Why You’re Wrong About Nuclear Power
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มี.ค. 2021
- The evidence is clear: nuclear power is the most efficient and safest form of energy we have. And we should have more of it.
💪 JOIN [THE FACILITY] for members-only live streams, behind-the-scenes posts, and the official Discord: / kylehill
👕 NEW MERCH DROP OUT NOW! shop.kylehill.net
🎥 SUB TO THE GAMING CHANNEL: / @kylehillgaming
✅ MANDATORY LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, AND TURN ON NOTIFICATIONS
📲 FOLLOW ME ON SOCIETY-RUINING SOCIAL MEDIA:
🐦 / sci_phile
📷 / sci_phile
😎: Kyle
✂: Charles Shattuck
🤖: @Claire Max
🎹: bensound.com
🎨: Mr. Mass / mysterygiftmovie
🎵: freesound.org
🎼: Mëydan
“Changes” (meydan.bandcamp.com/) by Meydän is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org) - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
*Thanks for watching, nerds.* CORRECTION: Graph on ARIA should be Deaths per 1,000 TWh, but conclusion is the same, relatively speaking.
I've been wanting to make this video for a long time. Share it if it resonates.
Will do
Trying to work out what is on The Facility screens is a fun game. I can see Stargate SG1 and Atlantis screens, as well as a few variations of the LCARS from Star Trek. I don't recognise them all though.
You forgot the key argument, though. What to do with the burned out nuclear material? It has to be stored somewhere and exactly that's the issue many people have with it. So, informative video, but it lacked that little detail.
How far do you think we are of fusion reactors?
Btw... what happened in Sector 61 of the facility...
there's just a big scarlet blob of pulsating mass in the corridor that leads into Sector 61...
We need to know Kyle... for the safety of every staff member
At my university is a Nuclear Reactor. A friend of mine works at it and says that a guy at a donut shop said he could tell the reactor was currently on because he had a headache. The reactor had been shut for 2 months due to unexpected maintenance. People are idiots
Unfortunately, there were probably a lot of other people he has said that to that now believe him. a lot of people are indeed idiots.
All you need to know about the fate of humanity is in the fact that there are two seasons of “cosmos” and ten of “keeping up with the kardashians”.
@@fordprefect1587 and the fact that a show about people driving on ice has 11 seasons on the history channel despite it having nothing to do with history
I lived on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for 2 years. I do believe during those 2 years I received less radiation than most Americans did because the amount of radiation I received from the reactor was less than what the average received from the ground.
@@jfast8256 A sailor on a target! 😆. Yeah, nuke sub guy here. Lived 30 feet from our reactor, sampled coolant every day for analysis. Without other sources of radiation, I got basically nothing. The sun is a big source, and so is your basement.
The dosimeter I have in my basement gets more radiation in a month than what I would get underwater, next to a reactor, for a year. And it's more than I get working at my commercial power plant each year.
Yes I have a radon mitigation system.
“Why you’re wrong about nuclear” excuse me sir I clicked to confirm by bias that nuclear is awesome
Yessss sir
actually facts lmao just sent this video backing my argument to my friends lmaooooo
Same bro imagine regressing 300 years bc you are afraid of the most advanced way of energy production
@@silasweitmann3103 Facts we were just having a discussion and Chernobyl came up and how it was horrible yea that was bad but nuclear meltdowns happen way less than mining accidents and pollution killing people lmao this just backed our outlook on things lol
This is the way it should be
Nuclear power is like airline transport. It's the safest, but if there's an accident, it's all over the press, and people are terrified.
Nuclear power is the MOST expensive way to produce electrical power
@@clarkkent9080 while also the safest and cheap coal power plant like in the video is well kill us human and earth if you want to find out how bad it is go simulated overpopulation you'll see how bad it can get if we still use cheap coal power plant
@@unknowngod8221 I don't comment to push an agenda of wind turbines, solar, natural gas, or coal. I simply provide facts and reality that in the U.S. , given that recent failures in new nuclear projects, no utility is even considering them and given the 16 years to build one and old nuclear plants shutting down every year, nuclear's contribution to the U.S. electrical grid WILL decrease over at least the next 20-25 years.
Hopes, wants, and dreams will not change reality
@@clarkkent9080 the French pay nothing for their electricity in comparison to coal burning countries. The investment is high yes but it pays off over time.
@@ryanwarner5006 French reactors are reaching their end of life. If they build new units, that will no longer be true
My fiancé told me to watch this because he knew I was scared of nuclear power. Im glad I watched this! You totally changed my mind. Thank you
Government propaganda and sensationalized media has made nuclear energy look like a deadly monster waiting to spring, when in reality it will save us from the growling beasts that are currently tearing our planet to shreds.
Why
@@thedevilsadvocate5210 Why not? state your case please....
@@litltoosee
Because the radiation from the nuclear waste lasts 10,000 years
What are you doing with that nuclear waste for 10,000 years?
How much of that clean energy are you storing in your backyard?
@@thedevilsadvocate5210 And where exactly did you get that number? Most of the waste that's being stored today has long since become safe, like lean-against-the-barrel-for-days type of safe. It's fallout that lasts millenia, not waste (and by fallout I mean that thing in the ruined reactor, not the miniscule amount of radiation everywhere around). And If nuclear gets the investment it deserves, and especially if Thorium plants kick off, there won't be a Chernobyl ever again. The truly dangerous waste that does last long can be stored in at most 2-3 barrels per entire life cycle of a plant. Also nuclear waste is solid, so it's not some green goo that can bite through the barrel and leak out; it's a solid piece of rock, encased in a ton of concrete, in a barrel, 400 meters underground.
As a Nuclear engineering student, I'm very excited to start boiling water for a living
But what an awesome way of boiling water😉
Only on BWR's...The steam plant is considered "conventional."
@@WarpFactor999 doesn't the LWR also boil water?
@@bdasaw On the secondary plant side using a steam generator. When I wrote that, I was thinking in terms of PWR vs. BWR.
I hope you heat salt and CO2. Put the "Tin Lizzy" PWR to bed.
Nuclear power in a nutshell: 10,000 years of human technological advancement to boil water.
That made me crack up
Same how human ranged weapons tech is basically throwing a rock faster, harder, and more efficiently, human power tech is basically boiling water more efficiently(except for stirling engines, solar panels, wind power, etc.)
at the end of the day all energy methods (beside solar) is about turning a turbine in some ways
@@gohunt001-5 similar to how most calculation tools are just using stones to count to literally teaching a rock to think for us. From the abacus to the computer we humans can use rocks in astounding ways haha
@@mrcoolize Fusion too?
Important to remember that the oil industry supports the promotion of renewables like solar and wind as a divide and rule tactic to undermine nuclear power, because they know solar and wind won't practically compete with oil because of intermittency and energy density issues, but they WILL take resources away from nuclear which could wipe the floor with fossil fuels if people weren't afraid of it.
If the oil companies were smart, they would be leading the way in creating and producing modern nuclear plants. Or, at least be heavily invested in the organizations that are doing so. We will still need petroleum products for a long time as they have so many uses outside of producing electricity and powering vehicles. One example is that SpaceX uses kerosene as the main propellant in their spacecraft rocket engines, as do other rocket engines produced elsewhere. However, if we were to eliminate the use of coal and petroleum products for electrical energy production around the world it would reduce carbon output drastically.
Wind and solar are not competitors to oil, there aren't really any oil power stations. Nuclear cannot compete because of economics.
Thumbs up for a NICE quantity of thumbs up!
Get your story straight. It is important to remember that the same utilities that are promoting nuclear also are heavily invested in fossil fuels energy production with only a smattering of investments in renewables for PR purposes. They are browbeating, intimidating and bribing legislators to increase already massive subsidies to the nuclear industry and restrict energy conservation and use of renewables or they will burn more coal. They also spend a ton of money on puff pieces like this to trash the competition and soak the taxpayers.
yeah also inconstant renewables like solar need fossil fuel back-up to transport energy at night
In 1969 after 5 days in the hospital under an oxygen tent the doctor told my father that if he didn't get me out of Northern Alabama I wouldn't survive another asthma attack. The air was so bad from the coke, steal and power plants that the pollution was like fog. We moved to the Gulf Coast where a constant breeze kept the air fresh. The Clean Air Act went a long way to solving the problem but it illustrates the effect coal has on public health.
Imagine walking through the park and you see Kyle squat down, press record on his phone, then bury it under a little bit of dirt. He starts talking to himself, and then immediately unburies his phone. He then talks to it for a minute and puts it back. Then picks it up again, stops the recording, looks around, and walks away whistling with his hands in his pockets.
While talking about nuclear power
+
I would just assume he was a Democrat getting a ballot from the dead gold-fish that was buried there.
I'd think ''ha, classic kyle''
@@innocentbystander3317 oh boy. Somebody call MENSA, we got big brain time going on here
Best line about nuclear power:
Can I survive swimming in the cooling water?
No, you’d be dead in seconds, from the gunshot wounds.
Hahahaha! Nice!
I work in power plants and can attest to this fact
@@Dodgerific but what if it’s too cold out to swim in regular pools. I wanna swim in the same bath water as the fuel rods. They’re not special-er than me.
Randall Munroe!
@@stewartyates4510 gamer fuel rod bath water
I've lived nearby a nuclear power plant for over 10 years and had no idea. No smog or anything
I take it that plant wasn't Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Also, do a little research and get an understanding of how many "scrams" or near misses that plant had. Once you start looking into it, it's an eye opener.
@@ChrisR-xs9wp I started looking into it and didn't find any "scrams" or other noteworthy incidents with that nuclear plant.
Kyle, I will admit that before I started watching your videos, I was grossly misiformed and uneducated on the issue of nuclear energy. I wasn't against it, it was worse...I had no opinion. I think apathy is much more detrimental to such an important issue. I thank you for making these videos. They've made me realize just how dangerous pop culture and the media are in the sense that they influence the public to barely consider viable options to solve our energy crisis. If we can get enough people educated on nuclear energy resulting in a paradigm shift, then everyone can quickly go back to NPC-mode and let nuclear scientists, engineers and others, work in the background of their existence, making the planet a better place to live in.
my grandpa was a pipe fitter at Diablo canyon all of the people he worked with died of cancer caused by that reactor he is the only surviving pipe fitter had stage 4 throat cancer the chemo and radiation therapy almost killed him I will never support nuclear and no one will ever change my mind
@@Kolourful_Kandy why copy and paste?
The ones that are most important to be educated on nuclear energy already are - the financiers. They won't touch it with a ten foot pole. They like safe reliable investments with a quick return on investment. That ain't nuclear. That is why the nukies are spending huge sums of money putting out puff pieces like this to soak the taxpayers to pay for it.
@@Thetravelingmonke Why do you care if he copies and paste? Did you hear what he said? Do you care about that?
@@jackfanning7952 no, because i know that less people die using other methods anyway. Emotions are not a good argument against something.
The biggest and most heartbreaking takeaway from this is that my car hasn't been running on dinosaurs this whole time. This has rocked me to my core.
no, but you are using the very basis, the very essence, of life itself. I think that's pretty metal
@@eastdakota6954 Very metal indeed!
LOL
@@eastdakota6954 I have absorbed the essence of the life that lived millions of years ago so that I could drive my car to work
Something I learned recently that lead to me learning that fossil fuel is an incorrect term. Is that the deepest fossil ever found of any organism was only 2,500 feet deep. But oil can be found as deep as 38,000 feet and sometimes even further.
I always wanted Thor to explain to me why nuclear power is good
I bet this will be so much funnier when he explains how Thorium reactors are good
I can picture it, Chris gets paid by the owner of a nuclear power plant to dress up as Thor and go around providing Public Service Announcements around social media and the like.
Haha
I mean, the God of Thunder should know about different forms of electricity.
@@Badenhawk Wouldn't the most efficient way just be to summon a bunch of lightning and collect it?
As someone who comes from a family of coal miners and oil field workers, I understand why it’s important to us. It’s mainly the jobs and the fear of having no replacement and even less jobs in the Region of Appalachia right now. If we could have something to replace what we’d loose I think a lot of people would be happy. Then again there are a lot of people who are ignorant about nuclear energy. Personally I’m all for it. Coal raised my dad, his brothers, his sisters, and oil raised me. But for a better world, I want fission or fusion to raise my kids.
While I wouldn’t want a greenhorn or a roughneck operating a nuclear facility, I’m sure there would be plenty of jobs available to them in such places they could do without a degree in nuclear physics or chemistry and still make good money.
@@dr.floridamanphdPeople still gotta build and supply the nuclear facilities. There'll always be jobs for all people in that field
and without your families efforts, we would still be in the dark ages. technical progress is linear.. god bless you miners for the results of your labors that we all benefit from. But we must transition to clean, renewable, safe, affordable energy, and LFTR's offer a path to that goal. By the way, the mining process for coal produces a huge surplus of thorium rich ore, which currently we discard as waste. The transition is doable, and profitable. I feel your concern for your kids.. this is the path..help us illuminate it..and they will bless and thank you for your foresight and love...
I like our fusion reactor 93 nillion miles away that has been providing free energy to us for billions of years.
@@dr.floridamanphd Security, general maintenance, supply chain, etc.. Plenty of jobs.
Maine when they had a nuclear plant, the Governor would be exposed to more radiation from all the granite around him than the average plant worker.
No radiation does not escape the water. Make sure you are actually saying facts than what you want to be true
Favorite quote about nuclear power:
“Nuclear fission is a hell of a way to boil water” -Karl Grossman
Now I'm thinking about replying on a nuclear plant to boil water so I can get the electricity to run my stove top so I can boil water too.
And funnily enough, boiling water (which is also serving as a moderator and a coolant) is arguably the worst way to do nuclear power. It was already obsolete technology before Calder hall, the first commercial nuclear power plant, came online in 1956.
@@jsn1252 The water that acts as a coolant and moderator is not the same water that is heated into steam for the turbines. If you have a better way of harnessing nuclear power, I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it :)
@@jsn1252 I would actually love to learn about other currently viable ways to harness nuclear, could you tell me what the method is?
@@jsn1252 Do tell
I did a speech on Nuclear Energy this past summer for my undergrad so I was totally nerding out watching this and knowing most of the data mentioned😂
I know how you feel. I work Nuclear Outages and I myself was incredibly excited about this video.
HELLO!!! I want to spend time with celebrities. Just kidding. GAGAGAGAGA! I only want to spend time with my two girlfriends and record videos for TH-cam with the 3 of us. OH YEAH. Don't hate me for living the best life, dear logan
@@AxxLAfriku
Have you ever heard about what happened to Joe
How's the progress on thorium for nuclear power? I'd like to see Kyle discuss that in the future.
I had the same thought. I'm curious to see his take on thorium and molten salt reactors.
I'd also like to point out every reactor that has had issues such as meltdown etc has been due to not being up to safety standards apart from a few other factors like an earth quake. So it's not like one is just going to go off
Even the Fukushima accident could’ve been prevented. The backup generators that were used to do something with the control rods probably hadn’t been up to code and were also located underneath the complex making it more susceptible to flooding.
@@pewpew3377 An excellent point
@@johnmcconnell7052 they also never actually melted down..fukashima was the closest to a meltdown of one reactor. Chernobyl is a metldown but isn't.
3 mile island wasn't a meltdown either or well it's a partial meltdown similar to fukashima.
These days as well thorium is used instead of uranium for reactors.
Thorium is also insane in its energy density and output while being much safer than uranium and near impossible to meltdown as well. It's nuclear waste is still similar in output being around 2-3% which is very low.
There's been some strides with nuclear fusion but that'll be another 20 years haha more like probably 30-40 years.
@@yulfine1688 AFAIK, didn't one of the Fukushima cores melt through the first reactor wall?
And even with them very rarely breaking down, the fact is that the deaths from nuclear power is way less than fossil fuels per capita
Nuclear power is like planes. It's the safest thing out there in its sphere but whenever it crashes - it shocks everyone deeply.
But compared to planes, it's not so conclusive based on statistics that it's the safest anyway (nuclear power)
@@igvc1876
Thats not true
Even at both 3 mile island
And fukashina
Not a single person died
@garyslayton8340 but each one had the potential to be much worse. And deaths isn't the only measure of danger. Adding chernobyl to this you get quite a big number relative to the number of reactors that have been in operation
@@igvc1876
They had the potentional too be
But good training and proper saftey prociders ment that they wernt
There are 412 reactors currently in the world
Out of the 4 major disators
Only 1 resulted in quantifiable death
Now a few minor reacters have resuleted in death
(Notably the US SL1 reactor)
But few have caused any mojor issues
The only severe disater of cherynoble
Was caused by poor reactor design
Extremely poor matineince
And lack of training
@@garyslayton8340 But that's the thing - human factors, such as poor training, misuse, terrorism are all factors just like the actual technology is - a large % of aircraft crashes are caused by human factors, except here the impact is far more global from each disaster.
My point is that statistically, we can't claim it's as safe as airplanes because the scale of the numbers is so different. 4 out of 412 is very high, especially most importantly considering that 412 is a very small number by itself - 4/412 may seem like a small number, but the variance of that % is huge since the sample size is so small. That's my point about this NOT being the same like comparing airplane safety where the sample size is orders of magnitudes higher, and thus certainty about safety rate is much higher.
That's like the claim often made that the Russian IL-86 is the safest airliner in the world since it had 0 crashes, and thus a 0% disaster rate, compared to a higher % of say a 767. But that's almost certainly not true - simply because the sample sizes are so different
Kyle : "It's Time to go Nuclear"
Godzilla : I raised that boy ^_^
Lola: Godzilla is my grandma.
666th like lol
666 likes 😂
Long live the king
😭😭💀
Title: "why you're wrong about nuclear power"
The video: (proceeds to explain why i'm right about nuclear power)
Saaaaaaaame
should probably clarify you mean that your on the nuclear energy side before some guy thinks you're not
@@JustBizmuth I mean...it's pretty clear from the context.
Same
Same.
Nobody ever talks about the coal mine in Centralia PA that's been on fire for over 50 years and is estimated to continue burning for centuries, which has left the town inhospitable. & it isn't even the only uncontrollable coal fire burning right now.
Showing deaths from related issues per TWh of energy generated is a great way to show the safety of nuclear. When I was a kid I was proud of the US stance on nuclear energy but this has regressed terribly in the past few decades. Really love the analogy to airplane flight as well. It should be common sense that nuclear is the most promising form of energy... and yet it's not. Thanks for fighting the good fight!
When I was a kid, I was so glad and proud that New Zealand refused US nuclear submarines and warships anywhere near our beautiful country.
Finally someone brave enough to say what we've all been thinking. No Airpods do not make you look cool.
Still worse than geothermal energy
People using any Apple products generally look silly to me.
@@designerama1099 posting it multiple times doesn't make you more right
@@designerama1099 Geothermal Energy is dependent on the geography of the area though.
They‘re comfy and don‘t fall out when working out and jogging.
Something that also gets my blood boiling, is when people are like "Look at these injuries of plant workers and firefighters from Chernobyl". Look up a report on something like an oil refinery fire/explosion. And those are much *much* more common than nuclear meltdowns
I'm not against nuclear power but that's like saying "nukes aren't that bad I mean normal bombs also kill people"
@@lasseheller9863 No, I'm not saying either is good, it's just that the danger from these two things are blown out of proportion.
@@MannoMax also because incompetence
@@lasseheller9863 When a 747 crashes, it's a hell of a lot more gruesome than a car crash, and it kills dozens of times as many people, and in fact many people are DEATHLY terrified of flying because of this. It still doesn't change the fact that car crashes account for over 1000x as many yearly fatalities as plane crashes. It's like that.
1975 Banqiao Dam disaster killed tens of thousands up to 240.000 people. AFAIK dams are still pretty popular forms of energy production.
My father was an inspector of nuclear power plants for GE. He died from horrible brain cancer in 2002. My uncle was a captain of a nuclear fast attack sub. He is happily retired. One of these men respected radiation, the other played it a bit fast and loose with his dosimeter badge. When my dad took me on an inspection, I watched my badge like a hawk. Despite what happened to my father, he was still pro nuclear energy and so am I.
Pro nuclear won't change reality.
Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
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.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
GBM is spontaneous most of the time 😢
And it's because of heroes like your father that we can make it safer for people in the industry every day.
Sorry about your father. That is very sad. 😢
I spent 20 years designing and building commercial U.S. Nuclear plants beginning in the 1970's. I knew most of this back then. Spread the word!
No
People are incredibly bad at telling that they are lied to. Just think were is the most money at and then think who wants to influence you. Yep usually following the money leads you right back and fossil fuel has a gigaton of money and is incredibly scared to lose out. They lobby as hard as they can are the major reason why nuclear has fallen out of favor. It is called propaganda and it works very very well...
Kyle: this is why you’re WRONG about nuclear power!
*proceeds to tell me why I’m right about nuclear power*
Then you're RIGHT about nuclear power!
ME TOO!
Yeah I feel like titles that automatically think they know your stance have a special spot in hell reserved
@@RageQuitRQ well the thing is the numbers don't lie and >1:2 people think that its bad he is speaking to the masses not the minority. Surely you understand such caveats and are being facetious.
@@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off you're right about the special place in hell remark being for funnies but it is actually a small pet peeve of mine
there's no really playing down the fact that he was doing it to get people to click but it's very widely accepted now as a thing that's normal i guess
And to think Mr Burns was actually protecting springfield's environment all this time...
Bruh I didn't think of that till now what the fuck they owe him an apology before he dies
@@denvetta pretty sure that man is immortal sooo... they got time
I think it was the dumping of the nuclear waste is where he went wrong.
@@SlamminRytch Yeah he would literally drop it into the town lake lmao
Yeah, he may be a bad guy but he is a lawful bad guy. So much for Lisa craziness
Nuclear "waste" can also be reenriched and a large component of it can be used again.
I did a project in 5th grade about nuclear power and how this shit is the best form of energy possible. Good job little buddy, you were onto something
I’m a big fan of the “which one sucks the least” method of choosing things.
agreed. however the biggest polluter right now is the third world countries. if we can find a way to help them switch from coal or oil for power to nuclear or even renewable energy. that would be great.
@@fadlinugraha347 more nuclear in third wordl countries....what a security nightmare...... but renewable would be nice.
@@fadlinugraha347 the only problem is you are doing the opposite
@@fadlinugraha347 the us wants to put their military to work put the army corps of engineers on building an African power grid and a highway system. If we wanna get to space as a species we need to try and have everything here to at least the bare minimums
agreed, i would say lung cancer is a less painful way to die than radiation poisoning..
Kyle is literally fighting fear, one of if not the most powerful human emotions.
He's fighting for greed, one of the most powerful human emotions, given explicit power by capitalism.
Texas Rattlesnek commies have - amount of iq
@Texas Rattlesnek Stop being such a gestapo thug. Nukes are pushed because they are the best option for profits for the already wealthy.
@@markhackett2302 so would you rather have the wealthy profiting ruining the environment or profiting and ruining the environment a lot less pretty easy choice if you ask me
@@markhackett2302 Nuclear power in the long run is one of the lost cost effective methods of power generation and will only improve with time. As a socialist it is by far one of the best options we have currently and a state-controlled nuclear energy system would work wonders.
There’s a movement now to try turn decommissioned coal plants into nuke plants. They reuse all the “power plant” stuff and add the reactor which cuts the cost nearly in half. There’s a lot of stuff in the way still, but sounds like a great idea to me.
We had an essay in a nature class (forget what it's called in english), in gymnasium,
where we had to discuss why we have to switch to cleaner power.
I asked if I could make one on switching to nuclear and the teacher was a little annoyed, but he allowed it.
I got an A.
You Go, Boozer Bane! Good on ya! Conrats!
Heck yeah!
Gymnasium, nature class... Are you Danish or Swedish (wild guess)? I am Norwegian. English equivalent of Naturfag/Word from whatever European language applies to you is Science class.
@@Ozzianman Swedish.
It’s like being more concerned about shark attacks than of car crashes
Imagine if planes never got developed because of the first plane crashes when it was just getting started. That’s nuclear power in my eyes
Thats actually the case.
Man's never seen any of the Sharknado movies I guess.
Let me tell you of a shark called Chernobyl and an exclusion zone that should´ve been 200 km instead of 30.
Let me tell you of a city called Chernobyl, which had a reactor using 30 year old technology that hadn't had a safety update since its inception, crewed by men who had very little idea what they were dealing with.
It's a secret fantasy of mine to be able to go to a nuclear power plant stand on the walk way above the reactor and with my best dr evil impression ask for 100 million billion dollars.
Heres hoping you can.
visit zwentendorf in austria! you can do that there
Done it. Not as cool as you think it is with other people staring at you
If you are an engineering student at NC State, you get to tour the little reactor they have there, basically a blue light under 20 feet of water.
Grammar and punctuation definitely weren't your goal, that much I can tell.
I agree, context is extremely important, and with molten salt reactors and thorium energy, those power plants can literally be built to be walk away safe.
Not exactly. You still have to preform basic maintenance and monitoring the reactors systems . Which has nothing to do with screwing with the reactor. It's checking the output and making sure computer systems are working properly.
Because remember Nuclear power is essentially using steam to turn a Turbine to produce power. Those are moving parts which wear out over time.
@@John2r1 When I say walk away safe I don't mean it will continue to run unsupervised, I mean that because of the way a Molten salt reactor works it can never go critical like traditional nuclear reactor does when it looses power or something else goes wrong.
@@SamsTopBarBees Now we just have to get them built. So we can attach 6ft and 6ft tall artificially for a Spartan can you just 6yaaaour reliance on fosil fuels for our electricity system which is the largest consumer of fosil fuels.
@@John2r1 TH-cam has a real problem with bots I see... wow
I would wait for a MSR or Thorium reactor to be built in the U.S. to our standards before claiming any advantages.. Terrapower is trying to build a MSR but things are not going so well
My Dad worked for many years at INL working for Westinghouse where they developed, and test reactors for the Navy's nuclear submarines. One of the reactor facilities mentioned, is now a National Historical Site. During the summer months the people can freely go into the facility and take a guided tour or a self-guided tour. I like to go out and visit every so often. Their displays change a lot. The nuclear batteries that went into space on spacecraft where built at INL.
I was stationed on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for 4 years. I occasionally worked near the reactor, near enough to require a dosimeter at all times. I would trust a modern nuclear power plant 'in my back yard' because of how much I learned from all those years. I was told by medical I got like a few bunches of bananas, or maybe a long plane trip worth of radiation.
I too was on an aircraft carrier and found out from the Reactor officer that the people maintaining the reactor receive more radiation from sun exposure than they do from the reactor.
@@whiskey_icarus @benny carpenter-deason
True, topsiders got more than us nukes.
I have a nuke plant in my backyard and have no fear of it
@@duckface81 sorry no i only have the one and i am using it
@@JMD501 xD
A certain stick figure taught me about Thorium. Sometimes I still miss him.
A professor?
I think that's Sam o' Nella
@@reahs4815
*Kirk Sorensen* ?
I miss Sam :(
Ah, professor sam, he was great.
Where we had our NBC training, we were in a shielded room that contained a nuclear measuring device to check the quality solid steel, we were standing next to the beam generator, there was 0 radiation.
Outside the room you could hear the Geiger counter reacting to the background radiation
It astounds me people get more upset over the imagined threat from nuclear power than from the very real active danger from fossil fuels
"Flying is the most efficient and safest way to fly."
-Kyle Hill
Well, we have seen solar powered aircraft so the term 'efficient' comes into question but due to it's limited application means that we cannot judge it's safety (I am sure that the given figure of 0 is low). But it is interesting to note that other forms of power, those with a much shorter history are becoming interesting.
Now, the nuclear waste that has T1/2 hasn't been given a figure on human deaths. I'm pretty sure that it isn't zero either.
BTW when a fact is stated, using the term 'literally' reduces the trust in the person stating it. It is a classic example of an oxymoron.
he isn't wrong tho...
@@januhelj3796 Nah, he's spot on accurate.
And I suppose you might also assert that walking is the most efficient and safest way to walk?
@@badpharma461 it isn't a example of an oxymoron? Oxymorons are rethorical figures. You mean it is an example for something paradoxical I guess.
Also: I am pretty sure the death through nuclear waste are included in the statistics in the video, because nuclear waste isn't anywhere as harmful as people make it to be. The biggest problem about nuclear waste is not the waste but stupid people who have no idea what it is and what it does.
If Homer Simpson can keep Springfield safe from a nuclear meltdown those power plants can’t be so bad.
I havent watched simpsons for years, but wasnt there literally an episode that ended in homer causing a meltdown and literally the whole town dying?
@@thephantom2man doesn’t sound familiar but it’s possible 🤷♂️
@@thephantom2man That sounds like a Treehouse of Horror episode.
@@thephantom2man it
@@darkbeetlebot it was
Having grown up as a kid in the eighties, I vividly remember videos of dumping of barrels of nuclear waste into the ocean, Greenpeace et cetera. I'd love to know more about the current state/methods of nuclear waste disposal.
they were dumping usable fuel,, Youve been lied to.
Its mostly buring big concrete barrels (barrels that can surivive a missel attack btw)
The problem with deaths from nuclear is it's reported the same as a plane crash because of the numbers. Fossil fuel related deaths are like car accidents, far greater in quantity but almost never reported beyond a local scale.
I would love to see waste handling and storage covered as well.
This is the part I'm most unclear about.
I was wondering about that too. I agree with the points made in the video. But the fact that this was funded by the United States Department of Energy, and didn't mention waste disposal, or Three Mile Island is not lost on me. Concerns about nuclear energy were not addressed, so much as they were dismissed. I get that this is a commercial, and they're trying to accentuate the positive. But multiple mentions of Chernobyl and Fukushima with no discussion of more local disasters makes it sound like all the "bad" nuclear energy is far away.
Also, I know that it's sort of a tangential issue, but another concern that goes hand in hand with nuclear power, is nuclear weapons. At a time where the US and Russia are ignoring parts of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Iran deal hasn't been repaired, and North Korea is still rattling their sabre at every chance they get, it is not a trivial concern.
For what does it benefit mankind that they gain abundant clean energy, but live under constant threat of annihilation?
@@MrKyltpzyxm Step one. Dig hole.
Step two. Fill with concrete.
Oh man I'm glad I was able to figure out the obvious answer to a simple question. But seriously, as I asked someone else, do you give a damn about wind and solar waste, which is of exponentially higher volume and contains toxic materials that can't be recycled and doesn't naturally decay? If you don't fear those things, just stop and consider your biases.
@@shinigamiwolfen Ok. So dig a bigger hole and toss the old turbine blades in there. Then dig another hole and toss the old solar panels in that one.
Then dig another hole, and chuck all the spent storage batteries in that one. No power source is perfect. But wind solar and nuclear are much better than fossil fuels.
I was trying to express my feeling that this was a commercial, more than a "Kyle Explains." Kinda one sided. A persuasive presentation.
Which, again, I understand has its purpose. But I would have liked a more comprehensive discussion. If the solutions for the challenges that come with nuclear energy are so simple and straightforward, then it would be nice to have them presented here with the same informative and entertaining style that I've come to enjoy from our resident (ex)supervillain.
I noticed that the downsides weren't mentioned at all, and that it was sponsored by USDoE. So the bias of the video is clear. And, again, again, that's fine. I'd rather have the bias stated up front than attempt to conceal it. And nothing in the video, as far as I can tell, is false, or even misleading.
Just call me greedy, I wanted more.
@@MrKyltpzyxm Yeah, it definitely would've been nice if he went over it because most of the time when I see people opposing nuclear power, they don't actually understand how nuclear waste disposal works and just assume that it says buried in the ground forever.
I just love the idea that it's the US department of energy that has Kyle's supervillain record, not the department of justice or anything like that
Kyle is right on ... nuclear is the smart way to go. Now how do we get that to happen?
Maybe Kyle lives in the Stranger Things universe
Its because he caused Chernobyl
I'd like to imagine that the Department of Justice owed the Department of Energy a favour.
I find this topic extremely fascinating, the science behind is so complex yet easy just has me hooked. I'd love to work in this field but unfortunately too many things are stopping me. Won't stop me from researching this and learning more
I had someone on the bus today try to tell me that nuclear power is bad because the steam will heat the earth and make global warming worse, I wanted to die right then and there. decided to rewatch this lovely video to ground myself in reality again
He didn't even mention liquid fuelled reactor technology that could actually run on existing nuclear "waste". With a few years worth of materials and chemistry research, low pressure molten salt reactors could replace high pressure light water reactors making nuclear power exponentially safer than it already is.
This is new to me. I think nuclear waste is the biggest problem about nuclear energy, so is this already possible or still just a theory?
@@paladinplayer About a dozen different low pressure molten salt reactor designs are currently being researched and deployed across the world, some of which can indeed use nuclear waste as fuel. We're well past the theoretical phase but the buildout is slow, in part due to the incredibly strict regulatory blocks for any nuclear reactor as you might imagine, and in part due to a general lack of political will... perhaps because unlike the older reactor designs, the thorium used in molten salt reactors isn't just safer but it also can't be exploited for nuclear weapons.
From what I understand, high pressure reactors stuck around for so long without developing MSRs due primarily to the fact that you can't make weapons from the output of an MSR. Even when they were first developed and a prototype was built, they proved to be a superior design for a reactor by far, but also at the time everyone was all about building bigger and bigger bombs.
Holy shit
i like the information you guys give me here. if it is true.
i just wonder why ppl dont talk about it.. so either it has a big downside to it or (wouldnt surprise me) there are ppl with influence who wouldnt make as much money anymore or lose money.
but if you can use nuclear waste to make even more energy thats just fcking awesome. it has been a problem for so long and one of the biggest arguments against nuclear power what to do with the waste.
these kind of information should be talked about from all sides. and not nonsense like how many deaths we get from what energy source -.-
I love it when people point at steam coming off cooling towers and say “lOoK aT aLL ThAt PolUShun!!1”
I'm more so curious why there are proposals to store waste upstream near water supplies..... That seems a tad bit more problematic.
@@TherealSakuraKei The actual waste from these power plants is AMAZINGLY small when you compare it to coal power. And coal also pollutes the local water, much more so than nuclear power.
@@TherealSakuraKei Just because you don't see most of the waste from coal it's actually a lot more, the waste from coal goes straight into the atmosphere, but with nuclear you safely store waste in a contained facility.
@@Danokh I live near a province/state that has phased out most of their use of coal and focused on renewables. They focus on Hydro; wind and solar. So far they have a surplus of energy they are selling to surrounding states/provinces...... While my state wants nuclear and has been found proposing stupid places to dump the waste. ~
@@TherealSakuraKei Yeah you dont want this touching a water supply. However, the amount of waste is small, and the waste itself is nothing more than old fuel rods that are no longer able to power the reactor they were in. They still contain a huge amount of energy, just that reactor design cant use it. So we just put them into storage containers and started thinking about burying them. This was before we realised that they can be fuel for the later generations of reactors, that can extract more energy from them.. Now these waste fuel rods need not be buried, they just need to be kept safe till they are shipped out as fuel.
All this is kind a good thing, as we can now monitor the containers condition while we wait for them to be needed. We shouldn't be sticking the in the ground anymore, out of sight, out of mind. They have value now, and we can keep an eye on them and catch and deal with any containment issues.
Also, if the reactor owners want to these rods can be reprocessed into new ones, its just there are hardly any reprocessing plants!
Germany phasing out those nuclear plants was very strange to me. I had always thought of the Germans as an intelligent and pragmatic people until that point.
Unfortunately the byproduct of WW2 is that Germany is incredibly hypersensitive now and feels the need to compensate by being as liberal and as green as possible. And I'm saying this all the while being an overall fan of German culture.
We legitimately cut off their balls, ngl.
@@fructosecornsyrup5759 WW2 is over, but the adverse effects still are well and alive today, in some countries more than in others - in Germany certainly the most.
I'm German, and wearing my Bundeswehr parka and having short hair is enough for people to regularly assume I am some sort of right-wing extremist, it's insane.
So insane in fact, that until very recently, rampant anti-semitism held and expressed was usually tolerated without repercussions beyond an awkward silence, if the bigot wasn't or didn't look German. At least now, that's mildly frowned upon.
Hell, even Communism is widely accepted, because back then the Commies fought against the Nazis, so they can't be that bad, right?
Honestly, being a sensible German in Germany is enough to drive you to drink.
As a German, I wish it was true, but we have strong and thriving populations of idiots in this country.
Many of our politicians across the political spectrum are idiots or idiot-handlers.
Every country has idiots but each country has different strategies to keep them in check, make more useful than harmful. We're not doing a good job right now.
I really wish you had a list of sources for your videos so it's easier to read more on the topics you presented.
just go read about the nuclear disasters and thats enough to give reason why nuclear is stupidity.
@@A7X062388 Nuclear disaster which happened because safety meassures were ignored by humans.
Chernobly: Meltdown because they accidentaly dropped the power output close to zero during a test.
Fukushima: The company who was responsible for safety of the powerplant ignored almost 2 decades of warnings that a larger than planned tsunami could do exactly what happened.
Tell me where nuclear plants themselves are bad, problems appear if we dont opperate them correctly.
@@A7X062388and how many people burning coal has killed? Do you think that inhaling that shit never killed anybody? Foolish
My friend lost his grandparents cause lung cancer. They live near coal power plant and not only them but many people around it got different health problem related to pollution cause by coal power plant. And they tried to sue government and corporation behind it and failed miserably, because the owner have power on government and also coal mining site. And a week ago our President taken off fly ash and bottom ash from hazardous and toxic waste list. Cause coal, palm oil and textile association want to sell it and reuse it for cinder block, cement and other building materials.
@UCQ7XDwlPJ68u2WfEeAbh6mw yeah but the problem is corruption, oligarchs, coal mine and coal power plant owner, rule Indonesia. When government made big project, mark-up and corruption always happened and the quality of the project is bad, stalled or even abandoned before it finish. That's why people afraid nuke meltdown like Fukushima might happen cause Ring of Fire crossing our country.
But we have 40% world geothermal potential and we used less than 9% of them. Wind and sun potential also pretty high in rural region.
@@chimergo6501 (edit: this was originally in Indonesian, but I translated it to English on Chimergo's suggestion)
Hi. Due to Indonesia's size, although Indonesia is within the Ring of Fire, there are still places that are classified as low risk zones. That's why NPP proposals tend to focus on certain provinces. Because those provinces are the low risk zones. Besides, we don't plan on using outdated NPP designs like Fukushima Daiichi's which were designed in the '60s and built in the '70s. We'll use modern designs. Geothermal will still be used as best as we can, but for Indonesia we need to use a mix of new and renewable energies appropriate for our situation. Otherwise, well, our coal usage will be super huge.
@@tonychen76 Can we use English so foreigners understand our comment or at least the essence of it 😅
Yeah you were right and i'm fully aware with that. And i heard that if Indonesia want to build nuke plant, Borneo is the most suitable place for it or maybe floating nuke plant. And i heard that Thorcon proposed for floating thorium molten salt reactor. And they'll build it for Bangka Belitung, Borneo and Sumatera.
True. But nuclear is not an option...
@@eagle1de227 Oh, why not?
I feel like too many people base their opinion on Nuclear energy off a combination of Chernobyl and The Simpsons
and Fukushima since its more recent...
@@btogkas1 yeah, but Chernobyl is the big one y'know, maybe also Hiroshima though, not because it was a nuclear power plant but because some people still think a reactor is a bomb
Well yeah let’s be real the people that own these nuclear power plants don’t care about human cost and want to maximise profits as much as they can including cutting corners
@@wandiledlamini2591 you are wrong on many levels, please never move into a position of power
@@wandiledlamini2591 oh please the cost of an accident like Chernobyl is just too much to pay for rather then making things safer, pls learn more next time before dipping your head in conspiracies
Best part of the mini series right here. Great work on editing and putting together these scenes.
I believe fire is a good analogy. The fear of nuclear is equivalent to seeing a house fire on TV and never having a barbecue again
Another thing worth mentioning, look up the statistics on radiation related deaths on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. If people can live on these vessels for years at a time with no adverse effects, how much radiological danger can nuclear plants actually pose?
Not only that, some of the most enthusiastic proponents of civilian nuclear have worked and lived on these vessels.
Problem is single incidents that cause a lot of deaths. Its active damage but very little compared to coals which is passively killing of many more people
@@a7G-82r Not only that but the biggest nuclear disaster ever at Chernobyl happened because the reactors was poorly designed to save on costs, as long as short cuts not taken in building these reactors it is fine. France has been running problem free on mostly nuclear power for decades.
@@a7G-82ra chemical plant in bophal India killed over 3,800 and unprecedented numbers of affected peoples, a nuclear accident in Fukushima Japan however, there were no deaths.
Glad for support of nuclear power production; HOWEVER, IMHO, nuclear power engineers, and the generators they develop, need very much to get away from the expense and extreme complications of "Uranium" powered generators with the accompanying expense to build and operate and to deal with the massive long-lived wastes associated with Uranium!!
Previous operating Thorium reactors and generators have been ignored in favor of Uranium!! Thorium is FAR less expensive, as a fuel, as a source of power, without the massive waste problems, is easier to build, to operate as a generator, and Thorium cannot be made to produce bomb-making materials!! NOW IS THE TIME TO POUR FUNDING INTO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF Thorium GENERATOR TECHNOLOGIES!!
Important to remember the immense lobbying power of fossil fuel industries here in the west. Nuclear disasters are scary. Won't deny that. But coal and gas do long term harm that isn't as well seen.
The effects of nuclear disaster are more apparent and seen more quickly, where as the Effect of fossil fuels goes relatively unnoticed, truly a silent killer.
I am absolutely for Nuclear power, we should be using a lot more of it.
@@R0GU351GN4L every physicist, biologist, and chemist teachers/prof I've had, always told me(the class) that nuclear energy is the safest/most efficient energy we can use.
Its smelly hippies blocking nuclear power.
pathetic toothless blaming "hippies" you must be eighty years old and have wasted your ignorant life. Wake up to the REAL world.
@@deevnn he's not that far off, every time I ask someone with a liberal view point what kind of power should replace fossil fuels they always go with wind or solar, 2 of the most inefficient ways of producing energy, when I suggest nuclear power they always spew the same old line of "bUt WhAT AbOUt tHE NuCLEaR WaSTE!?!"
I had a professor talk about the incident in India. It was gross negligence. They had i forgot how many thouasand of people livng in the buffer zone for the plant it self
Thank you for spreading awareness about the benefits of nuclear energy, It's something we can't afford to ignore, especially now that climate change is dangerously close to being completely irreversible.
The people ruling the world are on the way out, and the only.meaning to their life is making money. Best we can do is wait until the kick the bucket
It's impossible to be irreversible by burning carbon. You can't create carbon and all of the carbon in coal and oil is trapped carbon from animals and plants. All we're doing is re-releasing it back into the air. According to paleoclimotoligists, co2 levels were 6000 parts per million during the Jurassic era.. tofay, it's 417 parts per million. We are just slowly getting back to that point and while the earth may look vastly different and be hotter but it won't be life ending. Eventually green energy will replace fossil fuels naturally and within a few short years, co2 levels would plummet. Especially with trees and use of things like co2 scrubbers which can solidify carbon from the air and store it (much like coal)
I live next to one. Smells delicious. Oh wait thats just the clean air.
😂burn....
@@joshgrace3018 eh more like a boil than a burn
@@connormcgrath5800 sick boil, my guy
12:50 "Flying is bad, but it's also the safest and most energy efficient way to fly..." Thanks, Kyle, you're a lifesaver.
I think he meant to say way to travel
@@pervavita
If it was the most energy effecient way to travel, wouldn't we transport our goods by plane and not by huge ships?
Unless there is something vastly different about transporting people (travel) and goods.
@@HasekuraIsuna I think it's that people and stuff that doesn't weight very much are best transported by plane, while the heavy stuff is best transported by cargo ship. I'm not sure, though. I might actually go look that up to find out haha
Safest and most energy efficient yes. But that doesn't matter when you are looking at sheer volume like cargo transport. They need volume not speed. For speed we fly packages all the time. But it is insanely expensive to fly say cranes. Much cheaper to ship them.
@@HasekuraIsuna I found this explanation online: "Shipping goods by sea is still popular nowadays due to low cost, high sea vessel load capacity, and minimal restrictions on vessel carrying capacity. Sea freight services allows substantially lower transportation costs in case of long-distance goods carriage."
So, I think that using a cargo ship can be more cost effective for transporting in really large amounts, even though it may be safer and more environmentally friendly to do it by plane. If you did try to ship it by plane, you would probably have to do multiple trips, since a plane can't hold nearly as much as a cargo ship, and maybe those multiple trips end up adding extra costs, even though less fuel is used in the long run. I guess price doesn't always reflect what the safest or most environmentally friendly option is. 😊
Oh god don't tell them that fossil fuel is made from ferns, you'll have them saying that it's been a "green" fuel all along.
Kyle, at least one major oil field got its start from when the dinosaurs were around, in particular the Safaniya Oil Field in the Persian Gulf. It’s formation got it’s start in the Campanian, which was from about 84-72 mya.
Imagine studying nuclear power for years, and lose an argument because the other guy kept saying that radiation bad you gay. :(
You resumed most arguments against Nuclear Fission power in a beautiful way
I mean that is an air tight argument.
Leftists hate nuclear energy. Cheap abundant energy will destroy their narrative and agenda to control society via energy.
@@ywsx6489 Its not leftist. Its the uneducated. Political view doesnt really matter in this, just that people are still unaware of the benefits of nuclear.
@@wongzehang2506 ask yourself why people are uneducated about nuclear ? Why do people think a meltdown results in a nuclear explosion? Why people think China syndrome is still a risk (when chernobyl core hasn’t come even close to water table after all this time) The answer is two fold 1.) massive disinformation campaign in 60s and 70s led by Ralph Nader that discounted experts by claiming they were lying because they worked for the power companies 2.) Hollywood and media using the horrific scenarios as the fear sold movies and news reports
Imagine if people talked about the BP oil spill even half as much as Chernobyl or Fukushima 🙄
3 million people a year die from complications caused by outdoor air pollution from fossil fuels and no one talks about it
@@rustyshacklford245 we are really only good at recognizing direct causality. We see nuke plant go boom and trees die and we get it, but if the stuff directly coming out of the coal plants are not causing people to choke and die, we are like 'cool, it disappears'. This is why we are having such a hard time with climate change, too many factors causing it and the effects are very subtle and over a long period of time.
Who isnt talking about BP? In Louisiana thats all people talked about for years. Many of our citizens were directly affected. So idk how you think it isnt or wasnt talked about
@@MrAsullivan12 Australian here, I only heard about the BP oil spill in the last few years, and it's very rarely talked about here. Chernobyl and Fukushima are talked about much more often despite being much less damaging.
@@MrAsullivan12 never heard about it here in germany
I'm using this, along with some ted talks discussing molten salt reactors, as main sources for my English final. Arguing that nuclear power is vastly underutilized.
I lived two miles from a nuclear power plant for a majority of my life. Never really thought I was in any danger and now I work for the company that runs it lol
As a nuclear engineering student, this is all I have wanted to scream to the mountains for years, Thank you
Right, I'm HVAC...its a super powered boiler!
Why? Nuclear is still a failure energy source for transitioning away from fossil fuels. Its too expensive, takes too long to build and micro reactors wont be proven for a decade. Why should we waste money and time and reduce co2 emission reduction just because of energy density?
@@bertthompson4748 ok we will keep producing carbon emissions until the earth is utterly fucked. There doesn't really seem to be another CONSISTENT source of clean emission energy, unless you found another way to heat water?
@@Blakearoberts its called solar, wind and Hydro coupled with battery storage.
@@bertthompson4748 😂 first of all you need to think about the useful life of a battery, they need replacing after a certain amount of cycles as they lose storage capacity. The production of batteries isn't very clean in itself, and the volume and methods of battery recycling aren't there yet either. Then you don't have a good spread of hydro, solar or wind resources which you need to pair with a optimized electrical grid that can store and then release energy when needed. There's also the question of power loss through cables. You could create a huge solar plant in the sahara but by the time the energy reaches the first inhabited area you'll lose a lot of it during transport not to mention that the best solar panels have a 25% efficiency. There's also many other factors that need to be taken into consideration but at the moment there is absolutely no way to completely replace fossil fuels without nuclear.
I think the argument is the most obvious when you compare Germany and France. France heavily bet on nuclear power while Germany decided to phase out nuclear power. As of 2019, it was 409g of CO² per KWh in Germany versus 57g per KWh in France in 2020. You can even observe a pretty sharp increase in the German graphs every time a nuclear plant is taken offline.
Oof
And the French pay an average of 18 cents per kWh while we Germans pay 30... Fuck our politicians... Truly fuck them.
The brilliance of Nuclear Power is that it is pollutant free, the smoke coming out of the stacks is just steam. Also, while we use this for nuclear fission, this will eventually allow us to master nuclear fusion which is way more efficient as it releases more energy and uses the most abundant element in the world, hydrogen.
@@PheonixRising2988 Meanwhile our so-called green party is against nuclear power full stop. They even specified that they include both fission and fusion. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that view.
@@mephistovonfaust Meanwhile here in quebec we pay 7 cents per kWh. Hydro is awesome :D but if you dont have the right environment for it, as most dont, nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient way to go about it.
If you account for workplace accidents you're far more likely to die working at a wind farm then you are at a nuclear power plant
Everybody research Thorium Energy. You will not be disappointed.
Kyle seems really passionate about destigmatizing nuclear power. This is exactly the way to edify people about and make them comfortable with the reality we're quickly approaching.
As usual it doesn't have anything to say about the technical labor requirements, geographic no go zones, geopolitcal no go zones, or the fact that even basic storage hasn't been done right even though it's easy bc we're an incompetent species.
Also it justify why Kyle is storing tons and tons of nuclear material for not-a-weapon in the Facility
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ There has always been resistance to adopting new technologies. People whom are content with creating problems from solutions, inevitably these people lose out and progress begins again. It only takes time.
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ Teaching about how nuclear energy works is tough. People understand burning stuff by instinct so it's very easy to accept burning a lot of coal to get energy out. Making people understand nuclear energy is a lot more complicated
Wide spread nuclear power will never happen until we have a plan that the majority agrees to for containment or disposal of the nuclear waste..
Because no one wants that crap sitting in "their backyard" so to speak =(
Kind of unrelated but I’m really glad you started making your own independent content, a gift to us all
wait independent from whom?
@@pvic6959 he used to be host for bechause science and maybe nerdist if i recall correctly
@@ALLNevada oh I know about because science (thats where I found him). I didnt know he was "dependent" on anything though
@@pvic6959 if i recall correctly they did not give him freedom to make content as he would have liked to. Maybe some other stuff too.
@@pvic6959 he used to mainly make these kinds of videos on “Because Science”, at least as far as I know, but now that he doesn’t seem to work there anymore he’s able to do whatever he wants here which is cool
Ive lived within a 20 mile radius from a nuclear power station for most of my life. Honestly never even thought about it. Have had 3 in a 55 mile radius for the same amount of time. One of which is the one well known in the united states for a accident occuring there. I believe we need more nuclear power plants
here in germany we got a lot of people telling fake news about power plants and living near them
for example if you live in a3 mile radius you can mutate and the radiation is super super high
to my knowledge the radiation ofthe plant is like eating a banana a day (or maybe aeven a year i cant remmeber the numbers)
Excellent video, thanks a lot for making this. You really have a talent for both teaching and entertaining. Even though I'm interested in scientific topics, I usually get bored by traditional content about science quite easily. But not with this combination of fancy editing, comedy and educative content..! You're really filling a gap here, between the traditional, clunky way that scientific facts are often communicated and a funny, flashy TV show, with the best of both worlds.
Something I'd like to see and would make a great follow-up to this video would be a video explaining how nuclear waste is handled.
Supposedly the waste can get scrubbed and reused, but the process Is too energy intensive right now
Yeah, great video but big bummer that there was little to none talk about them. no: how much waste is produced and new ways to deal with that...
There are ways to handle the waste but they arnt profitable so bot used.
There should be stricter laws regarding this I think
Thorium creates little to no waste and the half life is 300 years not over 10000
Yeah, I'm not sure this is a good video. It talks a lot about how nuclear energy is safe and better for the environment, but it completely ignores the fact that it does have it's impact. "Nuclear waste is trivial to deal with" sure, that's why we haven't figured out what to do with it in 50+ years....
(And there are other arguments that aren't great either, like linking Germany shutting down nuclear energy to more death because of coal, when in reality Germany is going renewable and also shutting down power production with coal)
Already pro-nuclear, my Father worked in various power plants (coal/gas/nuclear) throughout his career, he was happiest in the Nuclear plants.
crazy how this comment made me care more about nuclear energy than any data I've read. Your dad knows what's up deep inside him.
@Mr. Meeseekes I hope this is satirical and it just flew right over my head because I’m tired.
@Mr. Meeseekes hope that's a joke }:-(
Like he said, airplane and cars and other vehicles crash and you lose your.. like family. But no one stops using theese
@Mr. Meeseekes ok what do you suggest exactly nuclear has so many advantages that can be very obviously noted from this guys video and from actual nuclear physicist
I listened to this at work so maybe you’ve mentioned this and I missed it. But there’s been way more disasters with oil and gas.
Think about the tragedy one oil spill can create. Nothing nearly that bad has happened with nuclear. If proper legislation is enacted and proper safeguards set up, we can have safe, clean power until fusion comes online. recently, they made a breakthrough that ignition took less power to sustain the power than it produced. If we master that, we will have the power that drives the stars. And of course there are also thorium...
@@harrietharlow9929 "recently, they made a breakthrough that ignition took less power to sustain the power than it produced. If"
That's the easy part. For a tokamak design, getting it to commercial viability is basically impossible. Imagine constructing a machine that holds plasma hotter than the sun through magnetic confinement (using magnets to contain anything is stupidly difficult even in the best of times), and those magnetic fields are made from superconducting magnets that have to be chilled to well below freezing, and kept just a few meters away from the plasma that's hotter than the sun, and that plasma is going to produce such a strong neutron flux that it will destroy any structural material that you put between the stupidly hot plasma and the super-chilled magnets. Good luck.
"i'm working with them 'cause i also love Facilities" respectable
If you call it "fission power", you could side step the negative connotation of nuclear power. It's all about branding.
yes
Green fission. Nailed it.
It isn't Nuclear its Green power known as STEAM POWER lets live a steam punklife (powered by U-235) The CLEANIST POWER in the World
Some have suggested calling it Thorium power because of the plants that can run on the waste of older reactors.
As a nuclear engineering student, we’re recommended to call it “Atomic energy” when talking to the public, which really isn’t much different, but even the little things help.
This is a great video. I would like a follow-up that answers additional questions for the public, and I think your channel is perfect for it. What are the controls in place to react to disaster in a modern facility? What is the cost per watt comparison to other forms of energy production? If I remember correctly, it is quite high, though nuclear doesn't have grants and write-offs like coal and solar/wind
I can answer the cost part, it is usually high initial cost to build and make safety checks, get all the permissions and so on. After that, it is cheaper than any other energy source. According to quick search, return of investment in Europe can be 16 years - and only profit after that. This is too long for a commercial company to invest and wait, while they can make much more profit and much faster with natural gas or coal plant.
It is also problematic for politicians, they usually stay in politics for less than 12 years, so, they will never be able to advertise benefits of that construction during their time in the office.
Cost is highly contentious. It depends on several factors which take a while to explain. The short version is that nuclear power is very cheap, but there's a lot of people who twist the numbers to make it look expensive. In particular, the go-to source for green energy advocates is Lazard and LCOE. This is a scam for multiple reasons.
The first reason is that LCOE is a cost comparison between apples and oranges. It compares the cost of a nuclear power plant, which provides reliable, dispatchable, generation, and grid inertia and blackstart capability, to solar cells and wind turbines, wihch are intermittent and require backup and storage, and which are not dispatchable, and which require additional equipment to provide grid inertia and blackstart. Also, solar cells and wind turbines typically require much more transmission, and this is also not included in LCOE. Sometimes LCOE numbers are given that include minuscule mounts of storage, but never the full costs.
The second reason is that LCOE is not a simple calculation of "total money costs" divided by "total energy produced over lifetime". Instead, they add an extra factor which increases the apparent cost for electricity generators with long lifetimes. This is based on the "time is money" theory of investing, which is suitable for a private investor that cares only about profit in short time horizons, but it's utterly inapplicable to guiding public funding for public infrastructure. At common discount rates of 3% to 10%, it increases the apparent cost, the LCOE, of an 80 year nuclear power plant by 3x and 9x, respectively. The net result is that you can have a solution that has higher upfront capital costs and higher ongoing costs also have a smaller LCOE.
Other common tricks that make nuclear power look more expensive is by assuming ridiculously inflated costs for decommissioning and insurance which have no basis in reality.
"What are the controls in place to react to disaster in a modern facility?" -- Most modern designs come with passive decay removal. They have a large tank of water that atmospheric pressure that can be used to move heat away from the core without any powered pumps. This would have prevented all problems at Fukushima.
pls can you link sources cause im doing a presentation like this for a school project and idk how to find the fatality numbers thankyou so much i love ur videos!!
i support this whole heartedly but please talk more about a permanent waste storage system would love to see you do a piece on it!
a better waste storage system would be using thorium instead of uranium to generate the power, because the waste thorium generates is not dangerous
@@winstonoverwatch thorium generates more power, safer and also difficult to weaponize and mining thorium isnt life threatening for miners, thorium is op
you can just recycle the waste as its still uranium fuel but not bothered to be put back into the reactor
The problem of nuclear waste is a political problem. The truth is that once nuclear fuel is spent it is usually processed with silica (sand), and turn into glass (vitrified). In this state it’s very stable and presents very little danger. However, if the desire is to actually be rid of the waste permanently, it would be fairly easy to transport the vitrified waste to ships, which would then take it out to the deep oceans, above subduction zones, dump the already contained waste overboard, and let it sink to the bottom where it’ll be subsumed back into the earth’s mantel.
@@kingofwarfare1730 the waste product of using U235 is U238. Uranium is only useful as a power source in its U235 form, and very little of it is used. A rod is considered spent when somewhere less than 1% of the U235 is used. The rest, mostly U238, is the waste product.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (you'll see abbreviated LFTR) suffer no such issues as the U235 reactors. A runaway reaction (like a core meltdown in a U235 reactor) in a LFTR is *almost* physically impossible.
nuclear power: hot rock makes steam, steam makes things go
Go where?
@@UnlimitedGreenWorks
To me house
@@davisdf3064 seems legit
Go BOOOOM!
Yea... humans need a more efficient heat conversion method.
My home is run on good ole hydroelectric power via the Tennessee River.
It's sad that so many countries refuse to use nuclear power because of old misconceptions when it could do a lot of good.
Countries don't build nuclear because it's so expensive and in best case scenario it takes at least 6-8 years to build one power plant.
I've been saying this for years, nuclear IS the cleanest energy we have, yet no one talks about it. So frustrating.
Safest, not cleanest - a hydro-electric plant made with the same generators and concrete would be cleaner over time. The big solar focusing plants (like the Ivanpah plant in California/Nevada), might also be cleaner. I know that photovoltaics don't have enough lifespan to compete, and I don't know enough about the lifespan of a wind generator to honestly compare them. If they have enough lifespan, "zero waste" techs will beat nuclear on being clean the 1st time the nuclear reactor replaces a gram of spent fuel.
Nuclear IS safer, cheaper (per KwH over entire lifespan), and not location dependant. The frustrating part is that the technology can't advance because reactor R&D has been nearly completely scuttled, which leaves us with ancient designs that were made to create weapons material and produced electricity as a side effect instead of the cleanest, safest, most efficient reactors we *could* be making.
Well it's easier to write a story of how dangerous it is than to actually tell people about how it works.
@@muninrob Solar creates millions of tons more waste, contributes to deforestation and destroys ecosystems. The fuel may be cleaner than nuclear but solar is far from clean. You talk about zero waste, nuclear will accomplish that long before solar. Wind is just a joke (killing birds and "impossible" to recycle).
No one wants hydro in their back yard though. When it breaks you're gone.
@@muninrob Up to what point cleanest? Or "greener"?
Hydroelectric plants have a pretty big impact on the ecosystem, and solar focusing plants/solar fields and wind turbines take lots of space that's also dangerous for animals that fly.
It is really frustrating, every country should be building more nuclear power plants and instead they have been dismantling them, the fear of nuclear is really making things way way worse for climate change
"Why You’re Wrong About Nuclear Power"
Me, an avid supporter of nuclear power: *visible confusion*
still, I learned a lot here, great video!
I have been praising Nuclear for years, happy to see this video
You’re not too observant if you don’t realize that most people think nuclear power plants are incredibly dangerous. It probably has to do with the media overblowing isolated incidents of destruction related to those scary “nukular” silos becuase it gets viewers and makes them money. Same reason why they loved the nuclear dumpster fire that was Trump. The moral of the story? We should nuke the big media companies!
Ikr, most people I know are fine with nuclear even if they aren't ardent supporters. (Mostly because 60% of the power in my province comes from nuclear)
@@trippmoore Of course, it could be the RWNJ media trying to downplay the problems and shift them off onto "eco terrorists" and "government interference".
I have a positive outlook on nuclear power because all the times we've done accidents. We could have prevented them because there were warning signs telling us not to do it.
I would have loved to have information on the process of mining nuclear fuel, it's efficiency and eventual dangers. But very good video, you got me convinced.
"Just think how a microreactor can be shipped to a disaster area to power it until infrastructure can be rebuilt."
THAT SOUNDS LIKE SCI FI TECHNOLOGY, THATS AWESOME
Security will probably end up being one of the big limiters of small reactors like that, especially mobile ones. But, I could certainly imagine a military one. The kind of thing that gets used for humanitarian aide while no major conflicts are going on, like a hospital ship. (Which could actually be a decent way to keep people from messing with it).
But I think the power is still gonna be charged at some ridiculous price tho
@Jack Luck Soviets/Russians powered some small remote area city with the parked nuclear sub in a harbor, they also recently developed floating power plants, with Russian safety levels who would argue about floating nuclear power???
Yes just ship it to Syria of Afghanistan they'll have plenty of applications for it...
This so true, I wish more people would give nuclear power a chance
im on board, the only issue is that governments need to get on board, without governments it is going to be incredibly difficult to implement lots of nuclear
We did give it a chance. Many other countries as well. Nuclear power is still heavily used outside the usa.
@@nickscurvy8635
Germany seems to be the only one seeking to denuclearize their power grid even while relying heavily on neighbors that have kept theirs, such as France. Basically, they want it to stay a domestic issue while fully knowing that they can rely on others nuclear power plants.
It's better to not give people a chance to give nuclear power a chance. Just implement nuclear power and let the tree-huggers panic until they go extinct.
@@deusexaethera
I don't think it's the tree hugers, but stupid tree hugers! Because, I'm very much an environmentalist and all for nuclear with safer reactors! Even after learning about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, as well as Fukushima (which happened after I became an adult!). I blame their designs not their power source!
oddly when there is a big tanker oil spill, no one ever says "time to move away from this dangerous transit of hazardous goods".
Waste and accidents are not the issue, COST is.
If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 “state of the art” Generation III Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing in the U.S. over the last 20 years. The AP1000 is fully approved by the NRC for construction and operation. The only NRC requirement is that the plant be built per design documents…..seems simple..
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media, local, and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
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. Four managers on the project were charged with 16 felony counts, including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and causing a publicly traded company to keep a false record. The CEO of the project is serving 2 years in prison, another manager just got 15 months in prison, and the others are awaiting trial.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 at 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $34 billion with an original estimated cost of $16 billion). Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They last year long delay, according to the project management, was because thousands of build documents were missing. The first unit started in 2023 with Vogtle being, for its output, the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant. BTW, that first unit is now shutdown for repairs and the second unit is still a year away from startup.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080
Re cost: Nuclear power is way cheaper. Take the worst case for nuclear, Vogtle (Hinkley C is comparable). 30 billion USD for 2234 MW nameplate. Say 90% capacity factor and 80 year life. A simple amortized cost is about 21 USD / MWh. Take utility scale solar. Take some reasonable / optimistic numbers. Say about 0.70 USD / watt nameplate. 20% capacity factor. 25 year lifetime. A simple amortized cost is about 16 USD / MWh. Already it's a wash. Now look up any paper trying to model an energy transition to solar wind. They call for 2x or 3x overbuilds on solar and wind to reduce storage requirements to a something reasonable. For that, see the peer reviewed paper "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States". I haven't even added in the costs of the 1 day of batteries (huge), extra transmission costs (also huge), costs for synthetic grid inertia and blackstart capability (large).
Re LCOE: Often, nuclear is reported as not being vastly cheaper compared to solar and wind. This is because most cost numbers are from anti-nuclear source Lazard using LCOE. LCOE is a scam because it doesn't compare total system costs; it compares only solar cells and wind turbines to nuclear power plants, but solar cells and wind turbines require a lot more extra equipment to make a working grid (storage, backup, overbuild factors, synthetic grid inertia, blackstart capability). LCOE is also a scam because it bakes in a cheat that makes longlasting capital seem much more expensive. It's called discounting. It's a tool for a private investor who only cares about short term profits. it's completely inappropriate for directing public funding. Something can have a smaller LCOE but a higher upfront capital cost and a higher cost per year to maintain the solution. LCOE makes nuclear appear 3x to 9x more expensive for common discount rates of 3% and 10% respectively. Nuclear looks worse under LCOE because it has a much longer lifetime compared to solar and wind.
x
Bro has never watched a Godzilla movie 💀
That was a bomb 🤓
Bro never learn reality before