@@aliendroneservices6621 That's after he claimed Alex was calling him a criminal. And people who claim we can go zero carbon without nuclear *are* frauds. Finland has not a single "renewable" option, it must go nuclear, as most countries have to.
For what it's worth, and I think it's worth something, let's get straight what fraud, and what A fraud, is and isn't. They are extracting value from person or property by false or deceptive statements after managing to fool somebody with such statements. Merely making such statements ain't fraud, but he who makes such statements puts himself on the spot for those who aren't fooled. If the fraud has extracted value by fraud, tough for everybody including anybody who wasn't fooled, until justice is subsequently served. If Peter (the guy to stage right next to the moderator, who looks like David Letterman in his younger years) has extracted value by fraud, then he is a fraud, which is what I believe Epstein called him. I also believe Epstein understands all this about fraud.
@@mikekevitt1322 These guys literally make money putting stocks into renewables and gas, though. They hate nuclear and it's potential so much they would rather a carbon based fuel such as natural gas than nuclear. It's not a coincidence that gas companies are now running ads for renewables, they know they're necessary for renewables to function. Do I think this one guy is a fraud in and of himself? No, but they're the same arguments fraudsters are pushing regardless, hence why he said the claims are fraudulent.
Fossil Fuels must be considered on its humanitarian basis, first. 1. Water Treatment Plants are mostly powered by electricity. 2. The majority of electricity comes from Fossil Fuels. 3. There's no modern Medical Technology, Medicine, or Procedure that can happen without clean water, for sanitation.
Loved the dynamic...think tank guy was emboldened by Alex. Peter was shocked to face a moral argument. Alex is feeling justifiably confident right now. I suspect he takes it to the next level this winter. I think his argument has radiated to the wider culture including many members of Congress. Talk about keeping your eye on a goal. This is amazing to witness Alex slowly but surely impact the dialog.
Alex should have mentioned the nuclear energy industry was banned from COP26. Just when I thought the environmentalists were coming around to nuclear...
Was great to see 95 year old documentary star Sir David be available for his electrical grid engineering skills though. I’m sure he was of real benefit where nuclear power engineers would’ve fallen short
I'd like it if Alex would begin noting that all of the existing civilian nuclear plants were deliberately engineered to provide baseload power, and contrast that with naval reactors that have the full power flexibility required by warships. To get peaking generation out of nuclear, you have to engineer for it, and it's as much a function of the generation side as the reactor side.
That's a technical point that is best made by technical people. What Alex wants to get across is that the energy market needs to be free from arbitrary government/community laws that make the technical improvements impossible. I gather you're somewhat of a technician in the discipline...I want guys like YOU to be free to make improvements and to create new solutions to these technical problems. Alex is fighting those (like Peter) who want to shackle us all with outdated technology and want to force us all to burn wood or dung to heat our homes and cook our food. A thoughtful person might get the idea that Peter is one of those people who do not want other people to live long, peaceful or productive lives...an "anti-humanist", if you will!
We haven't done any real "science", regarding nuclear power for decades other than for defense purposes so you're arguing from a mindset of an activist in the 70's. You're worse than a religious nut, their beliefs are from a place of spirituality, your religion doesn't have spirituality or science. You're far more dangerous.
That won't stop him from leading a just stop oil protest. I really wish that some judges would start sentencing people who protest the use of petroleum products to live without them!
The carbon footprint of going nuclear is significantly lower and less ecodestructive than green energies such as solar and wind. The mining requirements of the battery stored energy of wind and solar is insane and is an aspect the greenies completely ignore. People also lose sight of the fact that solar panels and wind turbines have such a short lifespan, requiring total replacement in 10 years or less, whereas nuclear lasts infinitesimally longer.
Peter isn’t prepared to discuss let alone debate the issue but would rather the elite dictate how we live our lives & eventually what we will be able to eat
I always pity the Pete Wilkinsons of the world. It has got to be very stressful to lack the ability to use logic and reason clearly. Keep him in your prayers.
State officials in California have acknowledged that to use only wind & solar for that state's needs requires that 1/2 of the the state's land be used for these devices
11:58 Alex didn't say atomic power was being "badly sold". He said it was currently criminalized, and needs to be decriminalized. I propose that suing for radiation exposure needs to be disallowed. That would go a long way toward decriminalizing atomic power.
The nuclear industry is terrible at selling their own product and championing it's excellence and moral virtue. They seem happy being relegated to at best a backup technology for pathetically dilute and unreliable solar and wind rather than arguing for their technology's ability to provide the energy backbone of industrial civilization, as they should.
Regarding suing for damages, the requirement with nuclear as with everything else should be scientifically proven harm, with the minimum required levels of such taking into account the enormous positive value of the technology.
More Alex Epstein, please.. He speaks a lot of sense...👍, actually, a lot more... A Climate Special would be ideal... The penny is starting to drop here in the UK.., and Alex puts the common sense message over better than most..
Nuclear waste is a feature, not a problem. A single reactor generates many terawatt-hours of energy and produces a compact, solid waste product that fits on a single tractor trailer. Storing that waste is simple and effective.
Its a fair point that it takes a lot of CO2 to build a nuclear plant, but the anti-nuclear speaker ignores the amount of CO2 needed to mine the minerals and to build/install/service all the solar panels and wind turbines. But I eat a plant based diet so I personally love CO2... its plant food and the atmosphere does not currently have enough of it.
Molten salt reactors are safer than the traditional reactors. The reason we never used the molten salt reactors, the U.S. Navy wanted the traditional reactors.
The insects, the wildlife & their natural habitat apparently don’t count - in the same way that once the wind turbines have broken down, they don’t decompose & will become a part of a future problem - perhaps replacing plastics
I dare the world to build more nuclear power stations you just might find it so much more reliable source of energy why do you think they have them on submarines and aircraft carriers!
Peter says we need to have sensible conversation about the drawbacks of unreliables, but seeks to all-out condemn reliables while trying to force unreliables down our throats with "political will".
Great job, Alex. Wilkinson harped on carbon emissions (from nuclear) -- I for one am glad to hear that nuclear does produce some carbon. We NEED more carbon, and the points about reducing carbon are wrongheaded. Nuclear is expensive because of gov't-imposed obstacles for arbitrary reasons (not real reasons). Nuclear power takes up a lot less land while producing a lot more energy than any unsustainable source.
Co2 is the gas of life. The reason watermelons like Peter oppose it is that it is a measure of how industrialized a nation is. An interesting conversation is the one between Matt Riddly and Alex Epstein.
I appreciate vigorous and scientific debate on the energy issues not mandates based on some very loud special interest groups. Problems like this need to be approached with reason and a holistic view for the betterment of ALL human kind.
Peter has not done his research, his information on nuclear reactors are 50 years old. The current technology uses light water reactors, aka Generation One, the newest technology Generation Four does not require large amounts of water. They can be mass produced and are modular so can be scaled from the SMR to multi Giga Watt units. After development they will be factory built at the rate of several a year at a much lower diminishing cost. They can be trucked or rail transported to site. To prevent terrorist attacks they will be mostly underground.
Great job, Alex! However, I hate to break it to you and other Objectivists, but the left doesn't care about debates. Only victory and holding power as Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis demonstrate. Your debate victory's effect will not have lasting consequences.
5:00 Pete seems a bit thick (or deliberatley deceptive) worrying about embedded CO2 in a nuclear plant and completely ignoring the embedded CO2 in wind/solar. The return on investment, energy wise (which is roughly CO2 wise) is 400:1 for nuclear, 2:1 for solar or wind. So if you embed 1 unit of energy in building a nuclear plant you get 400 units of energy back over its lifetime. Embed 1 unit of energy in wind or solar you get 2 units of energy back over the lifetime.
You can buy years and years of Uranium fuel, which is why it gives you greater independence than something like a natural gas pipeline where you can save a few months but it's not really possible to stockpile years of fuel
You could use ancient biofuel (oil & gas) for quick scaling up and down with nuclear for the baseload, or you could use the nuclear electricity to create ammonia NH3 fuel made from H2O water and N2 air, releasing O2 oxygen as 'waste'. Then you can burn that NH3 as your quick scaling fuel instead of biofuels, releasing H2O water and N2 air as the only emissions. But there's no baseload power from wind and solar, especially during the British summer (or German winter for that matter)
5:00 Australia (a friendly country to the UK) has the largest Uranium deposits in the world. Nuclear fuel is incredibly dense which means you can store a lot of fuel in a small space - energy security. In fact you have several thousand years worth of energy sitting at nuclear power stations in the "waste" containers. Next gen nuclear power stations eat this fuel.
What about a sensible energy mix? With money or economics in general, everyone knows that you have to have a mix in case a stock or product fails. It's the same with energy sources. But we need to do this all over the world, not ban this or that energy completely and everywhere! This should first be a scientific debate and a subject of education in schools and universities, then a fair and reasonable public discussion. Lobbying should be absolutely banned (not only in this case! In the good old way of an owner talking to a politician is fine, but not in this promotional way with lots and lots of money).
@@aliendroneservices6621 Indonesia is going to use the modular reactors, molten salt. MSR functions well, the inventor of nuclear power systems wanted to use this type from the beginning. Molten salt is not weapons reactor emissions. Originally, nuclear plants had a military aspect in the U.S. to generate weapons grade plutonium. But the msrs do not.
You Brits, Tidal Energy. Wind Energy. Geo Thermal Energy. Good Point Insulate. Gravity Batteries. Some Solar, Including Huge Amounts in Space about 500 Miles above London.
Nuclear has a long way to go- first do a complete carbon accounting, solve the waiste issue, no one will insure it, we don't have time to build these before the climate tipping points kick in, and more. so now the best sollution is energy efficiency- NOT using energy!
It used to be that we built nuclear plants in 4 years, and there are still places like South Korea that can build them in about 6 or 7. That's a similar amount of time as it takes to build a wind farm. Storing nuclear waste until it's colder than background radiation takes centuries, it's true. But unless you're going to _eat_ the stuff, that's ridiculously extravagant. If you're content to store it only until it's about comparably as dangerous as the other industrial waste in our landfills, or at most until it's safe to handle with gloves, then the process is much much faster. And deindustrialization is a cure that's worse than the disease. We can survive and prosper in a dynamic, changing world, but not without flexing our human powers and using lots of energy.
@@OptimalOwl the disease- is not only CO2 and other atmospheric pollution- its all the other pollution we produce- and its how we rape nature to satisfy our greed for wealth- we will still destroy every ecosystem on the planet even if the energy is "cleaner"! thus we have to use much less energy- and that is more important than using clean energy! sustainability will require less population and more simple- very energy efficiant- living. so this is a bigger challenge than we though!
Nuclear Green and zero carbon? Y'all haven't lived next to a uranium mine. I asked a Swiss nuclear energy executive and told him about the uses of diesel to find uranium. He said that was the problem of the producing country.
@@OptimalOwl No all the coal used to create steel for turbines and oil used to make photovoltaic cells just magically appears whenever the government buys a solar panel.
Rooftop solar, small solar power plants, and offshore wind could power the UK. Dangerous expensive nuclear power with it's long term waste storage issues is not needed.
South Australia gets 70% of their electricity from rooftop solar, so that is a better option than expensive dangerous nuclear power with it's long term waste storage issues.
Support Alex's work but on Nuclear he ignores some drawbacks ... France is moving away from Nuclear due to it's high cost ... they decommissioned an old Nuclear plant a year ago and have plans to decommission more of them ... they have had multiple nuclear waste leaks from storage and reprocessing plants ... one caused the evacuation of 3 towns when waste leaked into the ground water ... the estimated cost of the clean up into the future has been estimated at 3 times Frances GDP ...Nuclear ISN"T CHEAP OR CLEAN
You must have missed President Macron’s plan released just a couple of weeks ago, calling for new nuclear builds, both on current EPR technology, and next generation SMR technology. France is getting back on the nuclear technology bandwagon, because finally a sensible politician has understood that technology is the answer to problems, and not pandering to get votes from people who are constantly angry about nuclear, for lack of knowledge, and for being rused by a specific political side with their anti-human view of the world.
Leaks from 50 year old gen 1 nuclear plants. If French engineers were allowed to build modern gen 4 reactors, you wouldn't have any of these problems. The problems you're describing are a result of regulation.
@@williamanthony915 That may be true ... but France has found that Nuclear is EXPENSIVE ... the reprocessing and storage of waste has far exceeded their projected costs ... they are building new reactors but Nuclear will make up a smaller % of power generation than in the past ... and they have also had 100's of waste spills and their waste storage facilities are failing with no plan for future long term storage
@@pablorages1241 I probably didn't communicate what I meant effectively. Modern gen 4 reactors recycle most of their waste, so you don't run into any of these problems. Maintaining gen 1 reactors past their retirement age is expensive. Using gen 4 reactors is cheap. Let's try it out.
This is part of the lack of understanding. 3 nuclear accidents out of several hundred thousand reactors in the world. It is safer than any other form of energy. New reactors are safer yet, using what used to be considered nuclear waste, and far more stable radioactive material.
The funny thing people don't understand: If something is radioactive for a long time, it's actually not very radioactive. And the longer times you shout about, the less dangerous it actually is. If instead the half-life is short, it does stop being radio-active in a shorter time, yes. But that does _not_ mean it's _less_ dangerous - because in the mean time it's _very_ radioactive. And… of course anti-nuclearists take that to 'Oh, so its dangerous every which way'. But you can't have it both ways. If you're rational.
Wind and solar are a fool's game. The first red flag was subsidies. The second was mandates.
Alex never called him a criminal, he said nuclear is criminalized. 🤦♂️
14:13 But Alex did say: "But anyone who claims to care about CO2, and is anti-nuclear, is a total fraud."
@@aliendroneservices6621 That's after he claimed Alex was calling him a criminal. And people who claim we can go zero carbon without nuclear *are* frauds. Finland has not a single "renewable" option, it must go nuclear, as most countries have to.
For what it's worth, and I think it's worth something, let's get straight what fraud, and what A fraud, is and isn't. They are extracting value from person or property by false or deceptive statements after managing to fool somebody with such statements. Merely making such statements ain't fraud, but he who makes such statements puts himself on the spot for those who aren't fooled. If the fraud has extracted value by fraud, tough for everybody including anybody who wasn't fooled, until justice is subsequently served. If Peter (the guy to stage right next to the moderator, who looks like David Letterman in his younger years) has extracted value by fraud, then he is a fraud, which is what I believe Epstein called him. I also believe Epstein understands all this about fraud.
@@mikekevitt1322 These guys literally make money putting stocks into renewables and gas, though. They hate nuclear and it's potential so much they would rather a carbon based fuel such as natural gas than nuclear.
It's not a coincidence that gas companies are now running ads for renewables, they know they're necessary for renewables to function. Do I think this one guy is a fraud in and of himself? No, but they're the same arguments fraudsters are pushing regardless, hence why he said the claims are fraudulent.
To be fair, he did call him a Fraud, which was still accurate.
I was so not looking forward to this farce of a climate summit, but I’ve enjoyed seeing Alex get some press time. He’s been great!
GB News did well involving him in the conversation
Bold and incisive.
"I'm not a zealot", says the founder of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace UK. Made me laugh anyway.
He acts like he's open to nuclear yet those groups work to take down nuclear plants that already exist!!
🤣
So lacking in self awareness.
Fossil Fuels must be considered on its humanitarian basis, first.
1. Water Treatment Plants are mostly powered by electricity.
2. The majority of electricity comes from Fossil Fuels.
3. There's no modern Medical Technology, Medicine, or Procedure that can happen without clean water, for sanitation.
It was nice to see two rational guests on this show. Excellent job Alex.
Two out of three ain't bad the guy with the beard is
5:25 The US, Canada and Australia are big uranium producers with large reserves, so you wouldn't need to look to an unfriendly country for supply.
Peter Wilkinson is astonishingly ignorant.
No one called him a "criminal." LOL Alex said that nuclear has been criminalized, which is true.
He did call him a fraud, which was however also correct.
Ask the Green guy whether he supports human economic progress and the human flourishing it engenders.
The guy with the beard sits smirking with his arms crossed, says it all!
Waste from Thorium MSR do not create waste weapons.
Alex is awesome. This climate hysteria BS has to die
I'm always amazed how will Alex is able to keep his cool (will mostly) dealing with all the anti-nuclear loons.
Loved the dynamic...think tank guy was emboldened by Alex. Peter was shocked to face a moral argument. Alex is feeling justifiably confident right now. I suspect he takes it to the next level this winter. I think his argument has radiated to the wider culture including many members of Congress. Talk about keeping your eye on a goal. This is amazing to witness Alex slowly but surely impact the dialog.
He’s absolutely brilliant. Hits the target every time
Alex should have mentioned the nuclear energy industry was banned from COP26. Just when I thought the environmentalists were coming around to nuclear...
Was great to see 95 year old documentary star Sir David be available for his electrical grid engineering skills though. I’m sure he was of real benefit where nuclear power engineers would’ve fallen short
This explains much: th-cam.com/video/Gq-qVf4saac/w-d-xo.html
I'd like it if Alex would begin noting that all of the existing civilian nuclear plants were deliberately engineered to provide baseload power, and contrast that with naval reactors that have the full power flexibility required by warships. To get peaking generation out of nuclear, you have to engineer for it, and it's as much a function of the generation side as the reactor side.
Underrated comment. Cheers
Many Gen IV reactors currently in development are being designed with load-following in mind.
That's a technical point that is best made by technical people. What Alex wants to get across is that the energy market needs to be free from arbitrary government/community laws that make the technical improvements impossible. I gather you're somewhat of a technician in the discipline...I want guys like YOU to be free to make improvements and to create new solutions to these technical problems.
Alex is fighting those (like Peter) who want to shackle us all with outdated technology and want to force us all to burn wood or dung to heat our homes and cook our food. A thoughtful person might get the idea that Peter is one of those people who do not want other people to live long, peaceful or productive lives...an "anti-humanist", if you will!
We haven't done any real "science", regarding nuclear power for decades other than for defense purposes so you're arguing from a mindset of an activist in the 70's. You're worse than a religious nut, their beliefs are from a place of spirituality, your religion doesn't have spirituality or science. You're far more dangerous.
Bravo Alex!
Alex' CV....."all around smartest guy in the room"
Excellent debate. The environment guy clearly lost the argument.
@@kallte9881 always do.
Anti human vegan lunatics
That won't stop him from leading a just stop oil protest.
I really wish that some judges would start sentencing people who protest the use of petroleum products to live without them!
the anti-nuke guy is a hoot. would probably prefer us to go back to caves. argues from the emotional side
The carbon footprint of going nuclear is significantly lower and less ecodestructive than green energies such as solar and wind. The mining requirements of the battery stored energy of wind and solar is insane and is an aspect the greenies completely ignore. People also lose sight of the fact that solar panels and wind turbines have such a short lifespan, requiring total replacement in 10 years or less, whereas nuclear lasts infinitesimally longer.
Peter isn’t prepared to discuss let alone debate the issue but would rather the elite dictate how we live our lives & eventually what we will be able to eat
All the while 'pleading' for 'honest and frank discussion'.
The green peace guy is laughably illogical.
Somewhat frustrating but good job Alex 👍
Alex makes information so clear!
'you can shake your head all you like, we need to be adults about these conversations'
proceeds to shake his head the moment he cant speak.
I always pity the Pete Wilkinsons of the world. It has got to be very stressful to lack the ability to use logic and reason clearly. Keep him in your prayers.
9:23 "40 year old fisher price arguments" lol
Craptube doesn't like this video as it's constantly in and out of buffering.
State officials in California have acknowledged that to use only wind & solar for that state's needs requires that 1/2 of the the state's land be used for these devices
They need to develop next gen nuclear, and call it somethong else, like alternative power generators.
"it's energy day". where 1,000 of delegates and private planes........
...and none of them are energy experts
11:58 Alex didn't say atomic power was being "badly sold". He said it was currently criminalized, and needs to be decriminalized. I propose that suing for radiation exposure needs to be disallowed. That would go a long way toward decriminalizing atomic power.
But I want to sue the sun when I get sun burned!
suing for demonstrable harm is quite different from pre-emptively outlawing something based on assuming harm in all cases
The nuclear industry is terrible at selling their own product and championing it's excellence and moral virtue. They seem happy being relegated to at best a backup technology for pathetically dilute and unreliable solar and wind rather than arguing for their technology's ability to provide the energy backbone of industrial civilization, as they should.
Regarding suing for damages, the requirement with nuclear as with everything else should be scientifically proven harm, with the minimum required levels of such taking into account the enormous positive value of the technology.
More Alex Epstein, please.. He speaks a lot of sense...👍, actually, a lot more... A Climate Special would be ideal... The penny is starting to drop here in the UK.., and Alex puts the common sense message over better than most..
How delusional this guy Peter is.
Nuclear waste is a feature, not a problem. A single reactor generates many terawatt-hours of energy and produces a compact, solid waste product that fits on a single tractor trailer. Storing that waste is simple and effective.
The correct term for what is currently called nuclear waste is future fuel!
That was great Alex!! And I like how you smiled when Dr. John Stanley would say something you liked or against Pete.
Alex is solid 👏🏽
You can't jump into zero emissions before having any new energy production.
Are all the anti-nuclear activists as ignorant as Peter? Isn’t there even one who can hold a technically informed discussion?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
Richard P. Feynman
Its a fair point that it takes a lot of CO2 to build a nuclear plant, but the anti-nuclear speaker ignores the amount of CO2 needed to mine the minerals and to build/install/service all the solar panels and wind turbines. But I eat a plant based diet so I personally love CO2... its plant food and the atmosphere does not currently have enough of it.
Nuclear power plants last at least 80 years, solar and wind last at best 20 years....
Molten salt reactors are safer than the traditional reactors. The reason we never used the molten salt reactors, the U.S. Navy wanted the traditional reactors.
Wind turbines kill so, so many eagles (raptors generally) and bats
The insects, the wildlife & their natural habitat apparently don’t count - in the same way that once the wind turbines have broken down, they don’t decompose & will become a part of a future problem - perhaps replacing plastics
Fuck the birds
"Birds are jerks"-Steven Crowder 😅
I dare the world to build more nuclear power stations you just might find it so much more reliable source of energy why do you think they have them on submarines and aircraft carriers!
Great segment!
This guy Peter “who founded Greenpeace” is the only green nutter they could find to debate Alex.
Probably the only one who would come.
The effects without them are worse. They have no insight just make us go backward.
Peter says we need to have sensible conversation about the drawbacks of unreliables, but seeks to all-out condemn reliables while trying to force unreliables down our throats with "political will".
Great job, Alex.
Wilkinson harped on carbon emissions (from nuclear) -- I for one am glad to hear that nuclear does produce some carbon. We NEED more carbon, and the points about reducing carbon are wrongheaded. Nuclear is expensive because of gov't-imposed obstacles for arbitrary reasons (not real reasons).
Nuclear power takes up a lot less land while producing a lot more energy than any unsustainable source.
Co2 is the gas of life. The reason watermelons like Peter oppose it is that it is a measure of how industrialized a nation is.
An interesting conversation is the one between Matt Riddly and Alex Epstein.
Excellent
I appreciate vigorous and scientific debate on the energy issues not mandates based on some very
loud special interest groups. Problems like this need to be approached with reason and a holistic view for the betterment of ALL human kind.
Peter has not done his research, his information on nuclear reactors are 50 years old. The current technology uses light water reactors, aka Generation One, the newest technology Generation Four does not require large amounts of water. They can be mass produced and are modular so can be scaled from the SMR to multi Giga Watt units. After development they will be factory built at the rate of several a year at a much lower diminishing cost. They can be trucked or rail transported to site. To prevent terrorist attacks they will be mostly underground.
You are an energy Samurai. Sugoi
Criminal seems to have stuck in his head lol, great job Alex on pushing back on these jerks
Go Alex!
Doctor John states "British Nuclear Reactors Don't Use Water".
What is Driving the Generators on these Reactors ?.
Modular thorium MSR for the win in 20 years. Total win. Then back to racism. Lol
There are always these older boomer guys who are sort of terrified of everything.
Great job, Alex! However, I hate to break it to you and other Objectivists, but the left doesn't care about debates. Only victory and holding power as Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis demonstrate. Your debate victory's effect will not have lasting consequences.
There are no tsunamis in the UK or in Germany. Neither there serious earthquakes
There's a tidal wave of green lunacy, but no tsunamis.
5:00 Pete seems a bit thick (or deliberatley deceptive) worrying about embedded CO2 in a nuclear plant and completely ignoring the embedded CO2 in wind/solar. The return on investment, energy wise (which is roughly CO2 wise) is 400:1 for nuclear, 2:1 for solar or wind. So if you embed 1 unit of energy in building a nuclear plant you get 400 units of energy back over its lifetime. Embed 1 unit of energy in wind or solar you get 2 units of energy back over the lifetime.
This is not thickness, he is deliberately being untruthful.
Alex was the only one not filming on a potato.
Greenpeace... 😂🤣🤣🤣👨🦯👨🦯👨🦯👨🦯🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
You can buy years and years of Uranium fuel, which is why it gives you greater independence than something like a natural gas pipeline where you can save a few months but it's not really possible to stockpile years of fuel
Photovoltaic cells fail after a small amount of time. Hence, more oil and gas to produce more panels.
You could use ancient biofuel (oil & gas) for quick scaling up and down with nuclear for the baseload, or you could use the nuclear electricity to create ammonia NH3 fuel made from H2O water and N2 air, releasing O2 oxygen as 'waste'. Then you can burn that NH3 as your quick scaling fuel instead of biofuels, releasing H2O water and N2 air as the only emissions.
But there's no baseload power from wind and solar, especially during the British summer (or German winter for that matter)
Alex slaying as usual
5:00 Australia (a friendly country to the UK) has the largest Uranium deposits in the world. Nuclear fuel is incredibly dense which means you can store a lot of fuel in a small space - energy security. In fact you have several thousand years worth of energy sitting at nuclear power stations in the "waste" containers. Next gen nuclear power stations eat this fuel.
A bit unfair for Peter.....😐
What about a sensible energy mix? With money or economics in general, everyone knows that you have to have a mix in case a stock or product fails. It's the same with energy sources. But we need to do this all over the world, not ban this or that energy completely and everywhere! This should first be a scientific debate and a subject of education in schools and universities, then a fair and reasonable public discussion. Lobbying should be absolutely banned (not only in this case! In the good old way of an owner talking to a politician is fine, but not in this promotional way with lots and lots of money).
Why not build the low heat salt nuclear power electric power generator.?
Because even thorium-rich India hasn't. Let India provide proof-of-concept. Until then MSR = anti-nuclear propaganda.
@@aliendroneservices6621 Indonesia is going to use the modular reactors, molten salt. MSR functions well, the inventor of nuclear power systems wanted to use this type from the beginning. Molten salt is not weapons reactor emissions. Originally, nuclear plants had a military aspect in the U.S. to generate weapons grade plutonium. But the msrs do not.
Hydrocarbons fossil fuels are natural ancient stores of the sun.
Actually, we want high heat molten salt reactors, very high heat. Hotter = more efficient and more uses for the heat.
@@chapter4travels Or hot helium.
Good thing is that Peter is much older than other two...
Most young people are being indoctrinated with his ideas in school.
I did so one extremely biased woke "no matter what" person and three logic well-informed non bias persons data based.
Hey Alex what happened to the revised and updated verse of the “Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”?
Its title is Fosdi Future.
Which came first nuclear weapons or reactors. Weapons came first. False premise.
They were developed at approximately the same time.
These anti nuclear boomers brains were scrambled by duck and cover drills. Time to go to the retirement home grandpa.
See videos by TONY HELLER
You Brits,
Tidal Energy.
Wind Energy.
Geo Thermal Energy.
Good Point Insulate.
Gravity Batteries.
Some Solar, Including Huge Amounts in Space about 500 Miles above London.
Nuclear has a long way to go- first do a complete carbon accounting, solve the waiste issue, no one will insure it, we don't have time to build these before the climate tipping points kick in, and more. so now the best sollution is energy efficiency- NOT using energy!
It used to be that we built nuclear plants in 4 years, and there are still places like South Korea that can build them in about 6 or 7. That's a similar amount of time as it takes to build a wind farm.
Storing nuclear waste until it's colder than background radiation takes centuries, it's true. But unless you're going to _eat_ the stuff, that's ridiculously extravagant. If you're content to store it only until it's about comparably as dangerous as the other industrial waste in our landfills, or at most until it's safe to handle with gloves, then the process is much much faster.
And deindustrialization is a cure that's worse than the disease. We can survive and prosper in a dynamic, changing world, but not without flexing our human powers and using lots of energy.
@@OptimalOwl the disease- is not only CO2 and other atmospheric pollution- its all the other pollution we produce- and its how we rape nature to satisfy our greed for wealth- we will still destroy every ecosystem on the planet even if the energy is "cleaner"! thus we have to use much less energy- and that is more important than using clean energy! sustainability will require less population and more simple- very energy efficiant- living. so this is a bigger challenge than we though!
Nuclear Green and zero carbon?
Y'all haven't lived next to a uranium mine. I asked a Swiss nuclear energy executive and told him about the uses of diesel to find uranium. He said that was the problem of the producing country.
You don't think the same goes for green power?
@@OptimalOwl No all the coal used to create steel for turbines and oil used to make photovoltaic cells just magically appears whenever the government buys a solar panel.
@@williamanthony915😂
Rooftop solar, small solar power plants, and offshore wind could power the UK. Dangerous expensive nuclear power with it's long term waste storage issues is not needed.
At night when the wind isn't blowing??
@@davidbuderim2395 Don't even attempt to argue with someone called sbl17 Jackson.
South Australia gets 70% of their electricity from rooftop solar, so that is a better option than expensive dangerous nuclear power with it's long term waste storage issues.
Official data is 17.6%. South Australia is notorious for high electricity prices (45c/kwh compared to 27c/kwh in Sydney) and regular blackouts.
Support Alex's work but on Nuclear he ignores some drawbacks ... France is moving away from Nuclear due to it's high cost ... they decommissioned an old Nuclear plant a year ago and have plans to decommission more of them ... they have had multiple nuclear waste leaks from storage and reprocessing plants ... one caused the evacuation of 3 towns when waste leaked into the ground water ... the estimated cost of the clean up into the future has been estimated at 3 times Frances GDP ...Nuclear ISN"T CHEAP OR CLEAN
You must have missed President Macron’s plan released just a couple of weeks ago, calling for new nuclear builds, both on current EPR technology, and next generation SMR technology. France is getting back on the nuclear technology bandwagon, because finally a sensible politician has understood that technology is the answer to problems, and not pandering to get votes from people who are constantly angry about nuclear, for lack of knowledge, and for being rused by a specific political side with their anti-human view of the world.
Have you looked at France's electricity costs compared to those of Germany?
Leaks from 50 year old gen 1 nuclear plants. If French engineers were allowed to build modern gen 4 reactors, you wouldn't have any of these problems.
The problems you're describing are a result of regulation.
@@williamanthony915 That may be true ... but France has found that Nuclear is EXPENSIVE ... the reprocessing and storage of waste has far exceeded their projected costs ... they are building new reactors but Nuclear will make up a smaller % of power generation than in the past ... and they have also had 100's of waste spills and their waste storage facilities are failing with no plan for future long term storage
@@pablorages1241 I probably didn't communicate what I meant effectively.
Modern gen 4 reactors recycle most of their waste, so you don't run into any of these problems.
Maintaining gen 1 reactors past their retirement age is expensive. Using gen 4 reactors is cheap. Let's try it out.
Toxic for 250000+ years is not environmentally safe or cheep.
Cadmium is "toxic" (whatever that means) for longer than that. So now you must be throwing solar under the bus.
It literally is when stored properly.
Not kept up with the nuclear industry have you
This is part of the lack of understanding. 3 nuclear accidents out of several hundred thousand reactors in the world. It is safer than any other form of energy. New reactors are safer yet, using what used to be considered nuclear waste, and far more stable radioactive material.
The funny thing people don't understand:
If something is radioactive for a long time, it's actually not very radioactive.
And the longer times you shout about, the less dangerous it actually is.
If instead the half-life is short, it does stop being radio-active in a shorter time, yes.
But that does _not_ mean it's _less_ dangerous - because in the mean time it's _very_ radioactive.
And… of course anti-nuclearists take that to 'Oh, so its dangerous every which way'.
But you can't have it both ways. If you're rational.