Europe's (exception being France) and Japan's decision to quickly move away from nuclear energy keeps proving to have been unwise. I hope the world will reconsider it using more modern/smaller/safer nuclear reactors.
@@gilian2587 You are too eager to be "the right one". To start of, this is not a dispute forum. The fact France might have chosen better does not invalidate my statement. At most it can be seen as too broad of a generalization.
Europe's decision was dumb. Japan's is understandable. Europe is incredibly tectonicly stable and Japan is very much not. To be fair, Fukushima was designed to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis but the leadership prioritized profit over safety by not shutting down the reactors which likely would have prevented the disaster or at least lessened it. Until Japan has a proper framework in place to prevent such failures in the future, they need to be really careful with their nuclear power.
I'm really glad Japan is doing something to change their energy consumption. In the past few months, I've noticed that the Japanese government seems to have understood that they can't rely on energy imports, especially when they are fossil fuels. This recent heat wave seems to have made the government realise how much of a threat CO2 emissions really are. I am usually quite Democratic but nuclear power is just one of those things that the public doesn't seem to understand. The lives it'll save are way more numerous than the ones it will kill. Experts know a lot more than the public. That being said, I hope the government doesn't end up contaminating that water in the process. Fukushima has some amazing fish and it's one of my favourite prefectures in Japan in general. It's a shame it's known only for a disaster. Lots of people seem to think the food contaminated but it really isn't
I am sorry, but Japan is the only country I am worried about if they use nuclear energy. They are on the ring of fire, where earthquakes occurs daily. Instead they could go geothermal energy, but this is impossible due to their value for hot spring bathhouses.
Good job Japan! Don't let idiotic prejudice from ignorant people stop you from actually achieving the minimum ammount of a carbon footprint. Nuclear is the cleanest and most effiecient type of energy at our disposal and it could buy us enough time to find more and improve alternate renewable energies.
You are right.But unfortunately Many nuclear power plants were built directly above the plate.At that time they didn't consider damage for plants from earthquake. That is the reason why they have been stopped up to now. If you don't live in the country with earthquake, nuclear power plants are the best imo.
Its hard to say that its cleanest, you would have to consider first the mining, then production and then storage for basically indefinitely. That's one of the biggest issue, how to store the waste indefinitely.
Mate I’m all okay for Nuclear energy but Japan is an earthquake zone and even the slightest disturbance would result in enormous loss of lives. Japanese people are not ignorant and stupid like you who knows shit about geology and geography associated with a nuclear power plant. They are a progressive society, so stop with this nonsense
The +50 year old Fukushima plants survived the 9.0 earthquake intact, which is remarkable, had they kept the plants running the cooling would not have failed and the damage would not have occurred. Nuclear is a big part of the solution for decarbonization , is safe and getting better. New plants do take years to build, so existing plants should absolutely not be shut down.
I don't believe you understand that the facility was actually heavily damaged during the earthquake, allowing the water tanks to be flushed with sea water during the tsunami. Being that close to the ocean in a country that's notorious for earthquakes is basically a disaster waiting to happen. As did happen. That contaminated sea water went all across the land. Contamination was wide spread.
With the right regulations and multiple fail safe cooling systems in place. It is absolutely necessary to reopen nuclear plants. We are transitioning too rapidly into solar, resulting into global energy shortage, which ultimately affecting solar production. Nuclear must be a short term solution for global energy till solar and maybe fusion can be fully utilized.
Wrong. The cooling failed because the generators were below sea level when the tsunami struck. Get your facts straight. Consider the French reactor made with the wrong type of sand... Should that be shut down? The numerous French reactors with unreplacable cracked steal fittings built unreplacably into them... Should they be shut down? There are enough developed strategies don't require an over engineered over complicated over priced solution guaranteed to put more heavy metals into the food chain.
I get thats it a debate in japan because of the earthquakes but in western europe its just stupid all energy should be nuclear and other green sources and it shouldve been like that for years this couldve prevented wars because we all know why the usa likes to start wars in the middle east. And we wouldnt need russia so maybe they wouldnt even have invaded ukraine because thier geopolitical position would be much weaker also there would have been alot more money invested in research on nuclear technology to maybe make batteries of the waste and ensure safety. This energy could also be used to make hydrogen gas and fuel hydrogen cars so we could go almost carbon neutral and also have cheaper energy in the long run.
@@dboogeman2002 The country that has notorious earthquakes also builds one of the most earthquake resistant buildings in the world. The same can be done with nuclear power plants. It all comes down to cost.
They're stuck between a rock and a hard place for sure. It's a matter of full steam ahead blasting through those worries. Do it anyways and get the prime minister over to Fukushima to eat raw fish caught out in Fukushima waters to show that it is safe to eat. Get major celebrities and idols, local government officials, normal people off the street, everyone. You have to do whatever possible to force people out of their collective stupidity.
We are on brink of War. If anyone analyse History then its easy to realise that there isn't a SINGLE civilization in Human History which hasn't been destroyed / punished for their disobedience and sins. Be it - Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Indus Valley civilization, Persian, Roman, Assyrian, etc. etc. However, there could be people who think that this Technologically Advanced Modern Civilization is an exception. We all should wait and see! Timeline of events according to my limited knowledge & understanding :- Collapse of Petro-dollar, Paper monetary system [(cause of WW3) many geo-political conflicts and situations are side reasons /smoke and mirrors] ~ 80% - 90% expected to die ~ Many years of great oppression injustice, more than even now (probably 7) ~ lsraeI ruling state of the World (obvious) ~ Emergence of Mahdi (r.a.) - A Guided & Just ruler ~ Peace & Prosperity for a while ~ Coming of Dajjal/Antíchrist (their much awaited one-eyed Messiah) in Human form (live for 37 days & will do many miracles & many things) ~ coming of Eesa/Jesus (p.b.u.h.) & killing Dajjal ~ Peace for many years (some say 8-9 years & some 40) ~ Coming of Yajuj and Majuj (a corrupt ancient tribe) in large numbers & much violence & killing ~ Their destruction from an infection / disease on their neck by Allah s.w.t. ~ Peaceful death of all the believers from a breeze from Yemen ~ Destruction of the Kaaba 🕋 (in Mecca, Saudi Arabia) brick to brick by Dhul suwaq qatain (a person with short legs) ~ Dwelling of only Disbelievers and Criminals on Earth ~ The Earth will be cursed coz there will be no one to say La ilaha il Allah (There's no God except Allah) ~ Trembling of Mountains & shaking of the Earth (physical destruction of the World and the Universe). We have been already warned about it! And there is no city but that We will destroy it before the Day of Resurrection or punish it with a severe punishment. That has ever been in the Register inscribed. [Chapter 17 Isra (The Night Journey) : 58] 'That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.' Quran: Chapter 4 An-Nisa (Women), Verse 157.
@@KingArthurWs I don't have any problem if would have fun even till your last breath. Some verses about destruction of previous few civilizations. ↓ 'But the (mighty) Blast overtook them before morning, And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay. Surely in that are indeed signs for the scrutinizers (i.e., Those who look for the destroyed cities). And their place is located by a known route (perhaps from Makkah to Syria i.e. the place where the Dead Sea is now). Surely in this is a sign for those who believe. And the dwellers in the wood indeed were evil-doers. So We inflicted punishment upon them, and both of them are (situated) by a highway, clearly visible. The people of Al-Hijr (stone valley) also rejected Our messengers. And We provided them with Our signs yet they kept turning away from them. And of the mountains they used to carve homes, feeling safe. But the mighty blast overtook them in the morning. And of no avail to them was all that they did (with such art and care)! We did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is in between them without a truthful purpose. The Hour is surely coming, so overlook (O Muhammed) their faults with gracious forgiveness. Your Lord is indeed the Creator of all, the All-Knowing.' [Chapter 15 Al-Hijr (The rocky tract) : 73-87]. And how many generation We destroyed before them, who were far mightier than them. Then when the torment came, they desperately sought refuge in the land. But was there any escape?' Surah Qaf (50 : 36) This verse ↓ was revealed when Pagan Arabs/idolators used to ask, how our bones will get assembled when they get dismantled after death ? 'Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers. Still people want to deny what is yet to come, asking mockingly, “When is this Day of Judgment?” So, when the eyes will be dazzled, and the moon will lose its light, and the sun and the moon will be joined together The sinning person will say on that day: Where is the escape? There is no escape on that day and there is no place in which the sinner can take refuge nor any place that he can seek protection in. On that day, towards your Lord will be the destination (of everyone.) On the day man will be informed about the actions that he sent forward and those that he left behind. Rather, man will be a witness against himself,' Surah (Chapter); Qiyamah (Resurrection) 75 : 3-14 Indeed, those who have persecuted the believing men and the believing women, then have not repented-for them is the punishment of Hell, and for them is the punishment of burning. As for those who believed and did righteous deeds, for them there are gardens beneath which rivers flow. That is the big achievement. Indeed, the punishment of your Lord is severe. He it is Who creates for the first time and He it is Who will create again. And He is the Most Forgiving, the Most Loving, Lord of the Throne, the All-Glorious. [Al Buruj (The Stars/the mansions of the Stars] 85 : 10-15
@@KingArthurWs There's always one ... and why is Baby Jesus always working retroactively? If Baby Jesus had been on the ball one might wonder why he didn't keep a closer eye on world troubles. Bloody slacker.
I understand their distrust. The reputation of their fisheries was ruined for years. However there will be no effect to the quality of their catch if the water is released at levels in line with international standards. It is the irrational fear of their customers who might avoid the fish that is their biggest risk.
@@puo2123 It is. You are far more likely to catch heavy metal poisoning from eating seafood than radiation. The amount of water released is negligible.
China will achieve fusion as far as i know. But at the same time fusion has way too much power. This can be a boon or a bigger disaster. Only time will tell.
Fusion will always be "almost there". It is not feasible to sustain fusion in net positive energy and financial scale, will not be for a long time. What we need is actually cheap fuel reprocessing and fast breeder reactor, thorium if possible, to keep waste half life short and efficiency high.
With the right regulations and multiple fail safe cooling systems in place. It is absolutely necessary to reopen nuclear plants. We are transitioning too rapidly into solar, resulting into global energy shortage, which ultimately affecting solar production. Nuclear must be a short term solution for global energy till solar and maybe fusion can be fully utilized.
Corner stone of science : there is no such thing as a closed system. Fusion is an over engineered, over complicated, over priced solution just the same as fission.
@@public.public corner stone of science, fusion and fission are in no way similar. In fact, the physic of fusion is in some way the exact opposite of fission, and without any radiation. Fusion is what powers our sun, it is hard but once humanity solves fusion, harnesses the power to make our own sun. Our world will be entirely different with benefits in every part of the world.
Good, we need more countries to start going nuclear. It is important to remember that death tolls from every combined nuclear disaster (of which you can count on one hand) is degrees of magnitude smaller than deaths caused by fossil fuels. Check out Kyle Hill on TH-cam especially his half life series where he breaks down nuclear disasters and examines their causes and the aftermath
But remember that if a disaster where to strike, there could be generations of radioactive contamination in its wake. Sure it’s safer then coal and gas, but when it goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong
Officially 31 people directly died as a result of the Chornobyl disaster (more than you can count on one hand), however, several thousand more are estimated to have died of cancer as a result of the radiation emitted. And you still have to count the tens of thousands more who thought did not die ended up developing health problems as a result of the disaster
There's virgin Germany who brags about getting half of their electricity through renewables and hard cash but then there's chad France who uses 80% cheap renewable energy from nuclear plants and doesn't say anything
@@user-de7nw8kd4r That's magical thinking. Nothing like that will ever happen in millions of years, and even if it were to happen, it would not cause any disaster, nuclear reactors are NOT nuclear bombs and do not explode nor cause nuclear fallout.
@@davidescristofaros2241 I don’t mean like an asteroid hitting the earth. I mean like a world war, a major pandemic, economic depression. These things would make a nuclear power plant hard to run, which could cause meltdowns. Think about it, in anarchy do you think those scientists who run the plants will still be able to if government breaks down or something like that ?
@@davidescristofaros2241 they can cause nuclear fallout? Chernobyl ? Fukushima ? When a nuclear plant is poorly managed the risk of such a catastrophe is relatively high. The standard in Western Europe right now is high but if something changes that it could make running the plants safely difficult.
YOU'VE HAD DECADES to build more and bigger solar power plants and battery storage/water pumping stations... BUT STILL DID NOT??? AND NOW YOU RE-OPEN NUCLEAR POWER??? Why don't you start riding horses again and heat your houses with cole then... what the heck... are there no people with any engineering degree at all in charge??? That's why you should not have lawyers in politics, you need engineers and scientists in politics. Unbelievable.
@Yee Tian When they decide to accept it. The part you left out is our current nuclear technology is world leading. The issue japan had was their plant was from the 1970's and were operating 10 years OVER the projected run of that plant. Its just naive to blame any of the fukushima issues were US technology.
Seafood near the area, i.e. east asia will be at risk of radioactive contamination 2023 onwards; 6 months into 2023, the Pacific ocean may be at risk; 12 months into 2023, pretty much the whole world's seafood may be at risk. We need Elon Musk and the world to build sth to move these water into the space.
If China had discharged nuclear waste water, the US would have said it was unsafe and would have imposed sanctions. As for Japan, they don't criticize, they prefer to drink the waste water
Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
I'm not against nuclear power per sa, however, people don't understand that it's more involved than just the power plant itself. Where do you think the fuel comes from that is used in nuclear plants? Under the earth. Extensive mining must be done so that the fuel can be harvested. Mining is a TERRIBLE thing for the environment and for people and animals. The mining process releases toxic crap into the environment, such as mercury, which then does something called Bioaccumulation which eventually finds its way into our bodies. A big part of what causes this is when they are done with the mine, they flood, causing even more stuff - again, mercury and other toxic things - to be released in high quantities into the environment. Furthermore, nuclear power plants cannot operate indefinitely and they require large amounts of land. Worse still is the plants cannot just be easily dismantled once they have been decommissioned. Side note: it also takes a massive amount of fossils fuels to build the plant itself. Imo, we need to find better ways to go about obtaining the fuel and extending the life of nuclear power plants that doesn't screw up the environment and destroy entire ecosystems, otherwise, what is the point of even using nuclear power if we have to destroy the environment to do it and the land the plant sits on becomes unusable after the site is decommissioned?
@@StormcallR Nuclear plants require far less land than any other energy source for how much energy they produce. For coal plants to match their production, they have to be massive, and wind and solar farms even more so. Hydropower is the most ecologically destructive form of power in any case. As for the mining, every other energy source also requires that? Solar panels and wind turbines both use similarly toxic heavy metals which is how they're still connected to deaths and pollution when comparisons are made between them and other sources of power. As it stands, nuclear is still the most environmentally friendly source of energy we have that can also feasibly serve as a baseline energy source.
@@thehumanoddity i never said anything about other forms of generating or storing energy, I simply stated the downsides to nuclear power and said that I think we need to work on making the process better for the environment. And no, not everything is mined. Oil and natural gas are both pumped from the ground after drilling a hole. Biofuel is also not mined from the earth, generally speaking, older diseased, rotted, or otherwise "damaged" trees are used along with farms specifically used for the purpose of becoming biofuel
@@StormcallR Cool, so oil, natural gas, and biofuels technically aren't mined but they're far worse than nuclear energy and that's just playing semantics. They're still using fuel and produce far more pollution than any uranium mine or nuclear plant ever will. The downsides that comes out of mining uranium is outweighed by the upsides of nuclear energy, and that same argument can't be as effectively made for solar or wind energy which both require toxic heavy metals to be mined for either their batteries or the equipment themselves. Solar panels are especially guilty of that. Hydropower is the only energy source that doesn't require a lot of material after they're constructed, but they're far more ecologically devastating than any other energy source. You can't just point out that "uranium mining is bad", which is only due to how lax regulations are in countries that do mine uranium, without mentioning that they all have their problems and uranium mining is the least destructive of any of them. And your claim about nuclear plants requiring a bunch of land is just bullshit. Like where did you get that? They may be larger than coal plants, but they produce far more energy than them and solar and wind farms need to be MASSIVE to produce any meaningful amounts of energy.
As long as they treat it and remove as much as possible, rather than quickly dumping it in one location, they should trickle dump over a bigger area. It allows extreme dilution and the sea to recover faster. Hopefully new techniques are being found that will help treat radioactive material world wide.
@@Waldemarvonanhalt "Spent nuclear fuel hasn't been an issue for decades. Tritium in water hasn't been an issue ever." Cooling water is not spent fuel... and spent fuel is recycled and mass stored. Storage IS a problem as it takes up space. Also there is not a large supply of usable materials. Also, Tritium emits ionizing radiation... which is lethal... water absorbs ionizing radiation... and animals absorb that water...
I think you need to read about how radioactive waste is stored. There has never been a leak, it's actually stored in a manner which makes a leak physically impossible. You could safely stand next to a container and get no more radiation than the background. The amount of waste from a nuclear reactor in it's entire lifetime is less than the waste from a coal fired power station in one hour and the fumes from a coal plant are actually more toxic and that toxicity lasts forever
@@stevec6427 What are you talking about and who are you talking to? "I think you need to read about how radioactive waste is stored. There has never been a leak, it's actually stored in a manner which makes a leak physically impossible. You could safely stand next to a container and get no more radiation than the background. The amount of waste from a nuclear reactor in it's entire lifetime is less than the waste from a coal fired power station in one hour and the fumes from a coal plant are actually more toxic and that toxicity lasts forever" Who's talking about leaks? Who's talking about radiation from storage? Who's talking about comparison between coal and nuclear?
Japanese PM kishida is the most foolish PM in Japanese modern history. He always says "consider the problem". But He hasn’t achieved nothing(really zero) since nine month till now. Definitely , He don't move again.
It's especially silly since, even if the fish were radioactive enough to pose a health risk, you wouldn't necessarily notice it until you got a cancer several decades later.
The biggest problem with nuclear energy is getting rid of the toxic waste that is generated. Some people like to think that nuclear power plants are a solve bullet solution to climate change but it really is not.
It is a solution to climate change. Getting rid of the toxic waste is a political problem, not a logistical or technological one. Coal releases more radiation to the environment. Nuclear waste is always contained
It really is. All the nuclear waste generated in history would fit in a football field. And we can literally just put it underground where it will never be a danger, until we dig it up and recycle it.
Tritium is extraordinarily valuable and needed for fusion experiments. It is possible to isolate it but requires effort. The process is called Combined Electrolysis Catalytic Exchange (CECE). There are other novel solutions for this too.
On tritium, you can't remove it from water as it is an isotope of hydrogen, and therefore integrated into the water molecules. You might find this helpful. hps.org/documents/tritium_fact_sheet.pdf I still don't think they should put it in the sea, because it is inescapably bad optics. I think geological deposit is better. That might cost a lot more, but that's just tough.
@@juvenalsdad4175 Diluted down by factor of a million and will also naturally decay to nothing over 20 years. (It's already nearing it's halflife just sitting there in the tanks). My guess is that by the time the treatment starts up, there wont even be much tritium left.
@@jondonnelly3 I agree entirely. Unfortunately the situation has been weaponised by the anti-nuclear lobby, and it is difficult to counter emotional rhetoric with empirical evidence. It is easier to scare people than to reassure them, and there are probably good evolutionary reasons for that, but sometimes it's a nuisance.
More power to fuel more air conditioners that generate more heat that then needs more power to fuel more air conditioners that generate more heat that then needs more power to fuel more air conditioners that generate more heat that then needs more power to fuel more air conditioners that .... the end.
As if FUKUSHIMA WASN'T ENOUGH- 🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️🐠🦈🦀🦞🐬🐋🐳🦑🦐🦭🐟🐠🦈🟥🐋🦀🦑🌎🌏🌍🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️RADIOACTIVE WATER- YOU CAN'T TREAT THIS WATER- LIES/ LIES/ LIES/ TRITIUM = DEATH.
Appreciate this report looking again at the radioactive water issue in Fukushima being eventually sent into the ocean, but it feels like this report doesn’t focus actually on the main issue that its title addresses. Namely, nuclear power plants reopening in Japan. Although at least they are nuclear power plants and not coal fired power stations.
Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I support reopening nuclear plants since nuclear plants are a lot safer now(due to better engineering and safety designs) and they also produce cheaper energy and less carbon emissions and the toxic waste is now more securely disposed.
@@sc1338 Exactly. The only carbon emissions they produce are indirect emissions for example, the trucks that burn gasoline that was used during the building of the plant. But the actual nuclear reaction produce zero carbon emissions.
In terms of a realist scale I would say that the energy provider by nuclear plants outlay a lot of the risks, it is a lot better than solar and wind, and is cleaned than coal and gas, additionally of course the more plants there are the higher the safety will get as more investment means more improvement. Tbf Fukishima only happened because of extreme unpredictable circumstances. So I think it is best that they are doing this.
Fukushima only happened because corporate executives ignored the scientists who told them the plant wasn't safe as designed. They knew the back up generators being below ground was just asking for them to fail in event of a tsunami, which is exactly what happened. Every time the plant was inspected, they were told to move the generators to higher ground, outside of the basements they were in.
...as long as it is NOT in your backyard right? I live very close to Fukushima...no way I want them to start it up HERE. I have a great idea. Lets place a Nuclear plant right next to your house...Problem solved!!!
@@senju2024 You want electricity? Because nuclear power is how you get electricity when your island nation has no other form of electricity generation that doesn't involve fossil fuels. If you're willing to live in the dark ages, then good for you, but I can't imagine the rest of the country will.
Fukushima could have been avoided if they didn't ignore safety assessment during construction. They knew a tsunami can flood the emergency generators, but they said that making a taller flood wall is too expensive. Well, this is what happened.
Whoever says the water is safe they can drink that water at their house water their grass and their gardens put up or shut up!!!!! Do not contaminate the worlds oceans 🌊
It's understandable why the citizens feel so strongly against the plants reopening. Considering what happened in the past, you can't blame them for being untrusting towards the nuclear plants.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 no punchline, the Dutch good at anything water related, the German good at automotive and manufacturing, and the Japanese good at electronics
Name a major technology that has not had teething problems. As other says, nuclear has few fatalities compared to fossil fuels, or trains, planes, cars, electricity. In our risk aversion society people want things as safe as houses - actually, that's where most accidents occur.
Japan to release radioactive water into sea this year , (IAEA) says the proposal is safe, but neighbouring countries have voiced concern.,, with that large amount of radiation in the oceans, "bizarre mutations comes like Godzilla
No one has yet worked this out properly yet again. You wouldnt want this in your backyard. What happened at chernobyl was awful - the wind carried nuclear particles up through sweden and even into wales UK.
Nuclear power plants are one of the safest buildings to have in your backyard. You’re probably impacted negatively right now by a dozen nearby facilities, such as roads.
I doubt you’d want the fumes from a massive coal power plant in your backyard either. At least with the nuclear plant (which likely isn’t going to be in a tsunami prone area or as badly designed as Chernobyl), you aren’t having your lungs slowly torn apart by constant harmful gases.
@@NaenaeGaming who said anything about coal ?? And whats wrong with gas - and what do you suppose we do with nuclear waste which is what this video is primarily asking. Please tell me your local river/sea again 😂😂👍 Germany thought nuclear power was so great it decided to invest in NS2 😂👍
Time to repower Japan with upgraded and safer nuclear reactors. Coal is a dead end, Natural Gas is only a bridging fuel... Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass and nuclear are all good options for a low-no carbon future!
Renewables will someday be all the planet uses. In the meantime some (not all) countries may need to adopt more nuclear power as they're way behind on renewables. For countries like Australia and America there's no excuse.
I remember coming across some news a few years ago about a collage kid who figured out how to use nuclear waste as another power source, essentially making nuclear energy a non waste energy source so I don't understand why anyone is doing this and fighting for it to be more know
I would like to wish that to be the future but I would bet that world war will override that as Europe is switching back to coal again, scrambling for oil. We will be lucky to survive the next few years.
@@eoghannolan741 There are plenty of these types of energy generation strategies, and even more for energy storage, but it would just be too expensive and difficult and create too little energy to justify it.
I’m American. Renewable energy is fake news. Windmills cause cancer. This is a fact. Green energy is a code word for the deep state. Hillary Clinton runs a child sex trafficking ring that uses solar energy to create hybrid mixed raced, quad sex, engineered bio humans that are stealing out jobs. The liberals like AOC are using windmills to give white Patriot men testicular cancer so they cannot impregnate Kansas women. Thank god Scotus has eliminated the EPA, abortion, and freedom. The liberals and George Soros cannot be allowed to succeed. Who wants women running around thinking that they have the right to abort Patriot babies, and kill Patriot men with windmill cancer. All of this was discovered by Trump who is making America great again.
renewables come at great cost to the environment too (e.g. rerouting of water in a hydroelectric dam). wind farms & solar farms in particular take up large amounts of land and are volatile in that they only produce energy during certain times and are dependent on weather. You need far more land filled with solar for example to produce the same energy as one nuclear powerplant. The future will likely have a mixture of renewables and nuclear - and different countries will use different amounts. I live in NZ and we have a lot of hydroelectric dams due to our geography, that just isn't possible in most of AU for example.
Japan is probably the only country I am worried about if they go nuclear. It is due to their geography. Japan is on the so called ring of fire, where tectonic activity are higher and more frequently than anywhere on this world. Instead, Japan could use some of their geothermal energy, but this was dropped due to their value for the bathing culture.
Think about all the destruction and death from things we don't think twice about. Dams breaking have caused huge losses that dwarf the worst nuclear incidents. I dont think we would suggest getting rid of dams or hydro power.
@@jules263 good thing that the real dangerous radiation has a short half life. Uranium-233 is a common fuel for reactors and it has a half life of 160,000 years so it sounds like a horrible thing if that leaks, until you understand that the U-233 isn't whats dangerous at all. Thorium is used to create U-233 because U-233 is not naturally occurring and must be processed. When a nucleus of thorium-232 absorbs a neutron it turns into thorium-233 then after the about 20 minute half life the nuclide decays and it becomes protactium-233 for about a month in which the nuclide decays into U-233 which is what it will remain to be for over 100,000 years. All of these emit alpha radiation meaning it's only really dangerous to inhale or ingest, but T-233 and P-233 with a half life of 20 minutes go 30 days it is emitting quite a bit more energy than the U-233 with a half life of 160,000 years.
They should of talked more about the plants reopening, not what happen in 2011, I understand it was sad but it was not a plant malfunction but rather a tsunami that caused the problem. just don't have the Nuclear power plants that close to the ocean and it will be fine.
Yeah the title/content doesn't match. They almost make it sound like they're reopening the Fukushima plant... I had to go back and relisten to make sure that wasn't the case.
Hm, why oh why do they want to let the water to go in the Ocean...?.... they can put it back in to the high ground to be extra filtered, tritium is attractive to clay , its not easy, or even better put the water in to a active volcano pit, problem solved.TH
In China, the Qinshan No. 3 nuclear power plant has about 143 trillion becquerels, 6.5 times the amount Fukushima plans to emit, the Yangjiang nuclear power plant has five times the amount, and the Red River nuclear power plant has four times the amount. In South Korea, the Wolseong nuclear power plant and the Gori nuclear power plant are 3.2 times and 2.2 times higher, respectively. In Europe and the United States, the numbers jump even higher. The La Argre reprocessing plant in France is 454.5 times as large. The Bruce A and B nuclear power plants in Canada are 54 times larger, and the Heysham 2 nuclear power plant in the UK is 14.7 times larger. On October 3, 2019, South Korean media reported that uranium up to 157 times the standard level was detected in 76 underground water sources used for drinking purposes. In many rural areas of South Korea, water supply is not widespread, and when the South Korean government investigated the quality of groundwater nationwide, many radioactive materials and uranium were detected, resulting in a level of 157 times the standard value, a level that could have a significant impact on health. It has been half a month since it was revealed that a fuel rod in the reactor core at the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant in China's Guangdong Province was partially damaged. As yet, the Chinese authorities have only emphasized that "no radiation leakage has occurred" and have not revealed any details. To begin with, the accident first came to light on June 14, 2021, when CNN television in the United States reported that a radiation leak may have occurred. Have you guys ever been briefed on these? It's a clear case that if we were to earnestly seek explanations and agreements from neighboring countries like Japan, we wouldn't be able to make any progress. Look at Japan's neighbors. They make a big deal about others, but explain nothing about themselves. Or are they so out of their minds that they can't make the right decisions because they are drinking water dozens of times more contaminated than Japan's?
Renewables are great as supporting power providers but only nuclear can give stable and reliable power output. All fossil fuels share the same problems.
Renewables (solar, wind) contribute little, at the moment. The output is still in the single digits. "Nuclear" is a scary option, but it can offer a clean energy option, if safety/security can be managed.
@@tko8218 Friday 10th July, 2015 Denmark produces 140% of its power requirements using wind power, offloading the rest to its neighbors, Sweden, Germany and Norway. European Energy Commission reports by 2020 the net coverage in Europe was 14% and by 2030 it'd 24%. Not sure where you're getting your numbers from but wind power is absolutely booming across the world.
@@TheArchaos In terms of energy consumption, there is a big difference between the two countries. Denmark: 33.02 bn kWh vs Japan: 943.70 bn kWh. If Japan goes that route, there 's going to be a lot more wind turbines and dead seagulls than imagined.
im sorry, but am i missing something? i check their weather reports and temperatures seem to be around 30-35C? what exactly is the problem here? thats regular summer weather. where i live its 33+ all year round with humidity in the high 90s
Japan has just hit its highest temperatures ever recorded at over 40C. Hot for a northern country. Heatwaves around the world are becoming more and more common. That is what you are missing
In times when a primary exporter of fossile fuel like Russia is waging war to recreate a lost empire the west should switch on all alternatives it has 1. activate all available nuclear power plants and stop deactivating the rest 2. start drilling for fracking gas 3. removing red tape from renewables and from the needed additional transmission lines(Germany has ridiculous approval processes for all these) 4. build many more LNG facilities 5. raise incentives and subsidies for energy conservation 6. make our car fleet electrical ASAP, to stop being dependent on imported oil
In the UK we have a lot of off shore wind, but we could have a lot more wind power if the government would end the ban on onshore wind. It's much cheaper. There are 6 wind turbines near my city. I love seeing them from my window. I have visited the site. They are loud if you are right next to them but so is any machinery. You don't have to get very far away before you can't hear the noise over the normal wind sounds. As long as you leave a reasonable distance from anyone's house there is no reason we couldn't have much more on shore wind. It is much cheaper and could be built quickly.
Even including all disasters for nuclear power ever, it is by far the the least dangerous method of power production per person, by a huge margin. Kurzgesagt did an intuitive graphical video on it if anybody is interested.
They can used thorium instead of Uranium. Thorium reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.
@@danielebasile3957 There’s actually a big push towards thorium now, counties like China and India are leading the charge. The reason uranium was used as the main source was because the by product is weapon grade plutonium which was useful during the Cold War. The government and DOD made the choice to use uranium nuclear reactors so they could make more WMD’s. The first molten salt thorium plant was built finished in 1964 but was eventually decommissioned in favour of plutonium producing uranium plants. Of course if you spent less time patronising people on the internet and more time researching then maybe you would have realised how wrong you are.
@@maggiejetson7904 first of all , deuterium is heavy water and is a stable isotope. Most of the worlds reactors are light water reactors so don't use this . Did you mean tritium ? The filtering and ion exchange process doesn't remove all contaminants either but it's tested before release to make sure it's within a permit limit. This is true for all US reactors
OMG first thing don't release the water - distil it and then distil it 3 more times, take out the residue of each distillation and look at that as the problem.. and why the hell is the reporter wearing an NBC suit at 2:40
@@IntriguedLioness Yes but there's building a nuclear plant next to a massive cliff, beside a mountain or building it by the seaside, in the direct path and first in line for the full brunt of a tsunami. Then there's building it on flatlands, inland away from mountain or sea. One is completely safe with current engineering, the other is ludicrous and destined for evetual disaster.
@@Martin-jg5le Nuclear power require massive amount of cooling water. Japan does not have enough reliable fresh water source for cooling. Therefore, nuclear power plants must be by the seaside for seawater cooling.
Fukushima was caused by a diesel backup generator failure. Most reactors also don't use such outdated shitty American designs such as this one. Pressurized Water Reactors aren't popular in most of the world because of these outmoded designs... CANDU from Canada uses natural uranium and unpressurized heavy water so explosions like this aren't really possible... And it's also used all over the world from India to Romania and Korea and Canada... No worries!
good, nuclear power plants is the best option, watch there emissions go down DRAMATICALLY. and watch it happen all over the world just like “clean green energy trend”
Funny how the opposition to releasing possibly contaminated water in the ocean is because it hurts fishermen and not because it's terrible for the ocean. More of a tragic comedy then funny I guess.
It’s a matter of thousands of human jobs in Japan. The ocean is deeply important economically, so of course that’s the most pressing issue with dumping.
It's not terrible for the ocean, that water will be diluted by a factor of 500, and then released into the middle of the ocean over a period of years, we are talking literally about nothing.
All sea water is radioactive as it contains potassium-40. This vastly outweighs the radiation from Tritium and probably the pre-treated water as well. They are not really making the water "safer", they are just spending a load of money to meet arbitrary and meaningless limits. Get the heavy metals out, job done.
Ok and how many have been destroyed by volcano erruption since then? Most of these plants were completed and operating by the 1980's pre chernobyl. Thats 40 years of time.
It all seems sensible. Tritium has a 12.5 year half life. Painful Memory of the Tsunami is Strong. It is Time to move on. Energy is necessary to maintain a complex Society. This is Evident as we now witness 440 Million EU Citizens Deindustrialize and devolve into an Energy poor Stoneage Society. By Winter, as millions of EU Citizens are cold and hungry, smart Japanese people will have Food and Energy.
Uh... Sure they will have some issues, but to proclaim all EU citizens will go cold and hungry is vastly overestimating the situation, especially the "hungry" part. Rich countries are not affected the same way by lacking a few base products as huge amounts of everything are traded from the entire world. As for energy that to is manageable, although Germany did not make it easy for themselves by buying way to much from one source (Russia in this case).
@@Patrick3183 I think their logic is they're citizens of countries within EU not necessarily citizens of EU it just makes it easier to convey their point. I don't get it, that's how I took it.
@@GnosticAtheist Adults need about 2000 Calories of Food per Day. What is going to replace millions of Tons of Grain normally provided to EU by Russia? I don't know, I would like to know. Lacking a good answer, the Logical Conclusion is we are dealing with Mass Dilusion. We shall also see a protein deficiency due to Fertilizer Sanctions. Fertilizer is necessary to produce high Protein Grain. EU Natural Gas Storage is depleting now instead of growing. Except for France, which is Energy Independent, most of EU will have inadequate Energy so the Risk of Catestrophic losses in Winter is high. Pray for a warm Winter and substitute for 100 Million Tons of Grain from somewhere. Mass Dilusion is very strong now.
@@Patrick3183 Call them Subjects or Slaves if you choose? 440 Million are on a fast track to Winter without adequate Energy and Food. The logical consequences are self evident. Hunger, Cold and dehydration. Potentially millions of deaths.
The Japanese fishermen had their economic lives ruined due to ignorance. It's not their fault the average civilian doesn't understand the meaning of extremely dilute tritium contamination. And in actuality, they could remove it if they wanted to, they just don't want to due to the expense. Tritium (in T2O) is radioactive, but you'd have to drink quite a bit of it to do you harm, since all of it passes through your body in less than 6 days with "regular" H2O replacement.
Europe's (exception being France) and Japan's decision to quickly move away from nuclear energy keeps proving to have been unwise. I hope the world will reconsider it using more modern/smaller/safer nuclear reactors.
France is part of Europe. This invalidates part of your premise. No one does nuclear better than the French.
@@gilian2587 You are too eager to be "the right one". To start of, this is not a dispute forum. The fact France might have chosen better does not invalidate my statement. At most it can be seen as too broad of a generalization.
Europe's decision was dumb. Japan's is understandable. Europe is incredibly tectonicly stable and Japan is very much not. To be fair, Fukushima was designed to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis but the leadership prioritized profit over safety by not shutting down the reactors which likely would have prevented the disaster or at least lessened it. Until Japan has a proper framework in place to prevent such failures in the future, they need to be really careful with their nuclear power.
@@Aoskar95 Fair point. Thanks.
@@Aoskar95 Not all Europe.
I'm really glad Japan is doing something to change their energy consumption. In the past few months, I've noticed that the Japanese government seems to have understood that they can't rely on energy imports, especially when they are fossil fuels. This recent heat wave seems to have made the government realise how much of a threat CO2 emissions really are. I am usually quite Democratic but nuclear power is just one of those things that the public doesn't seem to understand. The lives it'll save are way more numerous than the ones it will kill. Experts know a lot more than the public. That being said, I hope the government doesn't end up contaminating that water in the process. Fukushima has some amazing fish and it's one of my favourite prefectures in Japan in general. It's a shame it's known only for a disaster. Lots of people seem to think the food contaminated but it really isn't
Have you measured food radiation lately? Or how do you know, did your co-worker tell you?
I am sorry, but Japan is the only country I am worried about if they use nuclear energy. They are on the ring of fire, where earthquakes occurs daily.
Instead they could go geothermal energy, but this is impossible due to their value for hot spring bathhouses.
@@communityresistance7416 have you measured your IQ lately?
@@paulskiye6930 they can and should use reactors that are incapable of meltdowns such as Thorium reactors.
@@paulskiye6930 I agree bro. I’m actually for nuclear power, but Japan just seems like the worst place.
Good job Japan!
Don't let idiotic prejudice from ignorant people stop you from actually achieving the minimum ammount of a carbon footprint.
Nuclear is the cleanest and most effiecient type of energy at our disposal and it could buy us enough time to find more and improve alternate renewable energies.
You are right.But unfortunately Many nuclear power plants were built directly above the plate.At that time they didn't consider damage for plants from earthquake. That is the reason why they have been stopped up to now. If you don't live in the country with earthquake, nuclear power plants are the best imo.
@n n On individual case amongst many individual cases, that were extremely costly.
Its hard to say that its cleanest, you would have to consider first the mining, then production and then storage for basically indefinitely. That's one of the biggest issue, how to store the waste indefinitely.
Mate I’m all okay for Nuclear energy but Japan is an earthquake zone and even the slightest disturbance would result in enormous loss of lives. Japanese people are not ignorant and stupid like you who knows shit about geology and geography associated with a nuclear power plant. They are a progressive society, so stop with this nonsense
It's the worst place on planet earth to put nuclear reactors, it's a small island surrounded by fault lines and deep ocean lol.
The +50 year old Fukushima plants survived the 9.0 earthquake intact, which is remarkable, had they kept the plants running the cooling would not have failed and the damage would not have occurred.
Nuclear is a big part of the solution for decarbonization , is safe and getting better. New plants do take years to build, so existing plants should absolutely not be shut down.
I don't believe you understand that the facility was actually heavily damaged during the earthquake, allowing the water tanks to be flushed with sea water during the tsunami. Being that close to the ocean in a country that's notorious for earthquakes is basically a disaster waiting to happen. As did happen. That contaminated sea water went all across the land. Contamination was wide spread.
With the right regulations and multiple fail safe cooling systems in place. It is absolutely necessary to reopen nuclear plants. We are transitioning too rapidly into solar, resulting into global energy shortage, which ultimately affecting solar production. Nuclear must be a short term solution for global energy till solar and maybe fusion can be fully utilized.
Wrong. The cooling failed because the generators were below sea level when the tsunami struck. Get your facts straight.
Consider the French reactor made with the wrong type of sand... Should that be shut down?
The numerous French reactors with unreplacable cracked steal fittings built unreplacably into them... Should they be shut down?
There are enough developed strategies don't require an over engineered over complicated over priced solution
guaranteed to put more heavy metals into the food chain.
I get thats it a debate in japan because of the earthquakes but in western europe its just stupid all energy should be nuclear and other green sources and it shouldve been like that for years this couldve prevented wars because we all know why the usa likes to start wars in the middle east. And we wouldnt need russia so maybe they wouldnt even have invaded ukraine because thier geopolitical position would be much weaker also there would have been alot more money invested in research on nuclear technology to maybe make batteries of the waste and ensure safety. This energy could also be used to make hydrogen gas and fuel hydrogen cars so we could go almost carbon neutral and also have cheaper energy in the long run.
@@dboogeman2002 The country that has notorious earthquakes also builds one of the most earthquake resistant buildings in the world. The same can be done with nuclear power plants. It all comes down to cost.
"Dump the contaminate water into tokyo sea, they were using the electricity produced here!", love this guy lol
The sentiment is understandable, but how exactly would they get it there? It seems like it would cost a helluva lot more.
He fails to mention that the main market for his fish is, you guessed it,Tokyo.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 They Figured out how to take the Electricity there... Just Saying.
They're stuck between a rock and a hard place for sure.
It's a matter of full steam ahead blasting through those worries.
Do it anyways and get the prime minister over to Fukushima to eat raw fish caught out in Fukushima waters to show that it is safe to eat. Get major celebrities and idols, local government officials, normal people off the street, everyone.
You have to do whatever possible to force people out of their collective stupidity.
@@chbuki The last office did something like that die of cancer very soon
We really can't afford closing functional nuclear plants and instead burning fossil fuels.
Just make sure that the nuclear plants aren't stationed next to stormy oceans or in the middle of a war.
We are on brink of War.
If anyone analyse History then its easy to realise that there isn't a SINGLE civilization in Human History which hasn't been destroyed / punished for their disobedience and sins.
Be it - Babylonian, Mesopotamian, Indus Valley civilization, Persian, Roman, Assyrian, etc. etc. However, there could be people who think that this Technologically Advanced Modern Civilization is an exception. We all should wait and see!
Timeline of events according to my limited knowledge & understanding :-
Collapse of Petro-dollar, Paper monetary system [(cause of WW3) many geo-political conflicts and situations are side reasons /smoke and mirrors] ~ 80% - 90% expected to die ~ Many years of great oppression injustice, more than even now (probably 7) ~ lsraeI ruling state of the World (obvious) ~ Emergence of Mahdi (r.a.) - A Guided & Just ruler ~ Peace & Prosperity for a while ~ Coming of Dajjal/Antíchrist (their much awaited one-eyed Messiah) in Human form (live for 37 days & will do many miracles & many things) ~ coming of Eesa/Jesus (p.b.u.h.) & killing Dajjal ~ Peace for many years (some say 8-9 years & some 40) ~ Coming of Yajuj and Majuj (a corrupt ancient tribe) in large numbers & much violence & killing ~ Their destruction from an infection / disease on their neck by Allah s.w.t. ~ Peaceful death of all the believers from a breeze from Yemen ~ Destruction of the Kaaba 🕋 (in Mecca, Saudi Arabia) brick to brick by Dhul suwaq qatain (a person with short legs) ~ Dwelling of only Disbelievers and Criminals on Earth ~ The Earth will be cursed coz there will be no one to say La ilaha il Allah (There's no God except Allah) ~ Trembling of Mountains & shaking of the Earth (physical destruction of the World and the Universe).
We have been already warned about it!
And there is no city but that We will destroy it before the Day of Resurrection or punish it with a severe punishment. That has ever been in the Register inscribed.
[Chapter 17 Isra (The Night Journey) : 58]
'That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.'
Quran: Chapter 4 An-Nisa (Women), Verse 157.
@@supernatural_forces This comment is so nutso that it is kind of fun to read.
@@KingArthurWs I don't have any problem if would have fun even till your last breath.
Some verses about destruction of previous few civilizations. ↓
'But the (mighty) Blast overtook them before morning, And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay. Surely in that are indeed signs for the scrutinizers (i.e., Those who look for the destroyed cities). And their place is located by a known route (perhaps from Makkah to Syria i.e. the place where the Dead Sea is now). Surely in this is a sign for those who believe. And the dwellers in the wood indeed were evil-doers. So We inflicted punishment upon them, and both of them are (situated) by a highway, clearly visible. The people of Al-Hijr (stone valley) also rejected Our messengers. And We provided them with Our signs yet they kept turning away from them. And of the mountains they used to carve homes, feeling safe. But the mighty blast overtook them in the morning. And of no avail to them was all that they did (with such art and care)! We did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is in between them without a truthful purpose. The Hour is surely coming, so overlook (O Muhammed) their faults with gracious forgiveness. Your Lord is indeed the Creator of all, the All-Knowing.'
[Chapter 15 Al-Hijr (The rocky tract) : 73-87].
And how many generation We destroyed before them, who were far mightier than them. Then when the torment came, they desperately sought refuge in the land. But was there any escape?'
Surah Qaf (50 : 36)
This verse ↓ was revealed when Pagan Arabs/idolators used to ask, how our bones will get assembled when they get dismantled after death ?
'Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
Still people want to deny what is yet to come,
asking mockingly, “When is this Day of Judgment?”
So, when the eyes will be dazzled,
and the moon will lose its light,
and the sun and the moon will be joined together
The sinning person will say on that day: Where is the escape?
There is no escape on that day and there is no place in which the sinner can take refuge nor any place that he can seek protection in.
On that day, towards your Lord will be the destination (of everyone.)
On the day man will be informed about the actions that he sent forward and those that he left behind.
Rather, man will be a witness against himself,'
Surah (Chapter); Qiyamah (Resurrection) 75 : 3-14
Indeed, those who have persecuted the believing men and the believing women, then have not repented-for them is the punishment of Hell, and for them is the punishment of burning.
As for those who believed and did righteous deeds, for them there are gardens beneath which rivers flow. That is the big achievement.
Indeed, the punishment of your Lord is severe.
He it is Who creates for the first time and He it is Who will create again.
And He is the Most Forgiving, the Most Loving,
Lord of the Throne, the All-Glorious.
[Al Buruj (The Stars/the mansions of the Stars]
85 : 10-15
@@KingArthurWs
There's always one ... and why is Baby Jesus always working retroactively?
If Baby Jesus had been on the ball one might wonder why he didn't keep a closer eye on world troubles.
Bloody slacker.
"Electricity from the nuclear plant went to Tokyo so why not put the nuclear treated water to Tokyo bay 😂"-Fukushima fisherman
I understand their distrust. The reputation of their fisheries was ruined for years. However there will be no effect to the quality of their catch if the water is released at levels in line with international standards. It is the irrational fear of their customers who might avoid the fish that is their biggest risk.
It should be released in Tokyo bay then. Old man is right.
They have been lied to so many times. The fear is not irrational.
@@puo2123 It is. You are far more likely to catch heavy metal poisoning from eating seafood than radiation. The amount of water released is negligible.
@@puo2123 I don't believe I am aware of the lies you speak of, it I am sorry if my words offend you.
But wir not clear about the long term effects （like 20/30years），will it potentially causes cancer oder sth.
Fission is a big part of the solution. I hope that by the end of the century we’ll have fusion power plants everywhere.
China will achieve fusion as far as i know. But at the same time fusion has way too much power. This can be a boon or a bigger disaster. Only time will tell.
Fusion will always be "almost there". It is not feasible to sustain fusion in net positive energy and financial scale, will not be for a long time. What we need is actually cheap fuel reprocessing and fast breeder reactor, thorium if possible, to keep waste half life short and efficiency high.
@@maggiejetson7904bullshit.
Earthquake proof fission please
as someone studying physics, fusion is very hard but not impossible. it will still take lots of resources to create and maintain
With the right regulations and multiple fail safe cooling systems in place. It is absolutely necessary to reopen nuclear plants. We are transitioning too rapidly into solar, resulting into global energy shortage, which ultimately affecting solar production. Nuclear must be a short term solution for global energy till solar and maybe fusion can be fully utilized.
Corner stone of science : there is no such thing as a closed system. Fusion is an over engineered, over complicated, over priced solution just the same as fission.
@@public.public corner stone of science, fusion and fission are in no way similar. In fact, the physic of fusion is in some way the exact opposite of fission, and without any radiation. Fusion is what powers our sun, it is hard but once humanity solves fusion, harnesses the power to make our own sun. Our world will be entirely different with benefits in every part of the world.
Aightttt
finally an intelligent response.
@BukuBukuCha Imagine an alternative universe, in which Soviet didn’t fk up. Then we definitely would have nuclear long term.
2:36 - if the water is "made safe" then why do they have to dilute it? 🙄
The same reason why you can still drink clean river water even after a bear urined in it.
@0:42 ... The BBC is helping with the promotion of fish safety in Fukushima.
If it were China, would the BBC have been so kind?
I really hope it works.
Uhm, it's not a new technology. It works but the tech was practically abandoned overnight due to fear.
@@monkeybusiness2204 I think he's concern about the long run.
Good, we need more countries to start going nuclear. It is important to remember that death tolls from every combined nuclear disaster (of which you can count on one hand) is degrees of magnitude smaller than deaths caused by fossil fuels. Check out Kyle Hill on TH-cam especially his half life series where he breaks down nuclear disasters and examines their causes and the aftermath
That's what nuclear lobby is trying to say. How many died in Tchernobyl?
You probably don’t know that nuclear radiation even minimal dose can result in cancer
But remember that if a disaster where to strike, there could be generations of radioactive contamination in its wake. Sure it’s safer then coal and gas, but when it goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong
Officially 31 people directly died as a result of the Chornobyl disaster (more than you can count on one hand), however, several thousand more are estimated to have died of cancer as a result of the radiation emitted. And you still have to count the tens of thousands more who thought did not die ended up developing health problems as a result of the disaster
@@troll_zizipiano2kiev and how many millions of people died for fossil fuels and will die?
Look at France 🇫🇷 😍 75% nuclear power plants. Not going thru misery as the rest of Europeans.
There's virgin Germany who brags about getting half of their electricity through renewables and hard cash but then there's chad France who uses 80% cheap renewable energy from nuclear plants and doesn't say anything
Until a major disaster happens which causes multiple meltdowns
@@user-de7nw8kd4r That's magical thinking. Nothing like that will ever happen in millions of years, and even if it were to happen, it would not cause any disaster, nuclear reactors are NOT nuclear bombs and do not explode nor cause nuclear fallout.
@@davidescristofaros2241 I don’t mean like an asteroid hitting the earth.
I mean like a world war, a major pandemic, economic depression. These things would make a nuclear power plant hard to run, which could cause meltdowns.
Think about it, in anarchy do you think those scientists who run the plants will still be able to if government breaks down or something like that ?
@@davidescristofaros2241 they can cause nuclear fallout? Chernobyl ? Fukushima ?
When a nuclear plant is poorly managed the risk of such a catastrophe is relatively high. The standard in Western Europe right now is high but if something changes that it could make running the plants safely difficult.
If it's so safe, use it again to cool the reactor core. Why dump it?
Dumping it to the ocean is the most economical approach if you don't care about the protests from your neighbours XD.
They have too much of it and it's the wrong type. The reactor was flooded.
Thanks BBC for interviewing one guy about a tangent to the headline for most of the time.
Should never had abandon them in the first place
this video has nothing to do with the title
Ik, right
YOU'VE HAD DECADES to build more and bigger solar power plants and battery storage/water pumping stations... BUT STILL DID NOT??? AND NOW YOU RE-OPEN NUCLEAR POWER??? Why don't you start riding horses again and heat your houses with cole then... what the heck... are there no people with any engineering degree at all in charge??? That's why you should not have lawyers in politics, you need engineers and scientists in politics. Unbelievable.
Ngl nuclear power plant is the best .I believe Japan has one of the best nations in terms of technology .They can handle the situations
best nations in terms of technology .They can handle the situations. ask samsung, google, tesla about that.
@Yee Tian When they decide to accept it. The part you left out is our current nuclear technology is world leading. The issue japan had was their plant was from the 1970's and were operating 10 years OVER the projected run of that plant. Its just naive to blame any of the fukushima issues were US technology.
why would anyone in the world allow the dump. may be they should treat it and take responsibility to keep in on land until 100%clean.
Hope everything going well..
Seafood near the area, i.e. east asia will be at risk of radioactive contamination 2023 onwards;
6 months into 2023, the Pacific ocean may be at risk;
12 months into 2023, pretty much the whole world's seafood may be at risk. We need Elon Musk and the world to build sth to move these water into the space.
Never
th-cam.com/video/XxriU2Z4RTw/w-d-xo.html
ITS finalllly here.
Shinzo Abe died
If China had discharged nuclear waste water, the US would have said it was unsafe and would have imposed sanctions. As for Japan, they don't criticize, they prefer to drink the waste water
Aside from the cost.. releasing the water into Tokyo sounds like a great idea and would demonstrate how safe it really is
Why not clean it and then keep it in the very tanks it is in now.? Don't let it go. !!!! The Solution to pollution is Not Dilution.
Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity
I'm not against nuclear power per sa, however, people don't understand that it's more involved than just the power plant itself. Where do you think the fuel comes from that is used in nuclear plants? Under the earth. Extensive mining must be done so that the fuel can be harvested. Mining is a TERRIBLE thing for the environment and for people and animals. The mining process releases toxic crap into the environment, such as mercury, which then does something called Bioaccumulation which eventually finds its way into our bodies. A big part of what causes this is when they are done with the mine, they flood, causing even more stuff - again, mercury and other toxic things - to be released in high quantities into the environment. Furthermore, nuclear power plants cannot operate indefinitely and they require large amounts of land. Worse still is the plants cannot just be easily dismantled once they have been decommissioned. Side note: it also takes a massive amount of fossils fuels to build the plant itself. Imo, we need to find better ways to go about obtaining the fuel and extending the life of nuclear power plants that doesn't screw up the environment and destroy entire ecosystems, otherwise, what is the point of even using nuclear power if we have to destroy the environment to do it and the land the plant sits on becomes unusable after the site is decommissioned?
Fossil fuels are not the cause of climate change. It's ozone-depleting substances, such as CFCs, and the protons that come from solar flares.
@@StormcallR Nuclear plants require far less land than any other energy source for how much energy they produce. For coal plants to match their production, they have to be massive, and wind and solar farms even more so. Hydropower is the most ecologically destructive form of power in any case. As for the mining, every other energy source also requires that? Solar panels and wind turbines both use similarly toxic heavy metals which is how they're still connected to deaths and pollution when comparisons are made between them and other sources of power.
As it stands, nuclear is still the most environmentally friendly source of energy we have that can also feasibly serve as a baseline energy source.
@@thehumanoddity i never said anything about other forms of generating or storing energy, I simply stated the downsides to nuclear power and said that I think we need to work on making the process better for the environment. And no, not everything is mined. Oil and natural gas are both pumped from the ground after drilling a hole. Biofuel is also not mined from the earth, generally speaking, older diseased, rotted, or otherwise "damaged" trees are used along with farms specifically used for the purpose of becoming biofuel
@@StormcallR Cool, so oil, natural gas, and biofuels technically aren't mined but they're far worse than nuclear energy and that's just playing semantics. They're still using fuel and produce far more pollution than any uranium mine or nuclear plant ever will. The downsides that comes out of mining uranium is outweighed by the upsides of nuclear energy, and that same argument can't be as effectively made for solar or wind energy which both require toxic heavy metals to be mined for either their batteries or the equipment themselves. Solar panels are especially guilty of that. Hydropower is the only energy source that doesn't require a lot of material after they're constructed, but they're far more ecologically devastating than any other energy source.
You can't just point out that "uranium mining is bad", which is only due to how lax regulations are in countries that do mine uranium, without mentioning that they all have their problems and uranium mining is the least destructive of any of them.
And your claim about nuclear plants requiring a bunch of land is just bullshit. Like where did you get that? They may be larger than coal plants, but they produce far more energy than them and solar and wind farms need to be MASSIVE to produce any meaningful amounts of energy.
I am left with the feeling that this bit is about dumping scary water into the ocean.
As long as they treat it and remove as much as possible, rather than quickly dumping it in one location, they should trickle dump over a bigger area. It allows extreme dilution and the sea to recover faster.
Hopefully new techniques are being found that will help treat radioactive material world wide.
Just drink it forehead
Spent nuclear fuel hasn't been an issue for decades. Tritium in water hasn't been an issue ever.
@@Waldemarvonanhalt "Spent nuclear fuel hasn't been an issue for decades. Tritium in water hasn't been an issue ever."
Cooling water is not spent fuel... and spent fuel is recycled and mass stored. Storage IS a problem as it takes up space. Also there is not a large supply of usable materials. Also, Tritium emits ionizing radiation... which is lethal... water absorbs ionizing radiation... and animals absorb that water...
I think you need to read about how radioactive waste is stored. There has never been a leak, it's actually stored in a manner which makes a leak physically impossible. You could safely stand next to a container and get no more radiation than the background. The amount of waste from a nuclear reactor in it's entire lifetime is less than the waste from a coal fired power station in one hour and the fumes from a coal plant are actually more toxic and that toxicity lasts forever
@@stevec6427 What are you talking about and who are you talking to?
"I think you need to read about how radioactive waste is stored. There has never been a leak, it's actually stored in a manner which makes a leak physically impossible. You could safely stand next to a container and get no more radiation than the background. The amount of waste from a nuclear reactor in it's entire lifetime is less than the waste from a coal fired power station in one hour and the fumes from a coal plant are actually more toxic and that toxicity lasts forever"
Who's talking about leaks?
Who's talking about radiation from storage?
Who's talking about comparison between coal and nuclear?
Don’t dump it back to the water man wtf is wrong with you people. You’re essentially saying to the whole world “here have some radioactive water :)”
Japanese PM kishida is the most foolish PM in Japanese modern history.
He always says "consider the problem".
But He hasn’t achieved nothing(really zero) since nine month till now.
Definitely , He don't move again.
Nuclear contamination makes fish really raw ... how stupid building them in Tsunami prone spaces ....
Wow, the first 50 seconds in, and I feel like I'm watching a vintage Monsanto/DDT commercial.
"Safe enough to eat!"
It's especially silly since, even if the fish were radioactive enough to pose a health risk, you wouldn't necessarily notice it until you got a cancer several decades later.
The biggest problem with nuclear energy is getting rid of the toxic waste that is generated. Some people like to think that nuclear power plants are a solve bullet solution to climate change but it really is not.
It is a solution to climate change. Getting rid of the toxic waste is a political problem, not a logistical or technological one. Coal releases more radiation to the environment. Nuclear waste is always contained
It really is. All the nuclear waste generated in history would fit in a football field. And we can literally just put it underground where it will never be a danger, until we dig it up and recycle it.
Not sure what Japan’s primary source of energy is, but nuclear is still better than fossil fuels
Who would have thought that. One one had you don't want climate change, but also you want to ban clean energy.
Tritium is extraordinarily valuable and needed for fusion experiments. It is possible to isolate it but requires effort. The process is called Combined Electrolysis Catalytic Exchange (CECE). There are other novel solutions for this too.
Hmmmm. Am I the only one who can’t taste radiation!?!
Nuclear power is the cleanest and safest energy source. The biggest problem is the initial cost and public misinformation
Hmmmm.
Although reactivating existing reactors like they are doing here is cheaper.
Why not use the contaminated water to cool the reactors they're opening again? big brain I know
How do they remove the radioactive particles and how much tritium that they can’t remove is actually safe?
Like in the Fukushima nuclear accident: the Japaneses can always say that their nuclear-contaminated water is as safe as tap water!
On tritium, you can't remove it from water as it is an isotope of hydrogen, and therefore integrated into the water molecules. You might find this helpful.
hps.org/documents/tritium_fact_sheet.pdf
I still don't think they should put it in the sea, because it is inescapably bad optics. I think geological deposit is better. That might cost a lot more, but that's just tough.
@@juvenalsdad4175 Diluted down by factor of a million and will also naturally decay to nothing over 20 years. (It's already nearing it's halflife just sitting there in the tanks). My guess is that by the time the treatment starts up, there wont even be much tritium left.
@@jondonnelly3 I agree entirely. Unfortunately the situation has been weaponised by the anti-nuclear lobby, and it is difficult to counter emotional rhetoric with empirical evidence. It is easier to scare people than to reassure them, and there are probably good evolutionary reasons for that, but sometimes it's a nuisance.
"There is nothing to worry about"
Proceeds to get radiation poisoning
"There is nothing to worry about" - Typical Japanese lie... see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itai-itai_disease
More power to fuel more air conditioners that generate more heat that then needs more power to fuel more air conditioners that generate more heat that then needs more power to fuel more air conditioners that generate more heat that then needs more power to fuel more air conditioners that .... the end.
As if FUKUSHIMA WASN'T ENOUGH- 🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️🐠🦈🦀🦞🐬🐋🐳🦑🦐🦭🐟🐠🦈🟥🐋🦀🦑🌎🌏🌍🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️☢️RADIOACTIVE WATER- YOU CAN'T TREAT THIS WATER- LIES/ LIES/ LIES/ TRITIUM = DEATH.
Appreciate this report looking again at the radioactive water issue in Fukushima being eventually sent into the ocean, but it feels like this report doesn’t focus actually on the main issue that its title addresses. Namely, nuclear power plants reopening in Japan. Although at least they are nuclear power plants and not coal fired power stations.
Yeah title is all wrong vs the actual report.
Fresh Fukushima fish fine, stop pollution from radiation.
Desperate times calls for desperate measures. I support reopening nuclear plants since nuclear plants are a lot safer now(due to better engineering and safety designs) and they also produce cheaper energy and less carbon emissions and the toxic waste is now more securely disposed.
They produce no carbon emissions directly
@@sc1338 Exactly. The only carbon emissions they produce are indirect emissions for example, the trucks that burn gasoline that was used during the building of the plant. But the actual nuclear reaction produce zero carbon emissions.
@@marcuscarana9240 yes, ok just making sure
@@G0nxsf Compared to fossil fuels, yes they are safe.
No. Japanese reactors are the same old as the Fukushima ones.
No one's going to believe me, but this is a BAD idea
In terms of a realist scale I would say that the energy provider by nuclear plants outlay a lot of the risks, it is a lot better than solar and wind, and is cleaned than coal and gas, additionally of course the more plants there are the higher the safety will get as more investment means more improvement. Tbf Fukishima only happened because of extreme unpredictable circumstances. So I think it is best that they are doing this.
Fukushima only happened because corporate executives ignored the scientists who told them the plant wasn't safe as designed. They knew the back up generators being below ground was just asking for them to fail in event of a tsunami, which is exactly what happened. Every time the plant was inspected, they were told to move the generators to higher ground, outside of the basements they were in.
...as long as it is NOT in your backyard right? I live very close to Fukushima...no way I want them to start it up HERE. I have a great idea. Lets place a Nuclear plant right next to your house...Problem solved!!!
@@senju2024 You want electricity? Because nuclear power is how you get electricity when your island nation has no other form of electricity generation that doesn't involve fossil fuels. If you're willing to live in the dark ages, then good for you, but I can't imagine the rest of the country will.
Fukushima could have been avoided if they didn't ignore safety assessment during construction. They knew a tsunami can flood the emergency generators, but they said that making a taller flood wall is too expensive. Well, this is what happened.
Yeah Fukushima didn't become a scale of chernobyl as well.
It was quite small major but small.
If that was 2011 i'd like to see safety standards now.
Whoever says the water is safe they can drink that water at their house water their grass and their gardens put up or shut up!!!!! Do not contaminate the worlds oceans 🌊
It's understandable why the citizens feel so strongly against the plants reopening. Considering what happened in the past, you can't blame them for being untrusting towards the nuclear plants.
You didn't listen to the report. It has nothing to do with that
@@OneAdam12Adam yes he did
Exactly, how do you think Godzilla got so big?
they still have a quarantine zone around the last accident... i'm sure this will cause some protests
Nuclear is actually very safe the Japanese just made a mistake with the nuclear plant location and the reactor still survived
Every kWh we consume from nuclear energy is a kWh less for a nuke.
There are 3 engineers I trust, a German, a Dutch, and a Japanese one
Me to
and the punch line is?
Yeah Japanese engineers are ridiculess.
@@ronaldlindeman6136 no punchline, the Dutch good at anything water related, the German good at automotive and manufacturing, and the Japanese good at electronics
Safe? Then drink it or use it for washing.
Name a major technology that has not had teething problems. As other says, nuclear has few fatalities compared to fossil fuels, or trains, planes, cars, electricity. In our risk aversion society people want things as safe as houses - actually, that's where most accidents occur.
Isn't nuclear fission power a bit too old to still be experiencing "teething problems"? I mean, the first commercial one opened in 1957
@@superskrub4209 fossil fuels have more problems
@@superskrub4209 It isn't still experiencing these problems, the industry Learns from each disaster and strives to be safer.
@@Despotic_Waffle I don't remember saying they didn't
@@superskrub4209 It was built in 1967
Japan to release radioactive water into sea this year , (IAEA) says the proposal is safe, but neighbouring countries have voiced concern.,, with that large amount of radiation in the oceans, "bizarre mutations comes like Godzilla
russian bot
Tritium is absolutely HORRIFIC...these people have every right to be worried.
this title is misleading, the video was about Fukushima water remediation and fishing, and had no content about plants restarting.
No one has yet worked this out properly yet again. You wouldnt want this in your backyard. What happened at chernobyl was awful - the wind carried nuclear particles up through sweden and even into wales UK.
You wouldn't want a coal power plant of a massive geothermal platform there either.
Nuclear power plants are one of the safest buildings to have in your backyard. You’re probably impacted negatively right now by a dozen nearby facilities, such as roads.
The only reason Chernobyl happened was because in the USSR, people were scared to say something is wrong...
I doubt you’d want the fumes from a massive coal power plant in your backyard either. At least with the nuclear plant (which likely isn’t going to be in a tsunami prone area or as badly designed as Chernobyl), you aren’t having your lungs slowly torn apart by constant harmful gases.
@@NaenaeGaming who said anything about coal ?? And whats wrong with gas - and what do you suppose we do with nuclear waste which is what this video is primarily asking. Please tell me your local river/sea again 😂😂👍 Germany thought nuclear power was so great it decided to invest in NS2 😂👍
I feel pain and really sad of the Ocean Animals
Time to repower Japan with upgraded and safer nuclear reactors. Coal is a dead end, Natural Gas is only a bridging fuel... Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass and nuclear are all good options for a low-no carbon future!
@Watcher That was 10 years ago.
They learned from that shit like everyone else did from Chernobyl.
@Watcher Ik But rn it's been like 10 years since fukushima happened.
Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years so it's already just about halved.
Renewables will someday be all the planet uses. In the meantime some (not all) countries may need to adopt more nuclear power as they're way behind on renewables. For countries like Australia and America there's no excuse.
I remember coming across some news a few years ago about a collage kid who figured out how to use nuclear waste as another power source, essentially making nuclear energy a non waste energy source so I don't understand why anyone is doing this and fighting for it to be more know
I would like to wish that to be the future but I would bet that world war will override that as Europe is switching back to coal again, scrambling for oil. We will be lucky to survive the next few years.
@@eoghannolan741 There are plenty of these types of energy generation strategies, and even more for energy storage, but it would just be too expensive and difficult and create too little energy to justify it.
I’m American. Renewable energy is fake news. Windmills cause cancer. This is a fact. Green energy is a code word for the deep state. Hillary Clinton runs a child sex trafficking ring that uses solar energy to create hybrid mixed raced, quad sex, engineered bio humans that are stealing out jobs. The liberals like AOC are using windmills to give white Patriot men testicular cancer so they cannot impregnate Kansas women. Thank god Scotus has eliminated the EPA, abortion, and freedom. The liberals and George Soros cannot be allowed to succeed. Who wants women running around thinking that they have the right to abort Patriot babies, and kill Patriot men with windmill cancer. All of this was discovered by Trump who is making America great again.
renewables come at great cost to the environment too (e.g. rerouting of water in a hydroelectric dam). wind farms & solar farms in particular take up large amounts of land and are volatile in that they only produce energy during certain times and are dependent on weather. You need far more land filled with solar for example to produce the same energy as one nuclear powerplant. The future will likely have a mixture of renewables and nuclear - and different countries will use different amounts. I live in NZ and we have a lot of hydroelectric dams due to our geography, that just isn't possible in most of AU for example.
Imagine if it was China doin this and not Japan.
Japan is probably the only country I am worried about if they go nuclear.
It is due to their geography.
Japan is on the so called ring of fire, where tectonic activity are higher and more frequently than anywhere on this world.
Instead, Japan could use some of their geothermal energy, but this was dropped due to their value for the bathing culture.
The moment the approve more nuclear plants, they will be attacked
Think about all the destruction and death from things we don't think twice about. Dams breaking have caused huge losses that dwarf the worst nuclear incidents. I dont think we would suggest getting rid of dams or hydro power.
@@killacam876 dams bursting do not leave the area radiated for hundreds of years 🤡
@@jules263 good thing that the real dangerous radiation has a short half life. Uranium-233 is a common fuel for reactors and it has a half life of 160,000 years so it sounds like a horrible thing if that leaks, until you understand that the U-233 isn't whats dangerous at all. Thorium is used to create U-233 because U-233 is not naturally occurring and must be processed. When a nucleus of thorium-232 absorbs a neutron it turns into thorium-233 then after the about 20 minute half life the nuclide decays and it becomes protactium-233 for about a month in which the nuclide decays into U-233 which is what it will remain to be for over 100,000 years. All of these emit alpha radiation meaning it's only really dangerous to inhale or ingest, but T-233 and P-233 with a half life of 20 minutes go 30 days it is emitting quite a bit more energy than the U-233 with a half life of 160,000 years.
Japanese guy says theirs nothing for me to be worried about, its safe. proceeds to choke on fish......
They should of talked more about the plants reopening, not what happen in 2011, I understand it was sad but it was not a plant malfunction but rather a tsunami that caused the problem. just don't have the Nuclear power plants that close to the ocean and it will be fine.
Yeah the title/content doesn't match. They almost make it sound like they're reopening the Fukushima plant... I had to go back and relisten to make sure that wasn't the case.
Hm, why oh why do they want to let the water to go in the Ocean...?.... they can put it back in to the high ground to be extra filtered, tritium is attractive to clay , its not easy, or even better put the water in to a active volcano pit, problem solved.TH
Hey how are you doing?
There are no simple answers to our world's energy needs. None. Just progress we make and the time it takes.
In China, the Qinshan No. 3 nuclear power plant has about 143 trillion becquerels, 6.5 times the amount Fukushima plans to emit, the Yangjiang nuclear power plant has five times the amount, and the Red River nuclear power plant has four times the amount. In South Korea, the Wolseong nuclear power plant and the Gori nuclear power plant are 3.2 times and 2.2 times higher, respectively.
In Europe and the United States, the numbers jump even higher. The La Argre reprocessing plant in France is 454.5 times as large. The Bruce A and B nuclear power plants in Canada are 54 times larger, and the Heysham 2 nuclear power plant in the UK is 14.7 times larger.
On October 3, 2019, South Korean media reported that uranium up to 157 times the standard level was detected in 76 underground water sources used for drinking purposes. In many rural areas of South Korea, water supply is not widespread, and when the South Korean government investigated the quality of groundwater nationwide, many radioactive materials and uranium were detected, resulting in a level of 157 times the standard value, a level that could have a significant impact on health.
It has been half a month since it was revealed that a fuel rod in the reactor core at the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant in China's Guangdong Province was partially damaged. As yet, the Chinese authorities have only emphasized that "no radiation leakage has occurred" and have not revealed any details. To begin with, the accident first came to light on June 14, 2021, when CNN television in the United States reported that a radiation leak may have occurred.
Have you guys ever been briefed on these?
It's a clear case that if we were to earnestly seek explanations and agreements from neighboring countries like Japan, we wouldn't be able to make any progress. Look at Japan's neighbors. They make a big deal about others, but explain nothing about themselves. Or are they so out of their minds that they can't make the right decisions because they are drinking water dozens of times more contaminated than Japan's?
你为什么不说美国，反思自己再说别人
中国排放核废水处理的很安全，而日本是直接排放，辐射大，能一样吗
Renewables are great as supporting power providers but only nuclear can give stable and reliable power output. All fossil fuels share the same problems.
Renewables (solar, wind) contribute little, at the moment. The output is still in the single digits. "Nuclear" is a scary option, but it can offer a clean energy option, if safety/security can be managed.
@@tko8218 Friday 10th July, 2015 Denmark produces 140% of its power requirements using wind power, offloading the rest to its neighbors, Sweden, Germany and Norway.
European Energy Commission reports by 2020 the net coverage in Europe was 14% and by 2030 it'd 24%.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers from but wind power is absolutely booming across the world.
@@TheArchaos In terms of energy consumption, there is a big difference between the two countries. Denmark: 33.02 bn kWh vs Japan: 943.70 bn kWh.
If Japan goes that route, there 's going to be a lot more wind turbines and dead seagulls than imagined.
@@tko8218 That makes no sense, there's no context in your argument.
@@tko8218 And sea gulls numbers could do with a culling anyway..
Great and interesting video, but whta's with the misleading title?
Maybe they will do something right about the climate now that they are starting to feel it.
Maybe.
Lol no way, this is Japan. Climate change is just an invention of the foreign devils to bring down Japan.
So is the UK the only country where the weather has stayed exactly the same as its always been?
I mistakenly believed we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels without using nuclear. I think this is the more realistic way.
I believe we have to use nuclear and also others like wind and solar power !
im sorry, but am i missing something? i check their weather reports and temperatures seem to be around 30-35C? what exactly is the problem here? thats regular summer weather. where i live its 33+ all year round with humidity in the high 90s
Every year they’re probably breaking heat records. Not a good sign.
Japan has just hit its highest temperatures ever recorded at over 40C. Hot for a northern country. Heatwaves around the world are becoming more and more common. That is what you are missing
In times when a primary exporter of fossile fuel like Russia is waging war to recreate a lost empire the west should switch on all alternatives it has
1. activate all available nuclear power plants and stop deactivating the rest
2. start drilling for fracking gas
3. removing red tape from renewables and from the needed additional transmission lines(Germany has ridiculous approval processes for all these)
4. build many more LNG facilities
5. raise incentives and subsidies for energy conservation
6. make our car fleet electrical ASAP, to stop being dependent on imported oil
In the UK we have a lot of off shore wind, but we could have a lot more wind power if the government would end the ban on onshore wind. It's much cheaper. There are 6 wind turbines near my city. I love seeing them from my window. I have visited the site. They are loud if you are right next to them but so is any machinery. You don't have to get very far away before you can't hear the noise over the normal wind sounds. As long as you leave a reasonable distance from anyone's house there is no reason we couldn't have much more on shore wind. It is much cheaper and could be built quickly.
@@adrianthoroughgood1191" it is loud next to them so is any machines "
That's just wrong..solar/nuclear doesn't have the noise pollution issue
Even including all disasters for nuclear power ever, it is by far the the least dangerous method of power production per person, by a huge margin. Kurzgesagt did an intuitive graphical video on it if anybody is interested.
Speaking truth. There are numerous YT videos showing/explaining, with data sources, how safe N-power is.
They can used thorium instead of Uranium. Thorium reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived.
Probably all phisics and nuclear engineers were not able to figure it out, but you yes, for sure
@@danielebasile3957 he figured out nuclear physics;! :0
thorium and it's variant love and thunderium?
@@danielebasile3957 There’s actually a big push towards thorium now, counties like China and India are leading the charge. The reason uranium was used as the main source was because the by product is weapon grade plutonium which was useful during the Cold War. The government and DOD made the choice to use uranium nuclear reactors so they could make more WMD’s. The first molten salt thorium plant was built finished in 1964 but was eventually decommissioned in favour of plutonium producing uranium plants.
Of course if you spent less time patronising people on the internet and more time researching then maybe you would have realised how wrong you are.
why don’t they just use their chakra
Every nuclear plant in the entire world will treat and discharge water in the same way.
Usually through several filters and ion exchangers .
You can't filter deuterium, it is just heavy hydrogen that is unstable so it will decay and emit radiation.
@@maggiejetson7904 first of all , deuterium is heavy water and is a stable isotope.
Most of the worlds reactors are light water reactors so don't use this .
Did you mean tritium ?
The filtering and ion exchange process doesn't remove all contaminants either but it's tested before release to make sure it's within a permit limit.
This is true for all US reactors
OMG first thing don't release the water - distil it and then distil it 3 more times, take out the residue of each distillation and look at that as the problem.. and why the hell is the reporter wearing an NBC suit at 2:40
Here's a wild idea, don't build reactors next to possible catastrophic geological events and everything will be A-OK
So... the entire Pacific Rim .. just for starters??
except the entire country is on a fault line
@@IntriguedLioness Yes but there's building a nuclear plant next to a massive cliff, beside a mountain or building it by the seaside, in the direct path and first in line for the full brunt of a tsunami. Then there's building it on flatlands, inland away from mountain or sea. One is completely safe with current engineering, the other is ludicrous and destined for evetual disaster.
@@Martin-jg5le Nuclear power require massive amount of cooling water. Japan does not have enough reliable fresh water source for cooling. Therefore, nuclear power plants must be by the seaside for seawater cooling.
Fukushima was caused by a diesel backup generator failure. Most reactors also don't use such outdated shitty American designs such as this one. Pressurized Water Reactors aren't popular in most of the world because of these outmoded designs... CANDU from Canada uses natural uranium and unpressurized heavy water so explosions like this aren't really possible... And it's also used all over the world from India to Romania and Korea and Canada... No worries!
If they would have just made the sea wall higher..
good, nuclear power plants is the best option, watch there emissions go down DRAMATICALLY. and watch it happen all over the world just like “clean green energy trend”
They are space efficient and able to produce high output.
good idea maybe start with the ones not close to volcanoes or vault lines.
Good to hear that Japan is no longer on a fault line
People never learn that nothing is safe against earthquakes unless you can magically hover it in the sky when it happens LOL
The plate moved over the line?
So would you rather Japan use coal fired plants instead?
@@Admiral_Jezza how about plasma
It’s already in the food chains from when the accident happened , Tuna was tested on the north west coast America /Canada 6 months after !
He’s like that reporter in Syria who took a sniff of a “gassed” backpack lol or that ceo who drank exhaust water from a Chevy lol
That was a good piece of news reporting
Funny how the opposition to releasing possibly contaminated water in the ocean is because it hurts fishermen and not because it's terrible for the ocean. More of a tragic comedy then funny I guess.
It’s a matter of thousands of human jobs in Japan. The ocean is deeply important economically, so of course that’s the most pressing issue with dumping.
It's not terrible for the ocean, that water will be diluted by a factor of 500, and then released into the middle of the ocean over a period of years, we are talking literally about nothing.
@@francescoasr5862 It will still hurt the fishermen. People will avoid their catch.
He said "okay then if it's so safe why don't you dump it in your part of the water"
All sea water is radioactive as it contains potassium-40. This vastly outweighs the radiation from Tritium and probably the pre-treated water as well. They are not really making the water "safer", they are just spending a load of money to meet arbitrary and meaningless limits. Get the heavy metals out, job done.
That Water Won't Stay Only In Japanese Waters
Japan has 111 active volcanoes 🤦♂️ yes we need more nuclear plants but we need to make them way safer than they are now.
Ok and how many have been destroyed by volcano erruption since then?
Most of these plants were completed and operating by the 1980's pre chernobyl.
Thats 40 years of time.
Misleading title is not related to the information in the video. While very informative, I was slightly disappointed.
It all seems sensible. Tritium has a 12.5 year half life. Painful Memory of the Tsunami is Strong. It is Time to move on. Energy is necessary to maintain a complex Society. This is Evident as we now witness 440 Million EU Citizens Deindustrialize and devolve into an Energy poor Stoneage Society. By Winter, as millions of EU Citizens are cold and hungry, smart Japanese people will have Food and Energy.
Did u just say “EU citizens”? The EU isn’t a country!!! My god!!!
Uh... Sure they will have some issues, but to proclaim all EU citizens will go cold and hungry is vastly overestimating the situation, especially the "hungry" part. Rich countries are not affected the same way by lacking a few base products as huge amounts of everything are traded from the entire world. As for energy that to is manageable, although Germany did not make it easy for themselves by buying way to much from one source (Russia in this case).
@@Patrick3183 I think their logic is they're citizens of countries within EU not necessarily citizens of EU it just makes it easier to convey their point. I don't get it, that's how I took it.
@@GnosticAtheist Adults need about 2000 Calories of Food per Day. What is going to replace millions of Tons of Grain normally provided to EU by Russia? I don't know, I would like to know. Lacking a good answer, the Logical Conclusion is we are dealing with Mass Dilusion. We shall also see a protein deficiency due to Fertilizer Sanctions. Fertilizer is necessary to produce high Protein Grain. EU Natural Gas Storage is depleting now instead of growing. Except for France, which is Energy Independent, most of EU will have inadequate Energy so the Risk of Catestrophic losses in Winter is high. Pray for a warm Winter and substitute for 100 Million Tons of Grain from somewhere. Mass Dilusion is very strong now.
@@Patrick3183 Call them Subjects or Slaves if you choose? 440 Million are on a fast track to Winter without adequate Energy and Food. The logical consequences are self evident. Hunger, Cold and dehydration. Potentially millions of deaths.
Would evaporation help the volume ?
The Japanese fishermen had their economic lives ruined due to ignorance. It's not their fault the average civilian doesn't understand the meaning of extremely dilute tritium contamination. And in actuality, they could remove it if they wanted to, they just don't want to due to the expense.
Tritium (in T2O) is radioactive, but you'd have to drink quite a bit of it to do you harm, since all of it passes through your body in less than 6 days with "regular" H2O replacement.
Pump it back into the ocean........a case of out of sight, out of mind.