measured number.
Step 3. Build a better way to bring resources to people and for travel. Work from home where possible.
Step 4. Produce better energy sources, instead of fossil fuels, to include nuclear power with better simplified regulations and reduce energy costs.
I transitioned from the oil and gas industry to wind after 12 years. I have been in the renewable wind industry now for 6 years and can honestly say it’s not as green as main stream media makes out especially offshore wind turbines.
I've said this for 30 years. Natural Gas is the bridge fuel we have to have to get to where we want to be. The technology isn't there for 100% renewables or even 50% or less yet. With that I'll say this: Every new home should be required to have at least 1000 watts of solar. There should be strong economic incentives for people to put solar on their roof. Two: Central Air Conditioning and Central Heating, are about the dumbest ideas we ever had. You want to area cool and heat homes. Central Air/heat is just constantly heating and cooling areas of your home you're not even occupying at the time. Third: electric vehicles. Nope. HYBRID vehicles are the way to go. Fourth. Put a floor on the price of oil and gas so we don't drill ourselves out of it, have $1.80 gas again, and there is no incentive to 'change'. Putting a floor on the price gives oil and gas companies capital protection without demand destruction yet keep the price high enough to incentivize people to go hybrid or away from inefficient heating/cooling methods. Simple FACT. Oil and Gas is a FINITE resource. We're eventually getting off of it one way or the other. Best ease into as best and as efficiently as we can. I get so tired of politicians with drill baby drill followed by 'we have 100 years of oil in this country'. 100 years? 100 years is the blink of the eye. We do have more natural gas but we need to make sure we preserve it in a way that we use it for 'on demand' use. And we will still need fossil fuels years into the future. So much is made from it. 'It's carbon, man'. To use a Bidenism. We need it for a lot more than driving cars.
I love this. Of COURSE the concentrated and deadly power that verges on the supernatural scares us a little bit. But in a beautiful phrase right at the end where he describes something like how "romantic" it is to imagine us all living together in peace and in harmony with the natural environment, the chances of that happening, he acknowledges, are (and I paraphrase) equivalent to my becoming the next Cardinal Archbishop of Lima - and I'm not even religious, never mind Catholic....or Peruvian.
We therefore have to, in the case of our deep seated fears of nuclear - and the aforementioned romance with renewable s - cast asides our yearnings (for what can realistically never be) and look our destinies directly in the eyes. Just like we do every time we step onto an aeroplane. There is a 99.9999% chance we will make it to the beach idyll promised in the holiday brochure, the same chance we will make it to see Granny Dorothy's for her 80th birthday and the same again to attend the business seminar at company HQ. However, there is a 0.0001% chance that due to some catastrophic mid-air failure, we will spend the last 78 seconds of our lives plunging in a perpendicular nose dive at 850mph towards Earth into which we will smash with so much force as to be felt by seismology equipment 350 miles away. Despite our bodily remains having been so completely pulverised we cannot even be identified by dental records, we are still perhaps lucky, given the alternative possible outcomes where, for instance, having been unfortunate enough to have selected one of the cheaper African or South American airlines, whose attitude is possibly less concerned with maintenance and more with maximising the cargo on each flight, instead of the terrifying but ultimately quick and painless end previously described, our particular plane eventually lumbers into the air at the absolute end of the safety area beyond the actual runway, but then comes the catastrophic failure whereby the aircraft suddenly banks uncommanded to the right and the wingtip strikes the ground, tears off the wing and the fuselage then contacts, scraping along the ground at 150mph chewing and grinding all the passengers on that side to mincemeat and once stopped, overcoming nearly everyone in thick, acrid smoke and and an agonising Mediaeval death in an aviation fuel furnace. Of the 247 people on board, there is one, horribly disfigured survivor.
It may reasonably be wondered why such efforts were expended on outlining such brutality. The simple answer is that because these are the sort of dark and deep seated fears which prey on us all and which are undoubtedly at the very core of our collective objections to nuclear power. Two local panels were mentioned, I think one in the Netherlands and one in Arizona. I believe the consensus pro-nuclear ended at 60 to 70percent which I found interesting as I wondered about the 30 to 40 percent against and tried to imagine which of them didn't take the 'plane.....
Go watch planet of the humans, we are completely screwed
This is one of those videos that you wish the whole world could watch. It made so many things clear for me.
Something to think about, does this planet need to be saved I don't think so the Earth is resilient and humans are not that special and will not effect the outcome that much
Wind turbines do not kill as many birds as airplanes and chemical cloud seeding does.
the only "Green jobs" you create with this nonsense are in china.
After decades, some people are finally starting to see this, and to hear it. However, but not in opposition at all, he says "nuclear" and only mentions Uranium. Thorium, which is far, far more plentiful, promises around a thousand times higher efficiency and reactors that are inherently stable, as opposed to Uranium breeders' inherent instability and poor efficiency. I'm all for nuclear, even Uranium breeders, but what we really, really, REALLY need is to perfect the chemistry around Thorium reactors. Please support all forms of nuclear. We only get one shot at survival, and vast landfills filled with an unending supply of worn out and non-recyclable fiberglass windmill blades and photovoltaic panels, that were literally never going to meet our needs anyway...this just is NOT going to cut it! Thanks for the talk and the video!
I think a lot of people are still stuck on solar and wind hoping new battery storage will solve the intermittent issues. Over time wind and solar would probably prove to be a environmental disaster given all the glaring negative aspects of it. Having said that the money is in motion to promote solar and wind and carbon credits and a lot of people are going to get very rich in this energy paradigm shift. So renewables are likely here to stay.
Similarly, electric cars aren't the answer for fixing the environment. Certainly they don't emit as much carbon into the atmosphere (there is still some emission due to supply chain and electricity generation), but the bigger problem is that they leave behind so much needed infrastructure and electronics that will eventually be a waste-handling problem. The solution to transportation-based environmental issues is instead to work toward reducing the reliance (especially in cities) on 2 ton vehicles that are moving a single person. The US especially needs to invest much more heavily into public transportation, as this is the primary way we're going to reduce the vast amount of energy spent on transportation (whether fuel or electricity), as well as reduce all of the waste left behind in landfills.
Thank you for this info, I hope many people watch this and listen intently we are truly out of make or break right now with what's going on one bad decision can lead us down a very deep rabbit hole
Use all three technologies. Start out with sodium cooled reactors heating a common sodium pool. Have wind turbines and solar panels dump excess energy into that sodium pool and use the sodium cooled reactor to take up the slack and absorb the peaks. Use the stored energy from the common sodium pool to maintain the grid average. Don't whatabout!! it is already happening. Look up the Natrium project That Bill Gates, Terra Power, and Rocky Mountain Power are planning.
As far as wildlife goes, it has always found a way to adapt to humans as well as humans adapting to wildlife. That is why many western cities have their own self established populations of owls, night hawks, mountain lions, coyotes, deer, bears, falcons, hawks, etc. Many is the time that I personally have counted deer herds of 9 or 10 peacefully grazing the lawn next door while reading reports of lions prowling villages not more than one or two miles away while listening to coyote and owl choruses.
Oh yeah!!! By the way, sodium cooled, if done right, will consume nuclear waste. Additionally, it is walk away safe.
Well why are we still pushing plant farms that consume way too much water such as almonds, everything now is almond milk on the yogurt on this I'm in that. Get almonds need 20 times the water that strawberries and other produce need. But there's this huge push to convert everything to almond everything! I mean almonds are great they have their place but almond farms consuming that vast quantity of water and especially an area where water is so scarce really does boggle my mind I mean why are they not weighing the pros and cons, before they do these big pushes on these items there's a unit and a Yang to everything and people need to get together on these things and find that happy balance yes almonds are good however they can be bad in that circumstance. I'm sure much could be said about other agricultural items that do the same. Responsibility is key in everything responsible growing responsible agricultural responsible government responsible politics. But we don't have that. We have bandwagons that people join without doing their research. And then they want to force these things into being laws etc when they're actually harmful. Till we get a group of people that run things that are willing to make concessions when they're wrong we're never going to solve these problems and they're only going to continue to grow more out of control
Interesting video. Unfortunately there are some info that are wrong. Panels do not complete their lifecycle in 20-25 years. This is simply wrong. They continue to operate and produce energy at a very low operating costs. For nuclear, it is clear that a generation using nuclear is simply exploiting the future generations that need to deal with the waste created. As simple as that. By the way: 95% of a solar panel is recyclable; the cost of France compare to Germany is comparing two subsidized energy production, but the German ones will finish in some years, when the original subsidy will finish. Nuclear will still require a number of supports from the governments for years.
Interesting that he's wearing a Rwanda shirt. All of this climate change nonsense comes from one place. The United Nations. The IPCC narrative is junk science based off of computer models that are used in a way to present a desired result. Strictly unscientific.
The UN should have been disbanded after the Rwanda Genocide, in which it COMPLETELY FAILED IT'S STATED REASON FOR EXISTING!
It's real reason for existing is as a tool to create a centralized world government by any means necessary. And deliver all of us who are not part of the club into slavery or death.
The UN must be eradicated. THAT IS THE KEY TO A GOOD FUTURE FOR THE PLANET.
Ted I see a waste on when a nuclear reactor goes bad like Fukushima you looked at all the tanks on that property compared to a coal mining disaster or oil disaster
I have a hard time accepting facts from people who can't recognize the irrationality of their fears. How can environmentalists expect us to listen to the science on global warming while simultaneously asking us to ignore the facts about nuclear? It makes them seem like people who are not aware enough of their own biases to be able to separate facts from feelings; so even when the science is sound, the messengers are dubious.
We need to be serious about nuclear energy. Solar and wind is not going to cut it.
Unfortunately, this guy is PAID to never discuss LFTR technology, and how it is the ONLY direction to go.
How liars like this guy are hurting the environment.
Tell me Micheal: is it more dangerous to bomb a nuclear power or wind turbine?
By incidence there is a war in Ucraine. Do you think there is no problem if someone hit a nuclear power?
You and people like you are hurting the environment.
Molten Salt reactors need to be built asap. They have safe guards that won’t allow for any run away reactions inside the core of the reactor.
and to be honest , fear of "nuclear power" is a weak distraction , sensible people fear nuclear waste , and waste is inevitable
how is it possible that the pro nuclear industry is getting this propaganda on a TED talk , not only going nuclear is very non evironmetally friendly .There is already enough radiation pollution all over the world .. Economically you can trade on borrowd money , nuclear is the same it goes well until it goes wrong and than people start to jump from buildings.
We're all in this together. Nuclear is the only way out. Its adoption will depend on us winning people's hearts and minds.
No you are hurting the environment and humanity with your lying bs
Unexamined here: the role of the fossil fuel industry in spending all the decades since the 1950s systematically spreading distortions, misinformation, and scare tactics about nuclear, their only viable competitor, among environmentalists, politicians, and the general public.
“If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it.” ― Lyndon B. Johnson.
thank you! he's delivering great arguments against nuclear and Pro renewables!
But are there only confrontations of nuclear fans on Ted? Not all experts agree that nuclear power is the solution, in Italy, of the opposition to current nuclear power plants, we have Carlo Rubbia (Nobel Prize for Physics 1984) and Giorgio Parisi (Nobel Prize in Physics 2021).
nuclear waste and rotting cans have been migrating into the colorado river for decades ocean nuclear waste seeping into the oceans instead of more nuclear waste use some wasted tax money to clean old dumps,
you lying criminals , need to be in prison.
This is the most important TED of our time and the future of the planet
Thorium is for power, Uranium is for war. The use of DU in Iraq is the greatest radioactive contamination event since Chernobyl.
Like, Comment, and click Share for the algorithm 🙃
What did you think about Nuclear BEFORE this video, and has this video changed your opinion?
It's by its nature very dangerous we just had a big disaster in Fukushima our kids will suffer thyroid broblems for years .comparing dangers is just lying its dangerous it will be compared to a banana wtf you guys are ill equipped to understand risk
No CO2 in the world and all Dictatorships with nuclear industries.?????
Nuclear winter is very cold.
Now that's climate change.
Nuclear energy is like having a tiger by the tail. Even shutting down all of the reactors would leave the waste.
EPA: "the time it will take for the radioactive material to decay will range from a few hours to hundreds of thousands of years."
Unfair comparison between radiation doses from various sources. Nuclear radiation is in ADDITION to all those other sources.
In 1938 how could they possibly know of the existence of neutrons........or even atoms? No electron microscope. How could they possibly know? For that matter, when they lit off the first nuclear bomb, how could they possibly know the scale of the thing? For all they knew they were going to turn the entire Earth into a bomb. What if the chain reaction never stopped?
I learned this from Galen Winsor
Every kWh we consume from nuclear energy is a kWh less for a nuke.
“A great start would be to look at the climate draft by John Kerry and AOC.”
Aaaaand you lost me.
I detect homosexuality
Nuclear energy is the best way of making our planet pollution free
Those cooling towers are a lot bigger than you think, I had to deliver some security parts there.
You can't be for the environment and against nuclear power.
Really??? Only 51 deaths in Chernobyl ? Honestly.
My great grandfather, Eldon, was one of the designers of the reactor at 3 mile island. He ended up co-authoring a short come-back book called "We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit", in response to the article "We Almost Lost Detroit". The craze was crazy during those times.
Well you can die, trip, choke and suffocate on a broomstick, while cleaning your home. This doesn't mean I want to remove road safely because cleaning my house is more dangerous than crossing the street.
And as we saw in this video, nuclear power, this awesome interaction in atoms that releases energy for us to be able to use, we use to heat up water. To generate steam. To turn a turbine. It's a steam engine, with an alternative fuel source. We have solar panels that can do electricity without water and turbines. Maybe if they think about ways to harvest the energy more directly, we could power the world with way less power plants and they could have less moving parts, can be smaller and produce way less waste for the same amount of energy. I'm against nuclear power, at least with how it works right now.
Bullshit only 51 people died from Chernobyl
Actually they use high voltage controlled high current in water steam and high voltage can be collected from solar farm so if high tramerature can be controlled by distance between the two array of poles until temperature cold down then the distance reduced down to increase temperature again but a clearance safety should never cross or melt down result
How much money did you get to make this video?
You can skew the numbers poo poo the nuclear disasters but the facts speak for themselves. If and when an accident happens one like Chernobyl for instance it will be an estimated 20,000 years before anyone can even live close to the reactor , for now there is an 1000 square mile exclusion zone where you cannot live. Then you have the nuclear waste. Nuclear power is kind of like owning a mountain lion you can have it declawed but it still has it's teeth.
ngl, I found among us among us