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. ►► kgs.link/shop-140 (Worldwide Shipping Available)
I have a profound respect for Kurzgesagt. They put an enormous amount of time into research and animating their videos, try to make scientific topics as simple to understand as possible, and treat their viewers with a lot of respect. The Earth mug I bought from them hasn't had any paint come off even though I've been dishwashing it for a year, definitely not a cheap product. Of all the TH-cam merch I've gotten, I think theirs is the highest quality (just barely beating out LTT). They could have just kept with patreon alone or gone with a cheaper producer, but they genuinely care. I'm happy that there are actually content producers who just want to educate the world and make the world better. As soon as I get a paycheck I am going to put a good amount of money into their patreon per month.
They really put a ton of research in their content. They actually inspired me for my channeI.The information they produce is really accurate because they know that even the slight incorrection can lead to millions of people being misinformed. Wish I could be as good as them one day
We should invest more in space technology as it might be the only solution for finding alternative source of energy in the future. Space researched could help a lot in the prospects. There's already a nagging idea of propelling Helium-3 which could honestly a good replacement of fossil fuels. This energy resource could be found on the Moon. Another idea is getting unlimited energy from the Sun using satellite panels and could remotely send energy back to Earth. There was something that Nikolas Tesla proposed to get electricity as safe and cleaner but he died before his idea was struck on the next generations. Either way, mankind should really get their heads out of the ground and look for ways as not doing anything would turn out future into the stuff of nightmare for our future generations to experienced.
18 years* Edit: Proud to be one of the first to reply to this comment. I will always have a space to edit my reply once again and anyone who clicks reply will see it. That’s a cool thing to think about.
There was a fully functioning power plant in my hometown. Twenty years ago they decided not to open it because of evacuation concerns. We're still paying exorbitant electric prices as a result. Fear over innovation is one of the few things that genuinely infuriates me.
same here. Fully functional power plant got 40y.o., and because of protests saying "end of life" it has been shut down. Absolutely speechless. For those unaware, picture this: would you throw you TV away because the warranty expired? No, of course not! Same thing, except that power plants keep up with regulations and are constantly being made safer, repaired and checked. So, it would be like having a TV, having a repairman over every 3months, after 2y he tells you it's in perfect condition but you still trash it because the warranty expired.
@@LilliHerveau And add on a billion dollar price tag. I talk to my parents about nuclear, and they're convinced that Nuclear isn't good because it's "not safe." Nuclear is literally the safest energy source currently.
@intercontinental ballistic depression bro, the mfs and chernobyls were literal monkeys they pulled out all safety rods so they'd get max power and put graphene tips instead of normal ones to get even more, then they didnt even have any communication saying they're monkeys is actually a compliment , monkeys could have done better
This chanel is amazing. - we learn - we understand - we appreciate - we get entertained This is not youtube at this point. This is art. Thanks to the team behind the scenes and everyone that donate to this chanel to contribute to what we can see today.
Kurzgesagt is easily one of the best channels on this platform: • complicated subjects are simplified • we get entertainment • never clickbaits • puts in effort and it’s amazing • amazing animations This channel will never disappoint me.
Is that the fear of radiation? Which radiation? Solar radiation? Nuclear radiation? Ultra Violet radiation? All those other radiations I don't know about?
No, the biggest threats are special interest groups and oil companies that are paying off politicians to have regulation and zoning laws changed to make it harder for nuclear and renewable to be built.
@Dana Durnford Try checking out the modern, more compact reactor designs that can't meltdown in big cataclysmic fashion, unlike the older plants of yesteryear that we mostly have employed
Fun fact, the word nuclear was removed from the term magnetic ressonance (it used to be magnetic nuclear ressonance) because people were afraid of doing it due to the conection to "nuclear"
Well, some people are also more afraid of taking flight by airplane than walking on the street. Extremely low chance of accidents, but that one accident might be enormous, so they are more exaggerated than they should be.
@@rpdlatk like for instance chernoblyl it was big but they already made a housing around the reactor and i think imo if they have good maintenece(dono how to spel) it sould be good and have fail switches
The thing is, while walking across the street I have some sort of control about the situation and can watch for myself. Also a reactor meltdown causes much bigger problems for a lot more people. I live in the most dense populated area of europe and if this area became uninhabitable by a nuclear failure, there would be somewhere between 6 and 8 million people loosing their homes.
Community subtitles are sadly dead. TH-cam killed them. Translators and Kurzgesagt now need to manually work together for the translations. This will, of course, take longer this way.
Josef Rinderer I love how at 0:19 you said, "So who's right?.. Well, it's complicated..." In today's society where discussions are driven by pro-this, anti-that. It's so refreshing to hear nuance being introduced into the conversation. I don't think people even know what nuance means anymore. So thank you.
Polarization is a dangerous thing and ideology is one hell of a drug. I'm happy to see there are still at least a few people that know that everything doesn't have to be black or white
@@The_Oddon The sun does not create hundreds of radioactive isotopes and put them into the food chain. Radioactivity causes cancer and birth defects. Don't pee in the gene pool.
As a scientist who studies this kind of thing, this is really well explained! I have a similar opinion to you, and many of the scientists in my lab do as well. If we are going to start to fix climate change for real, we need to use everything we have. On the actual facts, I might start using this video to teach my students, as It's really hard to explain this issue and this video does it really well!
Consider the following thought experiment: You have two technologies. Technology (A) costs 100 € for every MWh it produces. Technology (B) costs 150 € for every MWh produced. For every unit of technology you construct you can decide whether you use (A) or (B). Is there any scenario where you would use a mix of both technologies? EDIT: regarding lordcirth's comment: I assume that you agree with me, that anybody would choose technology (A). Now, you're rightfully said so, that if we add new constraints to these technologies we might decide differently. We have now two other technologies: A grid powered by Nuclear power, which costs today around 100 €/MWh* and the other one is a grid that is powered by wind, solar, power-to-gas, batteries and pump-storage, which will costs around 60 €/MWh by 2050**. Both technologies are similarly reliable, though nuclear has still the (very) small risk to cause significant harm. You can combine these technologies, but they don't complete each other. Would you rather choose technology (A) or technology (B)? * Lazard LCOE 2020 ** Bogdanov et al. "Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps"
what nobody talks about is waste heat. nuclear is one of the least thermally efficient method of power production. if we keep increasing our electricity consumption then we are going to keep increasing our thermal output. aside from solar all forms of generating electricity produce waste heat. all forms of consuming electricity produce waste heat. you can equate watts to BTU/hr. it would probably be more wise to look at efficiencies, on both the generation and consumption sides rather than the source of generation.
i expect no less from the kurzgesagt team, but keeping facts and opinions separated and clearly delineated is absolutely crucial in discussions like these. massive props for doing it and doing it well
Climate change has and always will exist. The whole AGW narrative is absolute horse shit. We had 20 times more Co2 in the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years and life flourished and the Earth was green and temperate from pole to pole. Isn't it strange that suddenly we are in a century out of billions of years where the Earth climate is supposedly at absolute optimum with polar ice caps in an interglacial period? Who decided that the 21st century out of thousands of life giving centuries was the perfect one for Earth climate that needed to be preserved for evermore? It is one big joke when you look into it properly but it gets much worse when you look into the agenda behind it. Despite the fact warmest were claiming the Earth will die within a decade because of runaway warming, the same people who said the Arctic sea ice would have melted by the end of the last decade, the UN never saw fit to put restraints on the worlds biggest polluter China and left them exempt of all the industry busting carbon taxes and economy busting green regulations they put on Western nations. Now China accounts for more Co2 emissions than the whole of Europe and US put together and while the West suffered the preplanned UN agenda 21 deindustrialisation, China boomed as the global elite who fund the UN think tanks that come up with these agendas all moved their finance and industry there and made trillions from using cheap dirty energy and child labour. That made just a handful of people responsible so much money that they now own almost 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth between them (Oxfam 2017 report) So when I see poor puppet Greta and extinction rebellion demanding zero emissions in London and Bozo the globalist stooge obliging even as the UK economy reels under his nefarious lockdown policies I have to laugh because Co2 makes up just 0.035% of atmosphere and of that only about 3% is man made (0.001%) and Britain's contribution to that just 1% of that which is 0.00001% of atmosphere. That means if Britain had zero emissions tomorrow atmospheric Co2 would be reduced from 0.035% to 0.03499% or by 100/1000th of 1% over decades if not centuries.
@@Muckylittleme The whole idea that what is happening is “normal” is absolute horse shit. What you’re talking about is the earth’s climate naturally changing over millions of years, this is happening over a few decades. Also, what you talk about with there having been “better climates” before this current one is complete nonsense. I don’t know if it escaped your notice, but humans weren’t alive in the time of the dinosaurs. We are adapted to live in our current climate, and not just biologically but socially as well. As a species we can only cope with so much flooding, so much drought. We can’t just continue destroying the planet and convince ourselves it’s not our fault.
@Dan Brown Oh dear, there is so much here that I hardly know where to begin. Has climate change always existed? Yes, of course it has. Nobody is suggesting that the climate is stationary. Has atmospheric conditions and the climate ever changed this rapidly and continuously in recent history? Not as far as I know, and we're going to continue suffering as a result. Every time earth has faced sudden climate changes in the past, be it from large asteroids or volcanic eruptions, mass death followed. Earth will obviously continue to be fine, but life will definitely be less enjoyable and more full of suffering if we continue on this path of self-indulgence without care for what we do to the world. Of course the climate is changing, but when it's changing this rapidly things don't adapt well. Is China producing a lot of CO2? Yes, and they should be doing their best to limit it. But, like videos this channel has covered in the pass on who is responsible, the west has also polluted more if you look at history. Overall, it should be irrelevant who gets the blame because blaming people will get us nowhere. Everyone should be doing the best they can to prevent further damage. China is definitely far from perfect, from their pollution to disregard for freedoms, but pointing to them and saying "we should be polluting to" is a terrible mindset. Everyone should be striving to be better. And then there's this weird idea of some globalist conspiracy about climate change... what? Ah yes, large fossil fuel producing countries and extremely large and wealthy oil companies couldn't have been contributing to any kind of conspiracy against the idea of global warming, it must be those thousands of scientists and activists who want to destroy us, that definitely makes sense... No matter how you look at it, it makes sense to strive for a future where we mitigate extreme climate change. The overwhelming majority of economists agree that investing in a zero carbon future makes sense given the extreme costs in damages we would face in the future if we don't. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that rapid climate change is an issue. Has there been hyperbole in the past? Yes. Have there been incorrect predictions made in the past? Also yes. We need to keep researching and discovering more about how everything is being affected. The entire globe is an extremely complicated ecosystem and when something as big as these atmospheric changes we've been inducing these centuries comes along the effects on the system are numerous in ways that we may not know yet. TL:DR: Yes, modern western countries like those in Europe are not contributing as much CO2 in the present as more developing countries, but they have historically contributed more. Does this really matter at the moment? I don't think so. We should all be striving to be better, not worse. The world's ecosystem is extremely complicated with everything interacting with everything else that we might not know what the effects are yet. A global conspiracy that climate change is fake makes literally no sense and is like saying that the moon landing was faked. Even if you ignore climate change, going neutral means less pollution in the places that we live, and I like not breathing in poison. Mitigating extreme climate change is in our own best interests in terms of economics and our future well-being. It's cheaper to put out the stove fire than letting it burn down the entire house.
@@Zosu22 ya know, on a platform where its so easy to just insult someone you disagree with, i really appreciate the calm and collected response. i applaud you, whoever you may be.
@@henrybarber288 But it isn't happening over a few decades, that is the debunked hockey stick. You have to look at all the data not just cherry pick the data that pushes your agenda. And regardless there have been bigger changes over shorter periods both warming and cooling. It has clearly escaped your notice that Earth climate is no the same around the globe and mankind survives perfectly well from Africa to Arctic. The Cambrian period had 20 times more Co2 in the atmosphere than now and it was Earths most productive time for diversity of life because it was temperate from pole to pole as I said. And what makes you think this climate is more suitable to man that that? Much more of the Earth is inhospitable now and it is far less green. But then we all know the AGW agenda is anti human not pro human though they do rather favour polar bears for some reason, which by the way are thriving. Listen, environmentalism is no bad thing so long as it is based in reality and actually about the environment. Anti pollution benefits plant and animal alike. But that is not what AGW policies are about as I explained. They are about making very rich and powerful people even richer and more powerful while their puppet celebrities parade around telling you not to eat meat to save the planet while they fly their private and collect mansions and live in opulence with a carbon footprint that is a thousand times higher than yours or mine. So how about, if you really believe this is a crisis, you get all the richest people in the world who are behind the agenda to give up all their luxuries before we start eating insects to save the planet? Surely they would have no issue with it given they are the ones who tell us the Earth is on fire. And "we" are not destroying the planet, at least I know I'm not, I don't even drive a car. The people doing any damage and polluting are the same people behind the AGW agenda, the same people who made trillions in China and had them build thousands of new dirty coal plants to fuel their industry while our clean burning plants were shutdown by their mandates. If nothing else, take a look at the hypocrisy of those who fund the eco-fascists and anarcho-communists and ask how their AGW policies make any sense except for keeping us poor while they get to mop the last remaining wealth.
This is interesting as it appears to follow intended route of the mind when listening to duke saying this. Allow me to elaborate duke here is implied to have some kind of knowledge that we ourselves our withheld further implying that we don't ourselves know because of the phrase "but I won't tell you" This is an act often replicated by people in the 1st - 4th grade as they have had less experience and are more likely to tell lies about their knowledge. This is humorous because the final implication is that duke nukem is a child. Over all this comment is funny for explaining the joke just like the comment above which explains the joke to the audience who can almost certainly see fot themselves.
The problem is that we have constructed this idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion on everything and that their opinion is just as valuable as that of the experts.
@@demoniack81 The problem is that as soon as you make the opinions of the experts so valuable that the common man has no input, well, the position of the 'expert' becomes compromised. It becomes a position that people pursue (or PURCHASE) in order to gain power, rather than just to contribute to the world and society. Suddenly the 'experts' are a de facto dictatorship. The more centralized the power, the faster that power becomes corrupted. But even if power in society isn't centralized at first, it WILL become centralized, whether the general populace knows about it or not.
Note: Japan has shut down its nuclear plants since 2011 due to Fukushima disaster. Now they are reopening them and even plan to build new nuclear plants.
@@AileTheAlien Well if the activists wouldn't scream wolf about nuklear meltdowns and tragedies in a country where there was only one case in wich no one died or got heavily injured, they might be able to build more nuklear. And no, renewable energy in a country wich has earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis with heavy spikes in temperature each year are not an good option. You need a backup plan, look at Texas this winter.
@@zUJ7EjVD The Wind turbines also froze, making them unable to move. The Nuklear power plant was shut off for security reasons and online in unter one hour, wich can't be said for other power sources. And I agree that not all places in the US are subject to the same environmental threat, but you would still have to destroy a metric fuckton of land to make it usable for solar, had a lot of land disfigured by Wind Turbines and would threaten the living space of a lot of animals. Nevermind that an interconnected power grid within the US is a mammoth project wich will, again, destroy a lot of land and would take more years to finish then building Nuklear plants would. Nevermind that if one of these lines would get damaged, thud cutting the connection or leaking electricity, good luck finding that spot.
they do that in most of their videos actually, but this time was far more explicit then usual. most of the time they have the duck in the corner holding an 'opinion' sign or just show to title slide more briefly.
There are so many things that depict nuclear power plants as extremely dangerous, such as the series Chernobyl. But that stops people from realising how safe these power plants actually are
@@scottmatheson3346 Still safer than something that isn't safe and can be made worse by being subjected to the fullness of human depravity (cough, that one dude who decided to add lead into fuel).
It's funny though those other solutions are alot cheaper in my state we have a huge over budget over time nuclear plant idk why we don't switch to solar completely considering they have gotten so cheap
@@olegoleg258 in the debate between renewables v fossil fuels, Nuclear energy is often left out of the debate due to the past fears of the technology, the metaphor shows that nuclear energy working in tandem with the other renewables, climate change would be pushed back by their combined effort.
I love how at 0:19 you said, "So who's right?.. Well, it's complicated..." In today's society where discussions are driven by pro-this, anti-that. It's so refreshing to hear nuance being introduced into the conversation. I don't think people even know what nuance means anymore. So thank you.
Don't stress, Germany is buying electricity from french nuclear reactor thanks to the european inter connected grid ... So Germany still kind of is a nuclear power 😂
And in France Ecologists that grow in popularity want to shut down our nuclear centrals... perhaps there is other priorities right now. And batteries used for renewal energy isn't eco friendly.
i just wanna say i really love how you guys personified nuclear and renewable energy. like actual people, trying to fight the big smoke monster. never change :)
This is a great comparison. So many people are excessively scared of "what if?" scenarios, but the truth is that they're so well regulated and contained that they're far safer than anything else we have.
This is a dispute I frankly don't know enough about to take a qualified standpoint on, at least until now, so thanks for making videos that explain the topic so concisely. I guess I should also watch your video about the worst nuclear accidents in human history. As usual I also think your videos are worth watching for the animation and aesthetics alone - extremely inventive and colourful with a great sense of humour. I appreciate these because I paint in my spare time, and I constantly get new ideas when watching them.
Reforcing your undertanding of actually important things in the world rather than wasting time learning very likely pointless things which you will also likely forget is way more important.
@@hape3862 Doesn't matter. They could be funded by any source but didn't have to put a deliberate opinion section. What does being funded by anyone have anything to do with that?
It works in France because France is connected by land to the whole of Eurasia and can flexibly transmit electricity in and out the country. It is still cool though:)
Well they were not built for this purpose at all, but thanks to them we are indeed one of the cleanest country and people start to slowly realize it. Unfortunately there is our retarded """"ecologist"""" party, which spreads anti-scientific bullshit on nuclear energy. They weigh only 5%, but this is enough leverage for politicians who don't care about science or long term (so all of them, Hollande, Macron, Mélenchon...) to try and reduce the share of nuclear in our electrical mix in order to grab those 5%. Sad to see, although it's starting to very slowly move in the right direction (for example Mélenchon was heavily criticized when he told that he would close nuclear plants and invent some magical science-fiction energy to replace it).
Nuclear energy was a legitimate threat to the fossil fuel industry so companies campaigned hard to make it look like the most horrible thing ever, taking advantage of the fact that the most common nuclear reactor designs produce materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. Combine that with what happened at Chernobyl and it wasn't very difficult to convince the population that nuclear energy is too dangerous. Younger generations are more willing to give nuclear energy a chance, but the older generations which lived through the Cold War are still clinging to the idea that nuclear must be avoided at all costs.
@@filipwolffs funny thing is this isn’t the only propaganda and lobbying. all sorts of companies of every sector which has caused a regression in the progression of humanity and all sorts of funny quirks like why Americas infrastructure is all car based and built around cars instead of people causing a nice twisted knife into its back from its dependence on such inefficient paradigms like suburban sprawl.
Stupidity. People look at objectively the safest, cleanest and most reliable form of energy and somehow convince themselves it is the opposite of those things. sometimes we just need to plow forward regardless of who is in the way, because the alternative is allowing tens of millions of people to die.
@@cageybee7221 nuclear waste is actually a good thing because while other energy sources pollute into the atmosphere (fossil fuel) or Solar the supposedly “clean energy source” which generates thousands of tons of waste that’s just shipped to Africa because it’s to expensive to recycle and then there’s nuclear which can easily be contained in hyper protected barrels
I have a profound respect for Kurzgesagt. They put an enormous amount of time into research and animating their videos, try to make scientific topics as simple to understand as possible, and treat their viewers with a lot of respect.
This is a very controversial topic. Usually the left is for renewables, the right is for nuclear. I'm left, but I see nuke as a potential friend anyway. People are too rigid in their thinking sometimes
@@irthlingz just as renewables industries work really hard to stop nuclear emergence nowadays. A lot of green organisations demonize every aspect of nuclear and spread a lot of fear and misinformation about nuclear power.
Absolutely. I am definitely in the pro-nuclear camp but there's a lot to be said for having local distributed sources of electricity generated by renewable clean sources, not just to add to the baseline source nuclear can handle but also for resiliency against the increasing extreme weather events we're going through (being in California and seeing all the wildfires each year getting worse and worse, our electrical grid cannot cope). Transmission line losses alone are enough to argue that while we can't entirely rely on renewables, generating more electricity locally through city or even neighborhood-centric grids lets us reduce those by quite a bit.
The easter eggs scattered throughout these videos works wonders for making them seem more genuine and present than many other educational videos I've seen before. I can't believe there's such deliberate stuff like Sekiro in an educational science short.
Before watching this I'm going to add my thoughts as someone who as worked in environmental conservation science for more than 12 years. Nuclear is our only real option. I did a study several years ago on the impact of various energy production methods using NYC as a base To power NYC with solar using current technology you would need to cover an area 15x the size of Manhattan Island with solar panels. Just to keep it powered during the day. To provide enough charge to last over night you'd need to double that... To provide enough to charge backup batteries for 7 days (the minimum requirement to prevent brownouts) you would need to cover an area 45x that of Manhatten island. To do the same with wind you would have to cover an area about the same which would have to be cleared of any tall trees. The consequence of this is for the solar panels you have to replace them every 20 years, the disposal of which releases a lot of toxic heavy metals into landfills and by extension ground water as they can not be recycled. And the production of new panels produces a lot of toxic run off. Wind turbine have to be replaced every 25 years and again due to composite construction can't really be recycled. On top of this wind turbines require huge blocks of concrete 30m (about 100ft) on a side and rebar set into the ground the production of which produces more CO² than the wind turbine counteracts in it's 25 years. Then we come to the batteries. To power a city that size would require 40,000 shipping containers worth of lithium batteries which have to be replaced every 2 years, and if they were to suffer thermal runaway or get damaged due to accident, nature or an attack... Would have the explosive potential of 40 kilotons of TNT. Nuclear by comparison would cover an area 1/2 the size of Manhattan island, (including spent fuel pools, fuel storage etc) would last at least 50 years and produce a fraction of waste (if the fuel rods are reprocessed the amount of waste each year would fill a coffee cup... Less if you extract the useful isotopes such as Americum used in smoke alarms, and isotopes used in x-ray tubes) Edit: one point, nuclear is renewable... If you have the right set up of reactor types. With current technology a fuel cycle using burner and breeder reactors is 90% efficient at recycling fuels. But that's really a moot point as based on current energy usage and projected usage, we have enough fissile material for 1000 years. Which if we include fertile isotopes from using that material and put it in a closed fuel cycle we can make that last 10,000 years. For comparison the pyramids at Giza were built 5000 years ago)
Thanks for your comment, you make so much sense & with data & computations --- so much better than these climate nuts running around screaming "we need renewables" which don't exist in reality. Nuclear is the only way to go & not for trying to change the climate, it just makes so much sense since it will take much pressure off oil & gas on which the world runs.
This is exactly why I am so dissapointed, angered even, that the Green Parties, those who'd supposed to be the surest bet to combat climate change, disregard nuclear power altogether.
It's populism and politics coming from a place of ignorance. It's the same thing with GMOs, for instance. People look at the words "genetic" or "nuclear" and understandably have their concerns, we can't reasonably expect the average person to be knowledgeable about advanced scientific topics. Politicians will either blindly pander to these concerns or have them themselves. The difference is that a politician should be knowledgeable about a topic if they are to give their opinion and vote on it, and always regard scientific evidence over their own premade opinions. And that's not even going into the subject of lobbies. It's unfortunate how leaders worldwide are so easily swayed and corrupted and it's no wonder people are feeling ever more sepparated from politics.
Actually there are members of such organisations who are now advocating the use of nuclear, for precisely the reasons shown in this video. Including an ex-leader of one.
@@jeffjests2764 wait until they realize that coal plants expose people to more radiation than nuclear power plants do, and that a banana will give you more radiation than a power plant will in a year. No joke, a nuclear power plant’s radiation release rate is about 0.9 bananas/year.
Hi , Kurzgesagt . I would like to thank you all, from the deep of my heart, today we had a final day of(MODULE) IAEA and because of your research we proposed your idea and made a resolution, and me myself got an award of the best Diplomat , thank you❤❤❤
not to mention the waste eventually becomes safe. Fossil Fuels' Pollution has no half-life, it's in the environment FOREVER. not just a really long time, but ALL OF ETERNITY.
In this channel, knowledge that is considered difficult to learn and only belongs to a handful of people becomes easy to understand..the best .. this channel is my inspiration
@@whatinxxxtarnation4728 + Whoa Witty response brah... You stay up all night comin up with that one? Clever bastard .. I got nothin , you win .. your so smart brah!
@@VV-ck7hw *lol* oh boy thanks for showing us how smart you are by talking about "fizz in soda". Guess experiments about light-absortpion by gases are all false and all observations about the heating planet with almost constant influential factors EXCEPT manmade greenhouse gases are all wrong. Let's all listen to the guy who talks about "smart" while using terms like "global whining", while he whines about how everyone is soooo stupid...
The problem with electric / batteries is that creating the batteries is very bad for the environment, not to mention how batteries wear out over time. The next few generations are really going to matter the most if we as the human race want to survive.
Not to mention gasoline is 30x as energy dense as lithium ion batteries. (I can't remember the exact statistic, but Engineering Explained made a great video about it)
This is only if you compare the battery to not building a battery. If you were to compare the environmental impact of a battery cell compared to say a CPU, a coffee machine or an iPhone, the battery is the lesser concern. Plastics, Silicon, Resin, Copper, Auminiiiiium (fuck people that say Aluminum) all has to come from somewhere. Nobody gave a shit how stuff was made, but once someone wants to make you think about combatting climate change while not loosing too much comfort, people take every hint of a potential flaw and make a fuss of it instead of compromising on a slightly less wasteful solution.
@@VulpeculaJoy an additional issue that doesn't seem to raise eyebrows more often; the environmental impact (re fossil fuels) is grim, another valid concern is the 'non renewable' of non renewables (across human lifespan) would be great to shift over to protect the environment meets needs to be done if we wish to maintain our current lifestyle in the not so distant future
@@mitchjames9350 A lot less toxic and cheaper to produce and maintain than nuclear or gas/coal. Do you even know how many tons of concrete and steel it takes to build a traditional power plant and how bad the environmental impact is? There area already projects that aim to recycle the fiberglass within the wings of old wind turbines. You gotta get your power somehow, otherwise, the best thing for nature is for us humans to return to hunting and gathering. I figure you don't want to get rid of your PC though to write stupid comments on the internet, so that's not an option.
In France we use a lot of Nuclear energy (≈70%). In the past this energy had a very bad reputation due to politics & media but nowaday it become more popular thanks to popularizer like you so thanks you !! ♥️♥️♥️
Don't fret! Believe it or not... the majority of the nuclear community (here in the U.S. at least) is rooting for you! Don't let the media, or other countries, dictate the sovereignty of France! Keep trusting the science🤙
I heard France and Germany are actually closing nuclear power plants and switching to biomass. This is why climate change goals Will never be achieved.
@@AureliusNovusius Yeah, no. Germany will shut down all nuclear reactors by the end of 2022. France on the other side will do the opposite. As a German myself, I'm pro nuclear in general if it's done right and so I'm a bit sad about that.
I still love the fact that you made this video. Thank you so much. This helped and will _continue_ helping. Opposition to nuclear _is_ irrational in the face of climate change.
how rational is this?? How about the REALITY for the last 4 state of the art ADVANCED new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@scottmatheson3346 Do you want a localized disaster every few decades? Or would you like a major mass extinction bad enough to make the space rock that murked the dinos look like a pinprick? Yes, we're in the kind of situation where we have to make this choice. I choose option one.
So Nuclear Man, Lady Hydro, Solarbot and Lord Robowind have to combine their unique abilities to defend the world against Polution Master and his fearsome Thanos Snap
So balanced that CO2, an odorless, tasteless gas is consistently portrayed as a purple, gaseous monster with an evil grin. And that is only one of the examples. Watch this video again and you can find two or three more, depending on your inclination. The channel makes good content, but please do not kid yourself. These people are just as biased as is everybody else.
@Alexander Kale Because it’s bad... large amounts of greenhouse gases are not what life on earth is used to, and is changing ecosystems, killing millions on millions... I don’t know what your argument is honestly. Is it about methane? That is a good argument, but large amounts of co2 emissions is still a bad thing.
@@Alexander_Kale but the burning of fossil fuels is objectively destroying the planet at an overwhelming rate. Not treating is as worse than nuclear or renewables is trying to create a "balanced debate" for the sake of balance. Not everything has to be balanced if one of the options is objectively the worst.
@@Alexander_Kale This is not bias or opinion, it's drawing obvious conclusions from the research. Fossil fuels are 100x worse than their alternatives, even at scale. CO2 is causing climate change and could potentially deface the planet. Even if you somehow disagree with the indirect logic that CO2 in the atmosphere is what causes climate change, then there's also direct proof that it acidifies oceans and kills its ecosystems, as well as burning fossil fuels causes 4.2 million deaths a year with its fine particle pollution.
Since coal, thousands of accidents that kill people have occurred in mining it. The largest problem with nuclear is the negative view of it, we’ve only known the destructive scale of the atom. And not that since nuclear generation, there’s been enough accidents to count on your hands, with Uranium to be exact. It’s going to be Thorium reactors that change the future.
Electric vehicles wont help if were just continuing to burn fossil fuels to charge them. The reason nuclear plants are so expensive are because theyre all custom built, theres a thing called economy of scale. If we were to make every reactor the same they would be easy and cheap to mass produce. Another issue are all the old people saying climate change isnt real.
I really don't know how Kurzgesagt are able to keep working and producing such amazing videos. The whole world seems to be falling apart and yet they keep releasing videos according to their schedule. I respect you a lot for that. Thanks for the amazing content you continously bring to us.
@@aquilazyy1125 its sekiro, one of the hardest games that have been released in recent times. By hard I mean there is only one difficulty setting and the enemy Ai is rutheless, I think you get my idea. I platinumed Seekiro on the Ps4 (broke a controller in the process while fighting against OWL. The image on the monitor @1:45 is that of Sekiro the protagonist.
Kurzgesagt, you should really start a podcast! It would be great knowing that I could take a run and listen to your calming voice talk about how we could terraform Venus, or nuke a city!
It’s also good because we can learn with our own FREE WILL! Plus when you want to learn something, you learn it with care while schools shove it down and lessen the fun with homework, tests, and essays
So glad Kurzgesagt finally made a stand on the topic. Word of advice-don't be afraid to voice your opinion on a topic as impactful as this. You're very well respected and (most) people will react with new consideration not a dismissal of your opinion. Go nuclear
The only nuclear that I support is the expanded use of breeder reactors to make use of nuclear waste and thus reduce the burden we leave for future generations. If breeder reactors weren't feared for their ability to produce weapons grade nuclear fuel we'd have less than 1% of the waste we do now. That means that if we USE the waste we have we could easily get through another century or more building new plants that decrease our nuclear stockpiles. Unfortunately, when people say "go nuclear" they really mean to continue as we have been. Mine more fuel from the Earth? Create more waste? That's not green, unless you mean the characteristic green glow of an alpha particles falling down to it's original energy levels. No, we are borrowing from future generations to satisfy our own green. We are expecting future generations to care for our garbage for longer than human civilization has existed and people really think that's green? That's just sad.
The main reason Germany is getting rid of their nuclear power is to not repeat Japan's Fukishima disaster. They announced getting rid of them about a month after that happened.
I've always had concerns about nuclear energy, and specially regarding its waste. But Kurzgesagt has singlehandedly managed to change my views on nuclear power, to the point where I no longer consider it unviable. And for that, I thank thee.
@@fish9468 If you use current technology, maybe. If you use fourth generation reactors, surely not. And even with current technology, it seems for China, Russia, India and Korea it's actually quite viable...
@@fish9468 maybe we should start upgrading or replacing these nuclear power stations... enough with the demonization of nuclear. It's unviable because we're maintaining old crap...
@@fish9468 (not to mention that deciding on our energy generation mix by only looking at one single plant project is not exactly rational, maybe we could also take into account the other aprox. 440 nuclear plants throughout the world that are, in fact, economically viable...)
@@alexmaddox8307 I don't think it was the internet, it was probably because he felt like shit. When I had the flu I felt so bad that I didn't have the attention to watch videos.
Plane crashes are unspeakable tragedies that have taken more lives than nuclear ever has and yet we didn't abandon flying. We came together looked at the crashes decided what needs to be fixed and what needs to happen to stop anything like it from happening again. It's possible for us to work around potentially dangerous outcomes of using technologies if we give it some effort. No one knows about the time a cargo door latch failed on two different planes which killed 346 people, but everyone knows Chernobyl even though less than 100 died directly from it. Poor engineering and maintenance is what takes lives, not radiation.
Fun fact: If you excluded every plane crash fatality that was on the plane, you'd STILL have more deaths than the entire history of commercial nuclear power.
Seriously, how can a team create so well researched scientific video essays and still make them this wholesome? Every single time I watch your videos, at some point I get cuteness overload from the animated ducks!
It's still lack some obvious arguments like "we only have enough uranium to sustain a clean world for only a century (100% nuclear electricity production), just enough time to figure out a real sustainable, unlimited and clean source". We have more fossil fuel than uranium sadly. You need those crucial informations to figure out a plan and give orientation to next investments. Sadly a century is a human lifetime, so no one think about the children in current equation.
@@Elviloh uranium isn't the only nuclear fuel, there are also reactors being built that use the waste products of current nuclear reactors, also if asteroid mining become a thing, then the uranium problem may not be so bad
@@Elviloh What about thorium, fuel breeding and reprocessing spent fuel? The video did briefly mention breeding and reprocessing. 100% nuclear isn't practical, though you may be only using that figure illustratively, so the life of nuclear fission can be extended far beyond "about a century" which makes planning for the future a bit easier. Unfortunately that planning usually crosses politicians who are mostly incompetent and self serving
@@ivanlol7153 The best part is when multiple videos utilize the same leitmotifs. My favorite is the Dyson Sphere's motif, which plays whenever they mention it in other videos, it's just incredible (notable appearances in Stellar Engine and Alien Scale)
Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
Nuclear , Geothermal and Hydro (where possible) are the best alternatives to coal (and oil) which are constantly reliable I think, while I love solar power myself it is costly to develop a reliable storage for it though an 1GWh battery storage could save enough energy for a smaller city or town safely it'd be very costly to build. I think new generation nuclear power plants will be even more safer and efficient than they are now while new generation geothermal plants will be much more efficient. I think we can all agree that coal and oil plants should be the enemy whenever someone supports nuclear/solar/wind/etc energy.
@@alabamaaa7245 Too easy to conflate it with nuclear weapons, and somehow people got it in their heads that radiation was some infinitely deadly invisible force of doom. They tend to forget that every time they step out their front door they're walking out under the system's largest un-shielded fusion reactor. So yeah, it's not great for you, but your body is meant to deal with small scale exposure to radiation on a daily basis. Barring direct exposure to heavily irradiated materials, radiation is just a minor risk factor in your day to day life.
@@alabamaaa7245 my.most likely bet is because of. Chernobyl (sorry if spelled it wrong) and fukushima (again sorry) this causes panic and fear. But they were the best option to fight climate change
The corps love oil money. Marketed nuclear as evil. Things with an imagined system of goals (i.e. economy) is a funnel for the top; utilitarianism is a corpse to be pecked. Although the distinction between imaginery and practical is blurred by words, I believe we can understand the situation and at least try in eachother's way as all fall into the chaos and void.
The batteries and storage problem associated with renewables has reminded me - could you please do the video on lithium mining and the environmental footprint of renewables in general, like production of solar panels etc.?
Lithium isn’t the worst component in rechargeable batteries, research is being put towards extracting the metal from the near endless supply in seawater. Cobalt makes up a larger portion of most Li-ion batteries (the exception being Tesla batteries I believe), with half of the earth’s cobalt supply coming from the DRC, and the conditions of cobalt mines there are abysmal in both an environmental and humanitarian respect.
I think this "grid batteries" should use alternative storage solutions. Pumped Hydro which stores as gravitational potential energy, flywheels which store energy as angular momentum, and thermal storage which store energy as heat. There is even electro and magnetostatic energy which store as electro and magnetic fields, but those are not up to the capacity that we need. Chemical storage (batteries and fuel cells) just happen to be the most versatile and more researched. Things like energy density (both mass and size) (which chemical is good for) become less important and aspects like cost and durability become much more important.
We should of course focus on renewable and battery technology. The nuclear plants that are already in place can stay there but we should not build nuclear plants unless absolutely necessary and even then the priority is that they are temporary.
I'm so, so encouraged to be hearing more honest and accurate discussions like this about such a critical issue. I feel like I'm watching people drowning while they stare defiantly at a life-preserver right in front of them because they don't like it's color.
Honesty? No, nuclear energies biggest three lies are what do you do with the nuclear waste for the next 100K years and how do you make it profitable. There has never been a commercial profitable nuclear facility in the United States, it's always required tax payor money to bail it out, often before the reactor is even half completed. And the biggest lie, 'carbon neutral'. This argument seems obvious if you are simple minded but when step back and consider all of the cement and steal to build the reactor, the fossil fuel powered generators required, and of course all of the fossil fuels used to mine, enrich, and transport, and cool those fuel rods you realize Nuclear power is just as dirty as any fossil fuel power generation. This video has no new information and does actual cover new technologies other than stating they exist. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to use all of the fissile material so it can't be used for weapons of mass destruction but right now Japan is about to dump a million cubic meters of radiation in to ocean because that's what we do with dangerous waste and that's the legacy of nuclear energy. The US government built a big facility at the cost of billions of dollars to permanently store nuclear waste and where is all the nuclear waste in the US? Leaking in to the ground at sites for generations where it was created with no plan or money to deal with it. The US nuclear energy industry needs to clean up it's mess before making any news one and it is the nuclear industry that needs solve the current nuclear waste crisis. Until then they should sit down and shut up because they should be sitting in prison for committing fraud. Corporations create environmental disasters with big promises and then just file bankruptcy and walk a way when it's time to make good. Useful nuclear power will require a systemic approach with a time horizon over hundreds of years and not the 20 year ROI required by current business leaders. The nuclear waste disposal and recycling need to happen first and the current waste needs to be processed first before anyone starts talking about new reactors. American business and government just can't do anything beyond a 4 year time period, sadly. Corporations are just not responsible and will cut and run when it's convenient for their careers and annual bonus and leave the tax payor to clean up the mess like a parent picking up after their child. This video does not even begin to address these issues and is so misrepresenting nuclear energy. Japan is still dealing with Fukoshima, so please continue about how safe nuclear is?
the whole thing with wind and solar energy, even with storage reminds me of the game Astroneer and how it centers energy production around both of those mainly.
"Eventually we will be able to do this with renewables" No, no we wont. Intermittance of renewables makes it impossible and using storage to account for that would be impossible because the scale would need to be so large that batteries would take more space than all the rest of human structures combined.
Quite right with the possible exception of hydroelectric power. Solar and wind power are extremely ineffective by comparison to all other forms of energy generation.
@@vinser1744 Actually no it is not false at all but the truth. The batteries required to contain the amount of power needed to power cities would have to be massive due to the extreme ineffectiveness of solar and wind power. Solar energy is entirely reliant on clear skies without any clouds whatsoever which is not a daily occurrence ever. Also solar power is useless at night. in order to not drain all your power by morning you would have to shut off/down anything that uses power. During storms or even cloudy days solar power is rendered useless for the duration the sunlight is blocked. Wind power is reliant on calm breezes. Hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms and even floods are known to put windmills out of commission for quite some time. Also to repair these solar panels or windmills more parts need to be manufactured which puts more pollutants into the atmosphere (not that it matters as we are insignificant in that regard) which nullifies any so called benefits those forms of energy provide. Also if there is no breeze there is no energy being generated. Hydroelectric power on the other hand is far more reliable but such power plants are few and far apart.
@@vinser1744 Just last year we had a space of time where there was no wind for almost 2 weeks and wind power was producing zero to minimal results. If we were rleiant on that we would have needed to store power for 2 weeks, which would means a city-sized battery to power the city.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
►► kgs.link/shop-140
(Worldwide Shipping Available)
Hello
Beans
sus
Beans
pigpie
I have a profound respect for Kurzgesagt. They put an enormous amount of time into research and animating their videos, try to make scientific topics as simple to understand as possible, and treat their viewers with a lot of respect. The Earth mug I bought from them hasn't had any paint come off even though I've been dishwashing it for a year, definitely not a cheap product. Of all the TH-cam merch I've gotten, I think theirs is the highest quality (just barely beating out LTT). They could have just kept with patreon alone or gone with a cheaper producer, but they genuinely care. I'm happy that there are actually content producers who just want to educate the world and make the world better. As soon as I get a paycheck I am going to put a good amount of money into their patreon per month.
They really put a ton of research in their content. They actually inspired me for my channeI.The information they produce is really accurate because they know that even the slight incorrection can lead to millions of people being misinformed. Wish I could be as good as them one day
@@DyslexicMitochondria Clicked on ur channeI cuz I was curious. Brooo youre soo underrated
*press f to pay reapect*
I got the Challender this year and last year. both look amazing.
We should invest more in space technology as it might be the only solution for finding alternative source of energy in the future. Space researched could help a lot in the prospects. There's already a nagging idea of propelling Helium-3 which could honestly a good replacement of fossil fuels. This energy resource could be found on the Moon.
Another idea is getting unlimited energy from the Sun using satellite panels and could remotely send energy back to Earth.
There was something that Nikolas Tesla proposed to get electricity as safe and cleaner but he died before his idea was struck on the next generations.
Either way, mankind should really get their heads out of the ground and look for ways as not doing anything would turn out future into the stuff of nightmare for our future generations to experienced.
This guy could be my science teacher for 12 years and I wouldn’t complain
Hell i wouldnt even get mad or sad if he scolded me
18 years*
Edit: Proud to be one of the first to reply to this comment. I will always have a space to edit my reply once again and anyone who clicks reply will see it. That’s a cool thing to think about.
Same
Double or nothing
It's a team of people not one guy
There was a fully functioning power plant in my hometown. Twenty years ago they decided not to open it because of evacuation concerns. We're still paying exorbitant electric prices as a result. Fear over innovation is one of the few things that genuinely infuriates me.
same here. Fully functional power plant got 40y.o., and because of protests saying "end of life" it has been shut down. Absolutely speechless. For those unaware, picture this: would you throw you TV away because the warranty expired? No, of course not! Same thing, except that power plants keep up with regulations and are constantly being made safer, repaired and checked. So, it would be like having a TV, having a repairman over every 3months, after 2y he tells you it's in perfect condition but you still trash it because the warranty expired.
@chief Are you by chance from "Zwentendorf"?
@@LilliHerveau And add on a billion dollar price tag. I talk to my parents about nuclear, and they're convinced that Nuclear isn't good because it's "not safe." Nuclear is literally the safest energy source currently.
Think of how many extra fingers you could have had though.
@@user-uw8si1zn2n who cares
I was born and raised seven miles from a nuclear plant. We rarely list power and they did wonders for the community. i would love to see more of them.
Dream life
@puteqx5155 it still is
@puteqx5155 uh huh. and?
@puteqx5155 ok troll
@intercontinental ballistic depression bro, the mfs and chernobyls were literal monkeys
they pulled out all safety rods so they'd get max power and put graphene tips instead of normal ones to get even more, then they didnt even have any communication
saying they're monkeys is actually a compliment , monkeys could have done better
This chanel is amazing.
- we learn
- we understand
- we appreciate
- we get entertained
This is not youtube at this point.
This is art.
Thanks to the team behind the scenes and everyone that donate to this chanel to contribute to what we can see today.
@@user-uj7zb7hw3x shut up
@@user-uj7zb7hw3x you have to be famous to be the most hated
the truest words I've ever heard
True
👄👅🧠💖💕💔💓❤💘💋💗💢💌❣💟💞💝💫💥👘🎒👜👚👝💄📿⛑👠
Dude's voice so clear, the auto-generated captions are accurate
5 stars would hear again
Except their channel name
@@nathnolt it says “cursed cargo”
pretty sure they typed the captions
@@a4dtesseract408 no
Kurzgesagt is easily one of the best channels on this platform:
• complicated subjects are simplified
• we get entertainment
• never clickbaits
• puts in effort and it’s amazing
• amazing animations
This channel will never disappoint me.
This channeI is the pinacle of youtube. Without a doubt its simply the best
@@DyslexicMitochondria Omg Hi I watch your videos. Love your channeI bro
The best thing about them is that they DONT simplify. They compromise.
Lately they've done some clickbaity titles, but surely it's for a good cause. Take as examples the 'nuclear deaths' video or the vaccines one.
Yeah cuz they spended 100 hours every videos
One could argue the biggest threat to the environment is radiophobia.
Indeed. Thw green budget should include nuclear.
Is that the fear of radiation? Which radiation? Solar radiation? Nuclear radiation? Ultra Violet radiation? All those other radiations I don't know about?
@@toddboyce3599 nuclear radiation
Seems far more likely to be cost and time constraints.
No, the biggest threats are special interest groups and oil companies that are paying off politicians to have regulation and zoning laws changed to make it harder for nuclear and renewable to be built.
These animations are getting insanely good lately
Ratioed the comment above
they keep getting better!
Exactly!
They must have taken the Kurzgesagt animation lesson on Skillshare.
🔫Always has been
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, we definitely do.
No.
You she entity lifeforces (including she entity lifeforces currently existing in XY DNA template bodies) come up with the strangest notions.
Loooong answer: 0:03-9:03
Hey look, the inverse of a TERF. I thought it was only theoretical.
@Dana Durnford
Try checking out the modern, more compact reactor designs that can't meltdown in big cataclysmic fashion, unlike the older plants of yesteryear that we mostly have employed
Long Answer: Yes but not solely reliant on one source of energy.
Fun fact, the word nuclear was removed from the term magnetic ressonance (it used to be magnetic nuclear ressonance) because people were afraid of doing it due to the conection to "nuclear"
so let's call nuclear energy magic energy instead :D
@@The360MlgNoscoper that would be probably helpful xd
Wtf
In the characterization of molecules, we still call it nMRI.
In US? Not in my country (non EN)
Unbelievable how people are more afraid of nuclear power than walking across the street
Well, some people are also more afraid of taking flight by airplane than walking on the street.
Extremely low chance of accidents, but that one accident might be enormous, so they are more exaggerated than they should be.
@@rpdlatk like for instance chernoblyl it was big but they already made a housing around the reactor and i think imo if they have good maintenece(dono how to spel) it sould be good and have fail switches
The thing is, while walking across the street I have some sort of control about the situation and can watch for myself. Also a reactor meltdown causes much bigger problems for a lot more people. I live in the most dense populated area of europe and if this area became uninhabitable by a nuclear failure, there would be somewhere between 6 and 8 million people loosing their homes.
@@walterwhite415 well, wait till you find out how many people died because of fossil fuels consequences compared to nuclear accidents
Some people are more afraid of a solar panel than walking across the street.
The animation team has really outdone themselves on this video. Absolutely stunning visuals, even on clips that only appear for a second or two
They always outdo themselves
without a doubt
yeeeeeep
Please, this video needs community subtitles. Everybody from anywhere needs to see this, and subtitles might open the doors for them.
Wait a fee days, it always comes a bit late.
Community subtitles are sadly dead. TH-cam killed them.
Translators and Kurzgesagt now need to manually work together for the translations. This will, of course, take longer this way.
yos
s
Sadly TH-cam killed an incredibly useful accessibility tool.
Josef Rinderer
I love how at 0:19 you said, "So who's right?.. Well, it's complicated..." In today's society where discussions are driven by pro-this, anti-that. It's so refreshing to hear nuance being introduced into the conversation. I don't think people even know what nuance means anymore. So thank you.
Ya he is legitimately trying to convince woke activists to change their minds about something, an absolute mad lad.
Polarization is a dangerous thing and ideology is one hell of a drug. I'm happy to see there are still at least a few people that know that everything doesn't have to be black or white
@@ForbiddenFollyFollower ... is that your takeaway from this?
Sounds like you just agree with his side.
@@ForbiddenFollyFollower And you just proved how "In today's society where discussions are driven by pro-this, anti-that..." exists.
How funny it is when everything attached to the word "nuclear" we get a freak out, yet the Sun is perfectly fine.
To be fair the sun is not fission it’s fusion
@@Somespacestuff I mean his point still stands it's still radiation
@@The_Oddon The sun does not create hundreds of radioactive isotopes and put them into the food chain. Radioactivity causes cancer and birth defects. Don't pee in the gene pool.
@@Somespacestuff and they are busy i think making fusion reactors or i just misread it
But the fucking sun is out there giving me a fucking sunburn 😤
As a scientist who studies this kind of thing, this is really well explained! I have a similar opinion to you, and many of the scientists in my lab do as well. If we are going to start to fix climate change for real, we need to use everything we have. On the actual facts, I might start using this video to teach my students, as It's really hard to explain this issue and this video does it really well!
Please do so.
Consider the following thought experiment: You have two technologies. Technology (A) costs 100 € for every MWh it produces. Technology (B) costs 150 € for every MWh produced. For every unit of technology you construct you can decide whether you use (A) or (B). Is there any scenario where you would use a mix of both technologies?
EDIT: regarding lordcirth's comment:
I assume that you agree with me, that anybody would choose technology (A). Now, you're rightfully said so, that if we add new constraints to these technologies we might decide differently.
We have now two other technologies: A grid powered by Nuclear power, which costs today around 100 €/MWh* and the other one is a grid that is powered by wind, solar, power-to-gas, batteries and pump-storage, which will costs around 60 €/MWh by 2050**. Both technologies are similarly reliable, though nuclear has still the (very) small risk to cause significant harm. You can combine these technologies, but they don't complete each other.
Would you rather choose technology (A) or technology (B)?
* Lazard LCOE 2020
** Bogdanov et al. "Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps"
@@dariusduesentrieb if there is no advantage to B, why would u use it?
@@dariusduesentrieb When A only produces MWh at random times, and B produces at a fixed rate for 30 years with a few days of downtime per decade?
what nobody talks about is waste heat. nuclear is one of the least thermally efficient method of power production. if we keep increasing our electricity consumption then we are going to keep increasing our thermal output. aside from solar all forms of generating electricity produce waste heat. all forms of consuming electricity produce waste heat. you can equate watts to BTU/hr. it would probably be more wise to look at efficiencies, on both the generation and consumption sides rather than the source of generation.
i expect no less from the kurzgesagt team, but keeping facts and opinions separated and clearly delineated is absolutely crucial in discussions like these. massive props for doing it and doing it well
Climate change has and always will exist.
The whole AGW narrative is absolute horse shit.
We had 20 times more Co2 in the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years and life flourished and the Earth was green and temperate from pole to pole.
Isn't it strange that suddenly we are in a century out of billions of years where the Earth climate is supposedly at absolute optimum with polar ice caps in an interglacial period?
Who decided that the 21st century out of thousands of life giving centuries was the perfect one for Earth climate that needed to be preserved for evermore?
It is one big joke when you look into it properly but it gets much worse when you look into the agenda behind it.
Despite the fact warmest were claiming the Earth will die within a decade because of runaway warming, the same people who said the Arctic sea ice would have melted by the end of the last decade, the UN never saw fit to put restraints on the worlds biggest polluter China and left them exempt of all the industry busting carbon taxes and economy busting green regulations they put on Western nations. Now China accounts for more Co2 emissions than the whole of Europe and US put together and while the West suffered the preplanned UN agenda 21 deindustrialisation, China boomed as the global elite who fund the UN think tanks that come up with these agendas all moved their finance and industry there and made trillions from using cheap dirty energy and child labour.
That made just a handful of people responsible so much money that they now own almost 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth between them (Oxfam 2017 report)
So when I see poor puppet Greta and extinction rebellion demanding zero emissions in London and Bozo the globalist stooge obliging even as the UK economy reels under his nefarious lockdown policies I have to laugh because Co2 makes up just 0.035% of atmosphere and of that only about 3% is man made (0.001%) and Britain's contribution to that just 1% of that which is 0.00001% of atmosphere.
That means if Britain had zero emissions tomorrow atmospheric Co2 would be reduced from 0.035% to 0.03499% or by 100/1000th of 1% over decades if not centuries.
@@Muckylittleme The whole idea that what is happening is “normal” is absolute horse shit. What you’re talking about is the earth’s climate naturally changing over millions of years, this is happening over a few decades.
Also, what you talk about with there having been “better climates” before this current one is complete nonsense. I don’t know if it escaped your notice, but humans weren’t alive in the time of the dinosaurs. We are adapted to live in our current climate, and not just biologically but socially as well. As a species we can only cope with so much flooding, so much drought. We can’t just continue destroying the planet and convince ourselves it’s not our fault.
@Dan Brown Oh dear, there is so much here that I hardly know where to begin.
Has climate change always existed? Yes, of course it has. Nobody is suggesting that the climate is stationary. Has atmospheric conditions and the climate ever changed this rapidly and continuously in recent history? Not as far as I know, and we're going to continue suffering as a result. Every time earth has faced sudden climate changes in the past, be it from large asteroids or volcanic eruptions, mass death followed. Earth will obviously continue to be fine, but life will definitely be less enjoyable and more full of suffering if we continue on this path of self-indulgence without care for what we do to the world. Of course the climate is changing, but when it's changing this rapidly things don't adapt well.
Is China producing a lot of CO2? Yes, and they should be doing their best to limit it. But, like videos this channel has covered in the pass on who is responsible, the west has also polluted more if you look at history. Overall, it should be irrelevant who gets the blame because blaming people will get us nowhere. Everyone should be doing the best they can to prevent further damage. China is definitely far from perfect, from their pollution to disregard for freedoms, but pointing to them and saying "we should be polluting to" is a terrible mindset. Everyone should be striving to be better.
And then there's this weird idea of some globalist conspiracy about climate change... what? Ah yes, large fossil fuel producing countries and extremely large and wealthy oil companies couldn't have been contributing to any kind of conspiracy against the idea of global warming, it must be those thousands of scientists and activists who want to destroy us, that definitely makes sense...
No matter how you look at it, it makes sense to strive for a future where we mitigate extreme climate change. The overwhelming majority of economists agree that investing in a zero carbon future makes sense given the extreme costs in damages we would face in the future if we don't. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that rapid climate change is an issue. Has there been hyperbole in the past? Yes. Have there been incorrect predictions made in the past? Also yes. We need to keep researching and discovering more about how everything is being affected. The entire globe is an extremely complicated ecosystem and when something as big as these atmospheric changes we've been inducing these centuries comes along the effects on the system are numerous in ways that we may not know yet.
TL:DR: Yes, modern western countries like those in Europe are not contributing as much CO2 in the present as more developing countries, but they have historically contributed more. Does this really matter at the moment? I don't think so. We should all be striving to be better, not worse. The world's ecosystem is extremely complicated with everything interacting with everything else that we might not know what the effects are yet. A global conspiracy that climate change is fake makes literally no sense and is like saying that the moon landing was faked. Even if you ignore climate change, going neutral means less pollution in the places that we live, and I like not breathing in poison. Mitigating extreme climate change is in our own best interests in terms of economics and our future well-being. It's cheaper to put out the stove fire than letting it burn down the entire house.
@@Zosu22 ya know, on a platform where its so easy to just insult someone you disagree with, i really appreciate the calm and collected response. i applaud you, whoever you may be.
@@henrybarber288 But it isn't happening over a few decades, that is the debunked hockey stick.
You have to look at all the data not just cherry pick the data that pushes your agenda.
And regardless there have been bigger changes over shorter periods both warming and cooling.
It has clearly escaped your notice that Earth climate is no the same around the globe and mankind survives perfectly well from Africa to Arctic.
The Cambrian period had 20 times more Co2 in the atmosphere than now and it was Earths most productive time for diversity of life because it was temperate from pole to pole as I said.
And what makes you think this climate is more suitable to man that that?
Much more of the Earth is inhospitable now and it is far less green.
But then we all know the AGW agenda is anti human not pro human though they do rather favour polar bears for some reason, which by the way are thriving.
Listen, environmentalism is no bad thing so long as it is based in reality and actually about the environment.
Anti pollution benefits plant and animal alike.
But that is not what AGW policies are about as I explained.
They are about making very rich and powerful people even richer and more powerful while their puppet celebrities parade around telling you not to eat meat to save the planet while they fly their private and collect mansions and live in opulence with a carbon footprint that is a thousand times higher than yours or mine.
So how about, if you really believe this is a crisis, you get all the richest people in the world who are behind the agenda to give up all their luxuries before we start eating insects to save the planet?
Surely they would have no issue with it given they are the ones who tell us the Earth is on fire.
And "we" are not destroying the planet, at least I know I'm not, I don't even drive a car.
The people doing any damage and polluting are the same people behind the AGW agenda, the same people who made trillions in China and had them build thousands of new dirty coal plants to fuel their industry while our clean burning plants were shutdown by their mandates.
If nothing else, take a look at the hypocrisy of those who fund the eco-fascists and anarcho-communists and ask how their AGW policies make any sense except for keeping us poor while they get to mop the last remaining wealth.
Ahhh. Yes. The perfect homework distraction
yes
This is interesting as it appears to follow intended route of the mind when listening to duke saying this. Allow me to elaborate duke here is implied to have some kind of knowledge that we ourselves our withheld further implying that we don't ourselves know because of the phrase "but I won't tell you" This is an act often replicated by people in the 1st - 4th grade as they have had less experience and are more likely to tell lies about their knowledge. This is humorous because the final implication is that duke nukem is a child. Over all this comment is funny for explaining the joke just like the comment above which explains the joke to the audience who can almost certainly see fot themselves.
Yeah.
Ikr
This is so reletable
The feeling when some of the world's biggest problems (climate change, world hunger) are caused by people not understanding science
What sucks is that despite being the smartest species on the planet we still have those living in ignorance either by choice or lack of schooling
The problem is that we have constructed this idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion on everything and that their opinion is just as valuable as that of the experts.
@@demoniack81 The problem is that as soon as you make the opinions of the experts so valuable that the common man has no input, well, the position of the 'expert' becomes compromised. It becomes a position that people pursue (or PURCHASE) in order to gain power, rather than just to contribute to the world and society. Suddenly the 'experts' are a de facto dictatorship. The more centralized the power, the faster that power becomes corrupted. But even if power in society isn't centralized at first, it WILL become centralized, whether the general populace knows about it or not.
I know the perfect solution to this problem, make me a dictator
@@demoniack81 that is the problem with democracy.
Note: Japan has shut down its nuclear plants since 2011 due to Fukushima disaster. Now they are reopening them and even plan to build new nuclear plants.
Japan: progress towards sci-fi utopia
America: ...regressing to dieselpunk
How long will the new reactors take to build?
@@tanimation7289
Knowing Japan, they will be able to build them in some 5 year periods
@@AileTheAlien
Well if the activists wouldn't scream wolf about nuklear meltdowns and tragedies in a country where there was only one case in wich no one died or got heavily injured, they might be able to build more nuklear.
And no, renewable energy in a country wich has earthquakes, tornadoes and tsunamis with heavy spikes in temperature each year are not an good option. You need a backup plan, look at Texas this winter.
@@zUJ7EjVD
The Wind turbines also froze, making them unable to move. The Nuklear power plant was shut off for security reasons and online in unter one hour, wich can't be said for other power sources.
And I agree that not all places in the US are subject to the same environmental threat, but you would still have to destroy a metric fuckton of land to make it usable for solar, had a lot of land disfigured by Wind Turbines and would threaten the living space of a lot of animals.
Nevermind that an interconnected power grid within the US is a mammoth project wich will, again, destroy a lot of land and would take more years to finish then building Nuklear plants would.
Nevermind that if one of these lines would get damaged, thud cutting the connection or leaking electricity, good luck finding that spot.
I really appreciate you labeling your opinion portion. Few information portals do that anymore
B.e.S.T f'u"l'l D.a.T.i.n.G -L-o-V-e-S-e-X-----۞------------
livegirls19. com 》》 𝙊𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝘼𝙙𝙪𝙡𝙩 《《
!❤️ 在整個人類歷史上，強者，富人和具有狡猾特質的人捕食部落，氏族，城鎮，城市和鄉村中的弱者，無`'守和貧窮成員。然而，人類的生存意願迫使那些被拒絕，被剝奪或摧毀的基本需求的人們找到了一種生活方式，並繼續將其DNA融入不斷發展的人類社會。
說到食物，不要以為那些被拒絕的人只吃垃圾。相反，他們學會了在被忽視的肉類和蔬菜中尋找營養。他們學會了清潔，切塊，調味和慢燉慢燉的野菜和肉類，在食品市場上被忽略的部分家用蔬菜和肉類，並且學會了使用芳香的木煙（如山核桃，山核桃和豆科灌木
來調味食物煮的時候
1618745910
A little bird being mystified about electricity while playing sekiro Is exactly what I needed today
timestamp? :0
We need more Sekiro!
@@rompicoglioni8573 1:44
Kursgesagt is based
He should sell stuffies-merch of the birds.
Top 10 times nuclear power plants are safer than coal power plants :
1. Now
2. Now
3. Yesterday
and 100% less pollution
Well, 99.999% less greenhouse gas (we mostly cant dispose that)
And 100% more solid waste (which we can dispose)
Quick, shut down the reactors!
They won't be safer than coal tomorrow!
@@asheep7797 Bruh.
@@nicefloweytheoverseer7632 What do ya think abt nuclear recycling?
This guy's voice will never get boring for me
It’s the British accent
Ikr
ikr
I swear
same
Can't wait for a movie about Capitan Nuclear, Wind Man, Super Solar and Water Woman fighting against evil Dr. Fossil Cloud.
Simpsons did it
Not gonna lie, I would watch that
@@martiddy same
That would be a good influence for kids to support renewable energy, like how the government influences kids to go into the military
A better version of Captain Planet? I'M IN!
Much respect over the simple fact that they explicitly said which part of their video was opinion based. We need much more of that
they do that in most of their videos actually, but this time was far more explicit then usual.
most of the time they have the duck in the corner holding an 'opinion' sign or just show to title slide more briefly.
There are so many things that depict nuclear power plants as extremely dangerous, such as the series Chernobyl. But that stops people from realising how safe these power plants actually are
they're safe until subjected to the fullness of human depravity, that is to say, not safe.
@@scottmatheson3346 Still safer than something that isn't safe and can be made worse by being subjected to the fullness of human depravity (cough, that one dude who decided to add lead into fuel).
@scottmatheson3346 tbf the events of chernobyl were so specific that we literally cannot recreate it if we had 100 years to try
@@scottmatheson3346 there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths from thermal and at max 10-20k from nuclear
I love how you guys always say “Well, it’s COMPLICATED!”
yes i love this, it can be so easy to deduce something down in a b&w way but nothing is ever that simple all sides need consideration
then so yeah dream keep going strutucture
Because it is
That last bit where wind, hydro and solar energies fighting a CO2 Monster with nuclear being trapped was a genius metaphor
@ĶévïņBB Přõďùçţìőñş you clearly haven't heard of MaximilianMus
I'm sorry for asking, but can you clarify the metaphor please?
It's funny though those other solutions are alot cheaper in my state we have a huge over budget over time nuclear plant idk why we don't switch to solar completely considering they have gotten so cheap
@@olegoleg258 in the debate between renewables v fossil fuels, Nuclear energy is often left out of the debate due to the past fears of the technology, the metaphor shows that nuclear energy working in tandem with the other renewables, climate change would be pushed back by their combined effort.
@@olegoleg258 A House divided cannot stand.
This channel deserves to be trending.
Comment 10 times
Well right now it 13 on trending
@@chandarasoth2219 Yes.
@Dana Durnford ah yes
nuclear tests are definitely the same thing as nuclear power plants
@Free Speech Bot i meant the whole channel. like every video it posts
5:19 I can’t believe they put the detail of blocking the sunlight every time the windmill blade passed over it
I love how at 0:19 you said, "So who's right?.. Well, it's complicated..." In today's society where discussions are driven by pro-this, anti-that. It's so refreshing to hear nuance being introduced into the conversation. I don't think people even know what nuance means anymore. So thank you.
Solar: * Exists *
Texas snowstorm: *"Hold my beer"*
And then clearly declared when they were going to begin sharing their opinion after presenting the evidence-based section.
What is nuance?
@@Coconut-219
Solar:*Still exists because solar wasn't the main cause of the outages*
People like to think in absolutes now. If you’re not this thing, you’re that thing
"Should we give up nuclear immediately, and accept higher emissions?"
*averts eye contact in German*
What about Japan, they reduced their nuclear to 20%, Germany only 50%
@@klokoloko2114 Japan's starting to put theirs back online 👍
Don't stress, Germany is buying electricity from french nuclear reactor thanks to the european inter connected grid ... So Germany still kind of is a nuclear power 😂
And in France Ecologists that grow in popularity want to shut down our nuclear centrals... perhaps there is other priorities right now. And batteries used for renewal energy isn't eco friendly.
@@woodenfishes just so so stupid, and such a waste of relatively new power plants they won't even let them have there life time
You know it's about to get good when you hear *"Well, its complicated"*
up there right next to _"or is it?"_
-michael please come back to making big videos, i miss them-
mhm
i just wanna say i really love how you guys personified nuclear and renewable energy. like actual people, trying to fight the big smoke monster.
never change :)
this channel's production quality is better than most movies right now I swear
More quality: better
No
@@DyslexicMitochondria your video quality is very good as it is right now
@@DyslexicMitochondria we believe in you! You can do it :D
Hahahahahhahahaha
It's unfortunate that many of these issues are bogged down by petty politics and political corruption
Actually last year both political parties became pro nuclear
many of these problems can be solved if renewables and nuclear produces a LOT of money and cheap
isn't that true for everything out there ?
Somebody has gotta be paid, and Somebody has gotta stop somebody from getting paid
underrated comment
Nuclear energy is in a way like traveling by an airplane. It is very safe, but when something happens people freak out.
Very well put
Very true.
And nuclear, like airplanes, is safer than the rest.
This is a great comparison. So many people are excessively scared of "what if?" scenarios, but the truth is that they're so well regulated and contained that they're far safer than anything else we have.
The only accidents happened in like the 1970's and thats only because we didnt give a shit then
This is a dispute I frankly don't know enough about to take a qualified standpoint on, at least until now, so thanks for making videos that explain the topic so concisely. I guess I should also watch your video about the worst nuclear accidents in human history. As usual I also think your videos are worth watching for the animation and aesthetics alone - extremely inventive and colourful with a great sense of humour. I appreciate these because I paint in my spare time, and I constantly get new ideas when watching them.
I have an exam tomorrow but this seemed important.
It IS important
same
Same
Reforcing your undertanding of actually important things in the world rather than wasting time learning very likely pointless things which you will also likely forget is way more important.
@@tumei1851 then why did you comment
I love that they stated when they were switching to an opinion piece, best channel on YT
Payed for by the German people. Thank us later. (It belongs to the German Public Broadcasting.)
@@hape3862 Well, 53 minutes is later so... Thanks Germans!
@@hape3862 really? They have a patreon so it seems unlikely that they would be a government payed channel
@@hape3862 Doesn't matter. They could be funded by any source but didn't have to put a deliberate opinion section. What does being funded by anyone have anything to do with that?
Honestly, I may hate a lot of things about living in France, but damn am I proud of my country's choice of nuclear use.
It works in France because France is connected by land to the whole of Eurasia and can flexibly transmit electricity in and out the country. It is still cool though:)
We are proud of our country !🇫🇷🇫🇷
Well they were not built for this purpose at all, but thanks to them we are indeed one of the cleanest country and people start to slowly realize it. Unfortunately there is our retarded """"ecologist"""" party, which spreads anti-scientific bullshit on nuclear energy.
They weigh only 5%, but this is enough leverage for politicians who don't care about science or long term (so all of them, Hollande, Macron, Mélenchon...) to try and reduce the share of nuclear in our electrical mix in order to grab those 5%.
Sad to see, although it's starting to very slowly move in the right direction (for example Mélenchon was heavily criticized when he told that he would close nuclear plants and invent some magical science-fiction energy to replace it).
@@Eldor503 yep, green parties are usually the most stupid and un-nature friendly, and very political
@Ej Dempsey nuclear weapons isnt nuclear energy
I'm just putting this out there. Why don't we just use thorium if everyone is concerned about the dangers of nuclear energy
I’ve never understood the abandonment of nuclear in progressive countries interested in reducing greenhouse gases.
Nuclear energy was a legitimate threat to the fossil fuel industry so companies campaigned hard to make it look like the most horrible thing ever, taking advantage of the fact that the most common nuclear reactor designs produce materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. Combine that with what happened at Chernobyl and it wasn't very difficult to convince the population that nuclear energy is too dangerous.
Younger generations are more willing to give nuclear energy a chance, but the older generations which lived through the Cold War are still clinging to the idea that nuclear must be avoided at all costs.
@@filipwolffs I’m guessing the anti-nuclear propaganda started after chernyobl
@@filipwolffs funny thing is this isn’t the only propaganda and lobbying. all sorts of companies of every sector which has caused a regression in the progression of humanity and all sorts of funny quirks like why Americas infrastructure is all car based and built around cars instead of people causing a nice twisted knife into its back from its dependence on such inefficient paradigms like suburban sprawl.
Stupidity. People look at objectively the safest, cleanest and most reliable form of energy and somehow convince themselves it is the opposite of those things. sometimes we just need to plow forward regardless of who is in the way, because the alternative is allowing tens of millions of people to die.
@@cageybee7221 nuclear waste is actually a good thing because while other energy sources pollute into the atmosphere (fossil fuel) or Solar the supposedly “clean energy source” which generates thousands of tons of waste that’s just shipped to Africa because it’s to expensive to recycle and then there’s nuclear which can easily be contained in hyper protected barrels
Can we just talk about how beautiful these animations are
Yes. And they keep getting better.
We've been talking about it for years.
@@jerramrocks9136 what reward?
YES
@@jerramrocks9136 if you mean those silver, gold and diamond play button I'm pretty sure they already have those
I can literally watch this in 144p and still be amazed by the animations.
144hz...
@Hamdika Hamdika Bot
@Hamdika Hamdika Hello, bot. How did you get past ReCAPTCHA verfications?
then if you like it so much make it a science show!
I realy need this as a show on HBO, Netflix, or whatever!
I have a profound respect for Kurzgesagt. They put an enormous amount of time into research and animating their videos, try to make scientific topics as simple to understand as possible, and treat their viewers with a lot of respect.
I am 99% sure that every Kurzgesagt video starts with “well, it’s complicated”
Because they do this shits complicated af idk how these gods wrap their heads around it
Well...it is complicated.
true
@Arun Kumaresan evdfttt try EF
The real world is complicated. People have a bad habit of oversimplifying to suit their biases.
7:57 "it might be a good idea to see nuclear and renewables not as opponents but as partners" THANK YOU
RIGHT ON
That would be nice, but would it really happen? In the past the nuclear industry has worked to cripple the emergence of renewable energy.
This is a very controversial topic. Usually the left is for renewables, the right is for nuclear.
I'm left, but I see nuke as a potential friend anyway. People are too rigid in their thinking sometimes
@@irthlingz just as renewables industries work really hard to stop nuclear emergence nowadays. A lot of green organisations demonize every aspect of nuclear and spread a lot of fear and misinformation about nuclear power.
Absolutely. I am definitely in the pro-nuclear camp but there's a lot to be said for having local distributed sources of electricity generated by renewable clean sources, not just to add to the baseline source nuclear can handle but also for resiliency against the increasing extreme weather events we're going through (being in California and seeing all the wildfires each year getting worse and worse, our electrical grid cannot cope).
Transmission line losses alone are enough to argue that while we can't entirely rely on renewables, generating more electricity locally through city or even neighborhood-centric grids lets us reduce those by quite a bit.
The easter eggs scattered throughout these videos works wonders for making them seem more genuine and present than many other educational videos I've seen before. I can't believe there's such deliberate stuff like Sekiro in an educational science short.
Or the magnemites in the background
I enjoyed the Wilhelm Scream
@@louismirone31 dayum
Anyone else see the Sekiro one
Like what?
Before watching this I'm going to add my thoughts as someone who as worked in environmental conservation science for more than 12 years.
Nuclear is our only real option. I did a study several years ago on the impact of various energy production methods using NYC as a base
To power NYC with solar using current technology you would need to cover an area 15x the size of Manhattan Island with solar panels. Just to keep it powered during the day. To provide enough charge to last over night you'd need to double that... To provide enough to charge backup batteries for 7 days (the minimum requirement to prevent brownouts) you would need to cover an area 45x that of Manhatten island.
To do the same with wind you would have to cover an area about the same which would have to be cleared of any tall trees.
The consequence of this is for the solar panels you have to replace them every 20 years, the disposal of which releases a lot of toxic heavy metals into landfills and by extension ground water as they can not be recycled. And the production of new panels produces a lot of toxic run off.
Wind turbine have to be replaced every 25 years and again due to composite construction can't really be recycled.
On top of this wind turbines require huge blocks of concrete 30m (about 100ft) on a side and rebar set into the ground the production of which produces more CO² than the wind turbine counteracts in it's 25 years.
Then we come to the batteries. To power a city that size would require 40,000 shipping containers worth of lithium batteries which have to be replaced every 2 years, and if they were to suffer thermal runaway or get damaged due to accident, nature or an attack... Would have the explosive potential of 40 kilotons of TNT.
Nuclear by comparison would cover an area 1/2 the size of Manhattan island, (including spent fuel pools, fuel storage etc) would last at least 50 years and produce a fraction of waste (if the fuel rods are reprocessed the amount of waste each year would fill a coffee cup... Less if you extract the useful isotopes such as Americum used in smoke alarms, and isotopes used in x-ray tubes)
Edit: one point, nuclear is renewable... If you have the right set up of reactor types. With current technology a fuel cycle using burner and breeder reactors is 90% efficient at recycling fuels. But that's really a moot point as based on current energy usage and projected usage, we have enough fissile material for 1000 years. Which if we include fertile isotopes from using that material and put it in a closed fuel cycle we can make that last 10,000 years. For comparison the pyramids at Giza were built 5000 years ago)
Thanks for your comment, you make so much sense & with data & computations --- so much better than these climate nuts running around screaming "we need renewables" which don't exist in reality.
Nuclear is the only way to go & not for trying to change the climate, it just makes so much sense since it will take much pressure off oil & gas on which the world runs.
And then we will try to use nuclear fusion as our energy.
@@jorgeluiscontrerac
Sure or whatever it takes when fossil fuel runs out in a coupla 100 years.
Kurzgesagt: "Why should we make things harder than necessary?"
Rest of the world: "Hold my beer and watch this....."
Oh, right. I forgot how human humans tend to be.
This is one of the wisest things ever said. Humanity really does tend to make things harder than necessary.
We are humans nothing is perfect for us...
Me: **takes their beer and throws it at their face** “How ‘bout no?”
We have humans are greedy
This is exactly why I am so dissapointed, angered even, that the Green Parties, those who'd supposed to be the surest bet to combat climate change, disregard nuclear power altogether.
It's populism and politics coming from a place of ignorance. It's the same thing with GMOs, for instance. People look at the words "genetic" or "nuclear" and understandably have their concerns, we can't reasonably expect the average person to be knowledgeable about advanced scientific topics. Politicians will either blindly pander to these concerns or have them themselves. The difference is that a politician should be knowledgeable about a topic if they are to give their opinion and vote on it, and always regard scientific evidence over their own premade opinions. And that's not even going into the subject of lobbies.
It's unfortunate how leaders worldwide are so easily swayed and corrupted and it's no wonder people are feeling ever more sepparated from politics.
@@john_john_john Or "radiation"
@@ciarfah wait until they realize that their body is releasing radiation lmao
Actually there are members of such organisations who are now advocating the use of nuclear, for precisely the reasons shown in this video. Including an ex-leader of one.
@@jeffjests2764 wait until they realize that coal plants expose people to more radiation than nuclear power plants do, and that a banana will give you more radiation than a power plant will in a year. No joke, a nuclear power plant’s radiation release rate is about 0.9 bananas/year.
1:54 honestly anyone else find these type of machines in the kurzgesagt animation style really enjoyable to look at?
The animated graphics really help to show how they work. They're more pleasing to the eye than most technical illustrtations.
Yeahh ! These are so good
I mean, does anyone not though, that is the real question
100 %
That ICE tho ... 👌
Hi , Kurzgesagt .
I would like to thank you all, from the deep of my heart, today we had a final day of(MODULE) IAEA and because of your research we proposed your idea and made a resolution, and me myself got an award of the best Diplomat , thank you❤❤❤
0:17 "So, who's right?"
Say the line Steve.
"well... It's complicated"
**whole room cheers**
@@user-uj7zb7hw3x you got it
👄💟👜
@@user-uj7zb7hw3x just give u reports to yt
@@user-uj7zb7hw3x stfu bot
Hi there.. Please visit my channel if you love science and general knowledge
I’d prefer the waste generated by an energy source to be in underground barrels than in my lungs.
Not just my (and everyone else's) lungs, but also the entire damn atmosphere.
@@bartholomewdan true
and the waste to be reused again
I prefer my waste be contained in a metal cube capable of withstanding rocket powered freight trains that in the air.
not to mention the waste eventually becomes safe. Fossil Fuels' Pollution has no half-life, it's in the environment FOREVER. not just a really long time, but ALL OF ETERNITY.
In this channel, knowledge that is considered difficult to learn and only belongs to a handful of people becomes easy to understand..the best .. this channel is my inspiration
@@VV-ck7hw bro... chill. It’s ok lol
@@VV-ck7hw ahahahahaha your not very smart are you my friend... clearly uneducated.
@@whatinxxxtarnation4728 + Whoa Witty response brah... You stay up all night comin up with that one? Clever bastard .. I got nothin , you win .. your so smart brah!
@@VV-ck7hw *lol* oh boy thanks for showing us how smart you are by talking about "fizz in soda". Guess experiments about light-absortpion by gases are all false and all observations about the heating planet with almost constant influential factors EXCEPT manmade greenhouse gases are all wrong.
Let's all listen to the guy who talks about "smart" while using terms like "global whining", while he whines about how everyone is soooo stupid...
@@VV-ck7hw average ameritard:
The problem with electric / batteries is that creating the batteries is very bad for the environment, not to mention how batteries wear out over time. The next few generations are really going to matter the most if we as the human race want to survive.
Not to mention gasoline is 30x as energy dense as lithium ion batteries.
(I can't remember the exact statistic, but Engineering Explained made a great video about it)
This is only if you compare the battery to not building a battery.
If you were to compare the environmental impact of a battery cell compared to say a CPU, a coffee machine or an iPhone, the battery is the lesser concern.
Plastics, Silicon, Resin, Copper, Auminiiiiium (fuck people that say Aluminum) all has to come from somewhere. Nobody gave a shit how stuff was made, but once someone wants to make you think about combatting climate change while not loosing too much comfort, people take every hint of a potential flaw and make a fuss of it instead of compromising on a slightly less wasteful solution.
@@VulpeculaJoy an additional issue that doesn't seem to raise eyebrows more often; the environmental impact (re fossil fuels) is grim, another valid concern is the 'non renewable' of non renewables (across human lifespan)
would be great to shift over to protect the environment meets needs to be done if we wish to maintain our current lifestyle in the not so distant future
Wind and solar panels are also toxic for the environment.
@@mitchjames9350 A lot less toxic and cheaper to produce and maintain than nuclear or gas/coal.
Do you even know how many tons of concrete and steel it takes to build a traditional power plant and how bad the environmental impact is?
There area already projects that aim to recycle the fiberglass within the wings of old wind turbines.
You gotta get your power somehow, otherwise, the best thing for nature is for us humans to return to hunting and gathering. I figure you don't want to get rid of your PC though to write stupid comments on the internet, so that's not an option.
Can we show some respects for these animators ! The quality of their work is amazing !
@@user-uj7zb7hw3x you are the most normal youtuber :)
Hi there.. Please visit my channel if you love science and general knowledge
@@DarrensGeneralInfo no
@@DarrensGeneralInfo good videos
@@FLAMEalan jeez you just killed him
In France we use a lot of Nuclear energy (≈70%). In the past this energy had a very bad reputation due to politics & media but nowaday it become more popular thanks to popularizer like you so thanks you !! ♥️♥️♥️
Don't fret! Believe it or not... the majority of the nuclear community (here in the U.S. at least) is rooting for you!
Don't let the media, or other countries, dictate the sovereignty of France! Keep trusting the science🤙
I heard France and Germany are actually closing nuclear power plants and switching to biomass. This is why climate change goals Will never be achieved.
@@AureliusNovusius I'm pretty sure France at least is sticking to hydro and nuclear
@@AureliusNovusius Yeah, no. Germany will shut down all nuclear reactors by the end of 2022. France on the other side will do the opposite. As a German myself, I'm pro nuclear in general if it's done right and so I'm a bit sad about that.
@@prosterdbz9663 germany will change its opninion again when they realize wind solar & gas will not be enouch.
Your videos are always next level 🔥 great production value !
6 likes on verfied cool
@@boysetstudios7932 only 9 now feeling bad tho
Fun fact: behind this videos are a team of 43 german crew memebers
@@mvrtinmadethebeat u counting the narrator (1) and the musical composers (2) in there?
Mantul
I still love the fact that you made this video. Thank you so much. This helped and will _continue_ helping. Opposition to nuclear _is_ irrational in the face of climate change.
how rational is this??
How about the REALITY for the last 4 state of the art ADVANCED new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can
you build it?
what's actually irrational is the refusal of nuclear advocates to be realistic about human irrationality.
@@scottmatheson3346 Do you want a localized disaster every few decades? Or would you like a major mass extinction bad enough to make the space rock that murked the dinos look like a pinprick? Yes, we're in the kind of situation where we have to make this choice. I choose option one.
So Nuclear Man, Lady Hydro, Solarbot and Lord Robowind have to combine their unique abilities to defend the world against Polution Master and his fearsome Thanos Snap
Hahaha nice. When your powers combine I am captaaaain planet
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I love that!
Lady hydro kinda bad tho ngl 😳
@@TheKhashix please go outside and touch grass...
And he has 4 of the stones already...
Me: searching for simple answers
Kurzgesagt in every single video: "well it's complicaded..."
mh
compliacaded
"complicaded
Alway has been
YESS Every video from now on must start with that
It's so refreshing to see balanced perspectives, I'm so sick and tired of extremists. Kurzgesagt always make me happy.
So balanced that CO2, an odorless, tasteless gas is consistently portrayed as a purple, gaseous monster with an evil grin.
And that is only one of the examples. Watch this video again and you can find two or three more, depending on your inclination. The channel makes good content, but please do not kid yourself. These people are just as biased as is everybody else.
@Alexander Kale Because it’s bad... large amounts of greenhouse gases are not what life on earth is used to, and is changing ecosystems, killing millions on millions... I don’t know what your argument is honestly. Is it about methane? That is a good argument, but large amounts of co2 emissions is still a bad thing.
@@Alexander_Kale but the burning of fossil fuels is objectively destroying the planet at an overwhelming rate. Not treating is as worse than nuclear or renewables is trying to create a "balanced debate" for the sake of balance. Not everything has to be balanced if one of the options is objectively the worst.
@@Alexander_Kale Yes because there isn't an argument saying CO2 is good so that's just irrelevant
@@Alexander_Kale This is not bias or opinion, it's drawing obvious conclusions from the research. Fossil fuels are 100x worse than their alternatives, even at scale. CO2 is causing climate change and could potentially deface the planet. Even if you somehow disagree with the indirect logic that CO2 in the atmosphere is what causes climate change, then there's also direct proof that it acidifies oceans and kills its ecosystems, as well as burning fossil fuels causes 4.2 million deaths a year with its fine particle pollution.
Since coal, thousands of accidents that kill people have occurred in mining it. The largest problem with nuclear is the negative view of it, we’ve only known the destructive scale of the atom. And not that since nuclear generation, there’s been enough accidents to count on your hands, with Uranium to be exact. It’s going to be Thorium reactors that change the future.
We can agree that this channel has to be made more famous and should deserve more support.
this channel has grown by so much over the last years what do you mean?
Like, share and comment.
It has like 14 million subscribers I mean what more do you want.
Do you have any idea how much 14 million subscribers is? Yea its nice if he gets more, but its not like hes small or anything.
14.5 million subscribers isn't nothing
Every video from this channel in a nutshell: "its complicated."
Because it is, but nuclear is the best solution, and has been for decades.
Hi there.. Please visit my channel if you love science and general knowledge
Kurzgesagt in a nutshell
@F*СК MЕ - СНЕCK МY РR0FILЕ stfu bot
@@DarrensGeneralInfo no lmao make actual content and not spam garbage
1:46 Respect for the bird playing Sekiro
burd is not only playing sekiro, hes owning it.
the smile on his face tells tales of the suffering of his enemies
@F*СК MЕ - СНЕCK МY РR0FILЕ damn these bots are getting wierd
Hell yea. And he's at the kite part so you know he's beaten some bosses already
Electric vehicles wont help if were just continuing to burn fossil fuels to charge them. The reason nuclear plants are so expensive are because theyre all custom built, theres a thing called economy of scale. If we were to make every reactor the same they would be easy and cheap to mass produce. Another issue are all the old people saying climate change isnt real.
I really don't know how Kurzgesagt are able to keep working and producing such amazing videos. The whole world seems to be falling apart and yet they keep releasing videos according to their schedule. I respect you a lot for that. Thanks for the amazing content you continously bring to us.
Without a doubt
ikrrr
Pprt
The background music... I LOVE IT!
Hi verified guy
Usual Epic Mountain stuff🔥
Link for the background music is in description
@@chensich7519 hello :)
@@DKDynamic hi :)
1:45 I see the animators at Kurzgesagt like subjecting themselves to pain.
Sekiro is such a good game.
Is that the place where you need to mind control a gremlin to fly the kite for you?
@@aquilazyy1125 its sekiro, one of the hardest games that have been released in recent times. By hard I mean there is only one difficulty setting and the enemy Ai is rutheless, I think you get my idea. I platinumed Seekiro on the Ps4 (broke a controller in the process while fighting against OWL. The image on the monitor @1:45 is that of Sekiro the protagonist.
Souls games in general, DS1 is still the king tho.
I think that kite is the Wooooo Guy that swoops on you at the least expected moment.
@@Jopeth23 There’re many kites in Ashina tho.
Speaking of that woooo guy, I always find splashing Dragon Flash into his face damn satisfying LOL :))
Kurzgesagt, you should really start a podcast! It would be great knowing that I could take a run and listen to your calming voice talk about how we could terraform Venus, or nuke a city!
I love how birds are educating me more than school
Lol I am testing right now.
It’s also good because we can learn with our own FREE WILL! Plus when you want to learn something, you learn it with care while schools shove it down and lessen the fun with homework, tests, and essays
Big brain birds
Idk what school you go to but here they teach us about nuclear power
It’s probably because they care more about it than the governments of the world.
“Well, It’s complicated”
Gotta love that catchphrase though
I prefer Hello Future me's one:
X IS COMPLICATED (add echo)
e.g. : RELIGION IS COMPLICATED, HISTORY IS COMPLICATED, LANGUAGE IS COMPLICATED
Yep
@@icarue993 the world is complicated itself
yup
@@unknownrandomcomment8453
*cough*
THE WORLD IS COMPLICATED (echo echo)
So glad Kurzgesagt finally made a stand on the topic. Word of advice-don't be afraid to voice your opinion on a topic as impactful as this. You're very well respected and (most) people will react with new consideration not a dismissal of your opinion. Go nuclear
Go nuclear. Safer than people give it credit for and its cleaaaaan
Guess I’m gonna be one of the lucky 1st replies
@@spingleboygle The fact your "Tree" is shaped like a clover only makes this more amusing.
The only nuclear that I support is the expanded use of breeder reactors to make use of nuclear waste and thus reduce the burden we leave for future generations. If breeder reactors weren't feared for their ability to produce weapons grade nuclear fuel we'd have less than 1% of the waste we do now. That means that if we USE the waste we have we could easily get through another century or more building new plants that decrease our nuclear stockpiles.
Unfortunately, when people say "go nuclear" they really mean to continue as we have been. Mine more fuel from the Earth? Create more waste? That's not green, unless you mean the characteristic green glow of an alpha particles falling down to it's original energy levels. No, we are borrowing from future generations to satisfy our own green. We are expecting future generations to care for our garbage for longer than human civilization has existed and people really think that's green? That's just sad.
@@Cryogenius333 it's a great tree
Doesn't help that for some reason nuclear waste is typically portrayed as acidic green glowing goo... when it's actually just metal cylinders.
Germany: - Let's replace Nuclear by Coal to fight climate change!
_Something's wrong, I can feel it_
The green party was the main proponent of shutting down nuclear energy. Ironic.
let's use snow to cook hot dogs
LMFAO
Just a feeling I guess, like something is about to happen, but I don't know what it means.
The main reason Germany is getting rid of their nuclear power is to not repeat Japan's Fukishima disaster. They announced getting rid of them about a month after that happened.
I've always had concerns about nuclear energy, and specially regarding its waste. But Kurzgesagt has singlehandedly managed to change my views on nuclear power, to the point where I no longer consider it unviable.
And for that, I thank thee.
We will never have to bury nuclear "waste" for thousands of years. Current "waste" will be Generation IV and V reactors' fuel.
It is economically unviable. Source: Hinkley point station, near where I live.
@@fish9468 If you use current technology, maybe. If you use fourth generation reactors, surely not. And even with current technology, it seems for China, Russia, India and Korea it's actually quite viable...
@@fish9468 maybe we should start upgrading or replacing these nuclear power stations... enough with the demonization of nuclear. It's unviable because we're maintaining old crap...
@@fish9468 (not to mention that deciding on our energy generation mix by only looking at one single plant project is not exactly rational, maybe we could also take into account the other aprox. 440 nuclear plants throughout the world that are, in fact, economically viable...)
i was away sick with covid, 17 days no internet usage, and here there is new Kurzgesat videos, best welcome i had
Why were you not allowed to use the internet?
@@alexmaddox8307 dude probs have shitty wifi idk or shit signal so hot spots kinda not workin
Welcome back. Hope you get better soon.
@@alexmaddox8307 I don't think it was the internet, it was probably because he felt like shit. When I had the flu I felt so bad that I didn't have the attention to watch videos.
@@alexmaddox8307 might’ve gone into hospital
Plane crashes are unspeakable tragedies that have taken more lives than nuclear ever has and yet we didn't abandon flying. We came together looked at the crashes decided what needs to be fixed and what needs to happen to stop anything like it from happening again. It's possible for us to work around potentially dangerous outcomes of using technologies if we give it some effort. No one knows about the time a cargo door latch failed on two different planes which killed 346 people, but everyone knows Chernobyl even though less than 100 died directly from it. Poor engineering and maintenance is what takes lives, not radiation.
Fun fact: If you excluded every plane crash fatality that was on the plane, you'd STILL have more deaths than the entire history of commercial nuclear power.
Proud to be a Site Engineer at Nuclear Power Plant Construction, India
Shouldn't have commented this, now you gonna be kidnapped by the phoenix connexion
Nice
Now CIA knows
How's the nuclear future of India looking bro?
Based
As someone who is pro nuclear, 5:51 is exactly the type of an animation I support.
I mean the nuclear could have been a bit faster for my tastes on the progress bar, but I'm with you on it.
The bird knocks off the nuclear portion, too.
@@benjaminnewlon7865 Yeah, after a long time when (hopefully) will be able to just depend on renewables
I think it would be good if the usa went 100% nuclear
I love thorium
Seriously, how can a team create so well researched scientific video essays and still make them this wholesome? Every single time I watch your videos, at some point I get cuteness overload from the animated ducks!
It's still lack some obvious arguments like "we only have enough uranium to sustain a clean world for only a century (100% nuclear electricity production), just enough time to figure out a real sustainable, unlimited and clean source". We have more fossil fuel than uranium sadly. You need those crucial informations to figure out a plan and give orientation to next investments. Sadly a century is a human lifetime, so no one think about the children in current equation.
@@Elviloh uranium isn't the only nuclear fuel, there are also reactors being built that use the waste products of current nuclear reactors, also if asteroid mining become a thing, then the uranium problem may not be so bad
@@Elviloh What about thorium, fuel breeding and reprocessing spent fuel?
The video did briefly mention breeding and reprocessing.
100% nuclear isn't practical, though you may be only using that figure illustratively, so the life of nuclear fission can be extended far beyond "about a century" which makes planning for the future a bit easier. Unfortunately that planning usually crosses politicians who are mostly incompetent and self serving
@@Elviloh thorium produces way much electricity, is 3 times more abundant than uranium and produces less waste.
With a couple of millions of dollars anyone can push the climate change narrative.
Those nuclear power plants that convert waste into fuel are genius.
Why are these not already being implemented?
Politics.
@@whothehellarewe the one thing keeping humanity back from true progress.
8:14 background music is epic
Have you heard they soundtrack of their space vids?
@@ivanlol7153 omg yessss
Yep
Look up Epic Mountain Music for the soundtrack. It's amazing.
@@ivanlol7153 The best part is when multiple videos utilize the same leitmotifs. My favorite is the Dyson Sphere's motif, which plays whenever they mention it in other videos, it's just incredible (notable appearances in Stellar Engine and Alien Scale)
Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
Yeah i dont really get how some people view nuclear energy as evil
Nuclear , Geothermal and Hydro (where possible) are the best alternatives to coal (and oil) which are constantly reliable I think, while I love solar power myself it is costly to develop a reliable storage for it though an 1GWh battery storage could save enough energy for a smaller city or town safely it'd be very costly to build.
I think new generation nuclear power plants will be even more safer and efficient than they are now while new generation geothermal plants will be much more efficient.
I think we can all agree that coal and oil plants should be the enemy whenever someone supports nuclear/solar/wind/etc energy.
@@alabamaaa7245 Too easy to conflate it with nuclear weapons, and somehow people got it in their heads that radiation was some infinitely deadly invisible force of doom. They tend to forget that every time they step out their front door they're walking out under the system's largest un-shielded fusion reactor.
So yeah, it's not great for you, but your body is meant to deal with small scale exposure to radiation on a daily basis. Barring direct exposure to heavily irradiated materials, radiation is just a minor risk factor in your day to day life.
@@alabamaaa7245 my.most likely bet is because of. Chernobyl (sorry if spelled it wrong) and fukushima (again sorry) this causes panic and fear. But they were the best option to fight climate change
The corps love oil money. Marketed nuclear as evil. Things with an imagined system of goals (i.e. economy) is a funnel for the top; utilitarianism is a corpse to be pecked. Although the distinction between imaginery and practical is blurred by words, I believe we can understand the situation and at least try in eachother's way as all fall into the chaos and void.
The batteries and storage problem associated with renewables has reminded me - could you please do the video on lithium mining and the environmental footprint of renewables in general, like production of solar panels etc.?
They dont have the balls to do that
@@socrateszues6024 Oh really.. and what makes you think that?????
Lithium isn’t the worst component in rechargeable batteries, research is being put towards extracting the metal from the near endless supply in seawater. Cobalt makes up a larger portion of most Li-ion batteries (the exception being Tesla batteries I believe), with half of the earth’s cobalt supply coming from the DRC, and the conditions of cobalt mines there are abysmal in both an environmental and humanitarian respect.
I wish they put solar panels on houses and not in fields.
I think this "grid batteries" should use alternative storage solutions. Pumped Hydro which stores as gravitational potential energy, flywheels which store energy as angular momentum, and thermal storage which store energy as heat. There is even electro and magnetostatic energy which store as electro and magnetic fields, but those are not up to the capacity that we need.
Chemical storage (batteries and fuel cells) just happen to be the most versatile and more researched. Things like energy density (both mass and size) (which chemical is good for) become less important and aspects like cost and durability become much more important.
We should of course focus on renewable and battery technology. The nuclear plants that are already in place can stay there but we should not build nuclear plants unless absolutely necessary and even then the priority is that they are temporary.
I'm so, so encouraged to be hearing more honest and accurate discussions like this about such a critical issue. I feel like I'm watching people drowning while they stare defiantly at a life-preserver right in front of them because they don't like it's color.
That about sums it up.
Honesty? No, nuclear energies biggest three lies are what do you do with the nuclear waste for the next 100K years and how do you make it profitable. There has never been a commercial profitable nuclear facility in the United States, it's always required tax payor money to bail it out, often before the reactor is even half completed. And the biggest lie, 'carbon neutral'. This argument seems obvious if you are simple minded but when step back and consider all of the cement and steal to build the reactor, the fossil fuel powered generators required, and of course all of the fossil fuels used to mine, enrich, and transport, and cool those fuel rods you realize Nuclear power is just as dirty as any fossil fuel power generation. This video has no new information and does actual cover new technologies other than stating they exist. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to use all of the fissile material so it can't be used for weapons of mass destruction but right now Japan is about to dump a million cubic meters of radiation in to ocean because that's what we do with dangerous waste and that's the legacy of nuclear energy. The US government built a big facility at the cost of billions of dollars to permanently store nuclear waste and where is all the nuclear waste in the US? Leaking in to the ground at sites for generations where it was created with no plan or money to deal with it.
The US nuclear energy industry needs to clean up it's mess before making any news one and it is the nuclear industry that needs solve the current nuclear waste crisis. Until then they should sit down and shut up because they should be sitting in prison for committing fraud. Corporations create environmental disasters with big promises and then just file bankruptcy and walk a way when it's time to make good.
Useful nuclear power will require a systemic approach with a time horizon over hundreds of years and not the 20 year ROI required by current business leaders. The nuclear waste disposal and recycling need to happen first and the current waste needs to be processed first before anyone starts talking about new reactors. American business and government just can't do anything beyond a 4 year time period, sadly.
Corporations are just not responsible and will cut and run when it's convenient for their careers and annual bonus and leave the tax payor to clean up the mess like a parent picking up after their child. This video does not even begin to address these issues and is so misrepresenting nuclear energy.
Japan is still dealing with Fukoshima, so please continue about how safe nuclear is?
@@allanwilmath8226 shit man u wrote a whole fucking essay how much time do u have?
@@Alwaysonhots-bu6lu ikr LOL.
@@Alwaysonhots-bu6lu I did not even read it cause I don’t read rubbish essays lol.
Can we just appreciate for a moment, the high level reasearch , script and animation
Hats off to the team
They even put the sponsor at the end, pretty nice guys =)
*- I was doing my schoolwork, but this is way more important and interesting, so let's watch!*
ye
What were u even doing, math? History?
@@RichMiniön-r2m meth
@@PS-ul2nm yooo you too?
stop putting camera in mah home.
the whole thing with wind and solar energy, even with storage reminds me of the game Astroneer and how it centers energy production around both of those mainly.
I always loved the way how the voice actor pronounces "electricity". I don't know, it's just so satisfying. This video is a gift for me.
Ell Eck trissity
eh leh ctricity
ELectricity
We NEED a shirt with the 4 renewable guys on it to be sold in your merch store. Basically the shot from ~7:50 please
The 4 horsemen of the Renewables
Water looking kinda cute, not gonna lie
Water looking kinda cute, not gonna lie
I'll buy this shirt for sure. I hope the Kurzgesagt team are checking these comments and noting it down.
Wearing that shirt will put people at risk of being attacked by right-wingers and trump supporters
"Eventually we will be able to do this with renewables" No, no we wont. Intermittance of renewables makes it impossible and using storage to account for that would be impossible because the scale would need to be so large that batteries would take more space than all the rest of human structures combined.
Quite right with the possible exception of hydroelectric power. Solar and wind power are extremely ineffective by comparison to all other forms of energy generation.
This is entirely false, it wouldn’t really take too much storage comparatively.
@@vinser1744 Actually no it is not false at all but the truth. The batteries required to contain the amount of power needed to power cities would have to be massive due to the extreme ineffectiveness of solar and wind power. Solar energy is entirely reliant on clear skies without any clouds whatsoever which is not a daily occurrence ever. Also solar power is useless at night. in order to not drain all your power by morning you would have to shut off/down anything that uses power. During storms or even cloudy days solar power is rendered useless for the duration the sunlight is blocked. Wind power is reliant on calm breezes. Hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms and even floods are known to put windmills out of commission for quite some time. Also to repair these solar panels or windmills more parts need to be manufactured which puts more pollutants into the atmosphere (not that it matters as we are insignificant in that regard) which nullifies any so called benefits those forms of energy provide. Also if there is no breeze there is no energy being generated. Hydroelectric power on the other hand is far more reliable but such power plants are few and far apart.
@@vinser1744 Just last year we had a space of time where there was no wind for almost 2 weeks and wind power was producing zero to minimal results. If we were rleiant on that we would have needed to store power for 2 weeks, which would means a city-sized battery to power the city.