Considering that all the toxic waste we've ever created from all our nuclear fits on a football field should tell you how much "waste" there is, and the modern reactors create almost none. She's a nut job.
I’ll give it to Nomiki for at least having the strength to endure having every single one of her arguments be dismantled in 20 seconds at the end of this clip 😂😂
The term "clean energy" is proving to be an oxymoron. Between destroying the biodiversity and leaching toxic chemicals into the soil where solar panels and windmills are deployed, the procurement of their building supplies require huge co2 inputs as well. We as a society do need to address the energy issue, but man oh man can we please be honest about it.
Was Nomik seriously comparing wind and solar to nuclear power? That's like comparing a AAA battery to a V8 engine. The toxic waste resulting from mining, processing and disposing of lithium batteries is far more than nuclear waste, especially compared to the laughable trickle of energy wind and solar produce vs. gigawatts produced by nuclear.
yeah, but when most people talk about solar power they want to ignore the storage requirements because they don't understand the engineering. They think you just put power into the grid and it stays there until it gets used.
Lithium isn't the only type of battery. Sodium ion will be used for storage as well as dams. And batteries can be recycled. I think you need to look into the latest tech. China is producing wind turbines that can provide enough electricity for 25000 homes. Maybe not 25000 US homes as the US is one of the most wasteful and polluting per capita. Add to that, wave technology as well as other forms of wind, nuclear shouldn't be required. As for defense reasons, Nomiki has a point. Would you like to live next to a nuclear plant or a solar farm?
Yea what is she talking about solar being cheaper? The only reason that solar is cheaper for her is because taxpayers are paying for it, and not investing in more efficient fossil fuel use. I'm not against clean energy at all, but her arguments are horrible. The panels aren't free. I literally just got solar installed on my roof and it's a 10 year minimum to pay off the panels, and that's AFTER the price of electricity has gone up 50% and AFTER a 30% tax credit.
I appreciate how Amber Duke is remarkably capable of remaining calm and measured when facing such shallow arguments which do not include inconvenient truths about the environmental costs of renewable energy.
The producers should do a word count for Nomiki and whoever she's on with. I'm pretty sure there'd be a 3:! ratio with Nomiki having the 3. She's definitely a rambler with virtually no substance.
I can’t listen to Nomiki. She is the only host who will straight up lie when making an argument. When you claim there is no pollution or cost with solar and wind power you are either a liar or an idiot. Neither type of person should be hosting the show
Former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn visited the Three Mile Island 2 weeks after the accident. He was a nuclear engineer and he understood the actual dangerous and did not succumb to sensationalism as driven by the media! Jimmy Carter is 100 years old and is not dying from radiation poisoning even though he was at the site of what we consider the worst nuclear accident in the United States history. So, is the great Jimmy Carter wrong or are you wrong about pushing this anti-nuclear bull crud?
I think TheHill should put a large Thank You For Your Patience sign at the end of the segment thanking us for all that patience we have listening to all the nonsense coming out of the Nomiki mouth.
I am just so tired of people making bad engineering arguments about wind and solar. We need to start making apples-to-apples comparisons of our power options, and to do that, you need to look at the cost and environmental impact of not just the technologies to collect the power but also storing it until it's needed. So if you want to have a solar installation that replaces, for example, a gas power plant, you need to have enough battery storage that it can take the power from wind/solar and smooth out the graph so that on the other side it can deliver the power on demand to the grid. What we have now are installations that deliver power straight from solar/wind energy to the grid not when it's needed, but when it's available. This is great for offloading work from fossil fuels to renewables, but there's a limit on how much of this energy you can use without involving storage solutions. This is why literally every solar or wind power installation in the country is backed by fossil fuels. When RFK and his group successfully shut down the Indian Point nuclear power station in NY, the amount of fossil fuels used in that state went up by almost exactly the amount of power the nuclear plant used to generate. This is why nuclear power actually IS a genuine threat to fossil fuel interests in a way that wind and solar are not.
Another negative about solar is about the amount of land required to create enough energy. Where I live, solar farms are cropping up and miles and miles of land are being covered completely by solar panels. That can't be good for the environment.
If big tech’s ambitions lie in nuclear, I’m all for it, with one caveat. They need to have these projects privately insured, liability does not fall on the taxpayers. Taxpayers aren’t going to see a dime in the returns that big tech investors are going to receive. That means, as a taxpayer, I don’t want a penny of my taxes funding their investments. If big tech wants to keep the return on their investment, then it needs to be 100 percent their investment.
Nomiki has literally zero idea about energy and what constitutes green energy. Every point she made was refuted and can be further refuted five fold. This was at least the 10th video where she yaps off her emotion and has zero idea about the topics she frantically spews about.
Nomiki is ridiculously misinformed. She's commenting on exaggerated claims for nuclear power plants from 40+ years ago. Those stats don't even remotely apply to the newer compact nuclear reactors that are being developed now.
I'm embarrassed for a competent and ethical journalist like Amber to have to share screen time with Nomiki, who is such a partisan hack that she is literally to journalism as McDonald's is to fine dining.
Nomiky you really need to look up the article about when Germany try to go 50% renewable energy and how it backfired. I'm aware what time comes improved technology and I'm not completely against renewable but sit there and act like it's the cure all is ignorant. Sure we should use renewable but to sit there and say nuclear is the worst thing ever is completely wrong
My pet unicorn is all I need. I ride her to taco bell every day and she generates enough power I can sell most of it back to the grid while running my ac with the windows open.
3 Accidents at Plants built in the 1960s is all it took, otherwise we would all be on nuclear energy today. Germany closed 13 nuclear plants and now they're using coal. Hopefully, the AI industry will get us back on track with nuclear power once again. Nomiki doesn't understand that we need an increase in 24/7 "base-load" power which is NOT renewable power since battery storage lasts a very finite amount of time.
Using a typical lib line - is Nomiki a nuclear physicist? Why is she opining on nuclear power then? France recycles nuclear waste, the US does not. Also, this technology is light years ahead of were it was during the boomer days...
Nuclear waste goes into water?? Explain to me why France, the nation with the largest share of electricity generated by nuclear power, has cleaner drinking water than the US (source: Yale's Environmental Performance Index, 2024).
They're probably talking about Fukushima. There were thousands of gallons of sea water that were used to cool the reactor. These became low-grade nuclear waste and needed to be quarantined until they cooled down. Then they did, and the water was pumped back into the sea, but people who's knowledge of nuclear waste and radiation is based on episodes of The Simpsons lost their minds because in their view nuclear waste is glowing green ooze; not water with short-lived radioactive particles in it.
Don’t give Amber too much credit here. Saying “Wind, Solar, and Hydrogen Energy” is idiotic. Hydrogen is not an energy source. We can’t mine hydrogen anywhere. We have to make it with energy and then we could transport it (or store it) and get some fraction of that energy back at a different time or place. In other words, hydrogen is an energy carrier like electricity is, you don’t mention it in the same breath as wind and solar. Too bad they didn’t actually talk about Kairos power which is an interesting company. In general all these hosts are know nothings when it comes to anything technical. Get some guests to talk about that for Pete’s sake.
SF6 gas thousands of times worse than CO2 and does not get processed by trees but stays in our atmosphere for 3000 years. Wind and solar use more of this gas as an insulator due to the distance between generators. Namiki needs to stop acting like the answer is so easy. Always remember that you don’t know what you don’t know and maybe you can humble yourself a little.
There was so much ignorance going on it's honestly hard to know where to start. A complete inability to comprehend the tradeoffs in these technologies.
@@drewjaques7437 I wish a popular podcast would have an unbiased electrical engineer that works in the industry, on their show to discuss it for a few hours so more people would understand some of these complexities.
Nuclear waste can be reused as a recycled.Why don’t they invest on that tech and by reusing they will reduce the time of nuclear waste my 10x (until 10/18/24) it can be done.
Nuclear is the only feasible non-carbon production power production method. I don't believe Nomiky is an expert in this area. Has it occurred to her that she is paying so much for power to subsidize other peoples solar and that's not sustainable. As for her statement that semiconductor foundries produce no waste, I just don't understand what's going on upstairs. Nomiky needs a fact checker.
1. Did you compare this to the waste generated by other sources of power? 2. Do you not trust engineers to work out a solution in the next 5-10 years? Frankly, you sound tribalist.
@A-Wesker-5 no. I do not trust engineers to figure out how to eliminate the waste they produced with disposable solar and wind technology. And I didn't even get to the ev environmental disaster. All the lithium that needs to be mined for electric vehicles and all the batteries that leave unrecyclable waste is even worse! 🙄
Please eliminate this Nomiki!! She is terrible. At least Brianna was intelligent...still a radical leftist, but more formidable in her arguments, which made her somewhat tolerable.
Every time they remove a cohost due to our complaints, the replacement is even worse. We complained about Bri, and so gave us Jessica; we complained about Jess, and so they gave us the absolutely UNBEARABLE Nomiki. If we continue in this direction, I fear that we'll end up with Hillary Clinton.
Because many people don't have the initial capital required to recognize the savings over time. The ROI on these technologies is several years or more, not everyone can afford that.
Nomiki really needs to do her research as her arguments are extremely ignorant and dated. Modern nuclear power with new material science and sound research is really our best bet when tackling climate change and environmental responsibility. The bottom line is; she sounds like an idiot.
Mechanical engineer here...with a nice side interest in nuclear power. (I don't work in that field but have peers that do). It's extremely "green", and would be far more so if the industry wasn't hamstrung by politics and fear mongering and new molten salt type reactors could be built. Almost all of our current plants are 30-40 years old and old light water types. Molten salt breeder reactors only produce a small fraction of the "waste" of a light water reactor and what is generated only needs stored for 100-200 years...not 10,000 years or anything. We can store things for 100 years no problem. Plus they are meltdown-proof so very safe. 3-mile island was a pretty minor incident that got blown way out of proportion by the media due to the recent movie release of "The Chine Syndrome". And to date, in the industry of US commercial nuclear power generation, has a far better safety record in operational fatalities compared to other sources like wind. (Last I checked, it was zero for nuclear in the US...that may have changes since I last looked it up)
FYI at 2:50, there is no "toxic waste going into water or radioactive aspects" to it. The cooling water is recycled and segregated from any and all public water sources. France gets over 70% of it's electricity from nuclear power yet there's no sign of toxic waste in the water nor radioactive "aspects". It's perfectly safe in France so if they can do it, why can't we? It seems the big obstacles are the groups with an irrational fear of nuclear power so we have to run antiquated plants and never build newer modern plants that are far more safe, efficient, and reliable. So since we're not allowed to build those because of the lawfare the "no nuke" crowd will put forth we can't have nice things. BTW, tech companies don't "get away with whatever they want". It isn't like the power supplier nor the tech company can suddenly ignore existing regulations. That's a simplistic lie.
Not that Amber needed more ammunition to point how useless Wind and Solar is, but the footprint of those two would be astronomically larger in order to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant. "Heat Island Effect" is also a concern with solar which immediately effects the surrounding environment making it uninhabitable for the wildlife found in that area. Even without that effect, the displacement of wildlife or people in order to make the massive solar and wind farms needed is also a big drawback. Also as pointed out by others, nuclear waste can be recycled, and renewable energy as it is now is backed by the oil companies because they know wind and solar are not sustainable.
Hey, guess what Nomiki, tech companies are very aware of Solar, wind energy and various kilowatt efficiency trade-offs with other forms of electric power generation.
I really appreciate your efforts! Just a quick off-topic question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?
skreech ( Nomiky ) should research her topics before the show. Yes Amber you got away with the " little amount " of waste in nuclear waste. Its the destructiveness of the " small" amount that is important. One, if not the most powerful, toxins known to man. ...Amber should know there is a lot of carbon spent mining, refining , transporting nuclear fuel , which is becoming harder and harder to get as the good ore is become hard to find . At best (which it is not)a transition source of power, Nuclear is reliable?? untrue. while nuclear power plants go off line often and unpredictably , causing all the other nuke plants on the grid to have to shut down for safety reasons ( to prevent melt downs ), wind power and sunshine can be very accurately predicted , thus the grid can constantly adapt. . The price of electrons produced by nuke plant are 3-4 times the cost of wind and solar. And will never catch up as wind and solar keep getting cheaper and cheaper, while nuclear becomes more expensive. Its why all of wall street will not finance any nuclear plants w/o the tax payer ( goverment) to financially back them up. The nuke plants more often than not cost the consummer 2-4 times the orginal estimates ,often having to halt projects before they are finished. There will only as many nuclear power plants as the "pro-nuke" goverment and politicians , can force it on the public. There is one nuclear power source that we need: the sun which supplies enough energy to the surface of the earth in one hour to supply all the power needs of the planet for 1 year. Nuclear power is a dying industry , dying a death of economic reality, only kept alive by the pro nuclear industry. read aromy lovins essays at the rocky mountain institute.
Oh look another person that doesn't grasp the concept of hot rock makes hot water. Same type of person that refused to ride a train in the 1800's because they don't understand how it works without horses pulling it.
How close are those to population and industrial centers where it will get used? How much transmission loss will you see on an already inefficient power supply?
The new host is just awful. No negative impact from solar. What about making the panels or the batteries to store it. Clearly she's so brainwashed by her viewpoints.
The succession of left-wing hosts since the sacking of Brianha is causing me to suspect that her defenestration had less to do with the Middle East conflict and more to do with this channel's strivings towards right-wing ideological conformity. There are little more effective ways to demonstrate the reasonableness of a rightwing point of view-irrespective as to the *actual* reasonableness of that side's view-than to people the leftwing side's spokespeople with uncharismatic dimwits who use paint-by-numbers to fill in their tired and unresearched talking points. Briahna regularly stumped her rightwing co-host. Why? Because she was knowledgeable, intelligent and effective, something that cannot be said at all about her successors. Ever since her firing, meaningful debate between the two sides on this channel has been more a source of comedy than edification. Fix this or you will lose any possible claim you may still have of being part of the so-called "New Center" of political discourse.
There was nothing left or right wing about this video. It's a discussion of rival technologies. If someone is coming to a conversation about technologies and their agenda is anything other than looking at the data and coming to conclusions that the data support; they're doing a bad job.
Its getting harder to find intelligent people who will defend the democrats. Plenty of intelligent leftists, but democrats are increasingly indefensible.
@@notnotkevinjohn The video is a shining example of the ongoing ideological imbalance in The Hill Rising's presentation. Though the topic of the video itself should elude any forthright ideological positionality, whether or not it does has little impact on the question about the general balance between left and right which is part of the show's idea and appeal. That there is an ongoing imbalance is clear, so it is important to call out the examples of that imbalance when they appear. This video was obviously an example of the imbalance. This shouldn't be confused with an ideologically prescriptive analysis: we're talking about quality of the work, not that the work itself exhibit any political leaning. Since the two commentators' political leanings are there by design, since one is on the right and the other on the left, and since Rising wishes this to present balance in their coverage, the expectation that both commentators be of equal quality is a necessary requirement to achieving the channel's goal of balance. There's nothing right or left about that, only that the channel live up to its standards. I am on the left but I would be saying this if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot but it is clearly not.
@@CarlosDenglerArt I don't think it's a very strong argument to acknowledge that there is no left/right axis to this issue, but still claim it demonstrates that there is no ideological imbalance at The Hill. That's a self-contradicting position.
@@notnotkevinjohn I am not claiming that there is not a left/right axis to this issue. I believe there most certainly is. I am agreeing with your initial statement that on this channel the nuclear issue should be examined by its merits and not by how one side or the other wishes to see it. But what I am trying to emphasize above that is something altogether different. My initial statement concerns the extent to which this channel is taking seriously its understood goal of presenting issues with a balanced approach. Since Briahna was booted, I am claiming, it has not been taking this goal seriously because of the clear absence of quality commentary coming from the left side of its presentation. On the right side there appears to me to be strong perspective, but ever since Briahna left, that has not been the case for the left side. This video is exemplary of the absence of that quality commentary and my only point about it is simply that, the imbalance in general, not how the nuclear issue plays to one side or other. This video could have been about something else and, assuming that the trend of poor commentary quality on the left was still a factor, I would have left the same comment. I think this is a pretty clear and consistent claim that I have made. I am not sure what is self-contradictory about criticizing a channel for failing to present quality commentary on both sides of the issue while also asserting that the issue in particular has different resonances depending on whether you are on the right or the left.
Tech companies are turning to nuclear power to advance their AI ambitions. From Amazon to Google, companies at the forefront of the AI boom are investing in nuclear energy to fuel data centers - which provide the infrastructure and resources needed to train and run AI models. Aside from generating enormous amounts of power, nuclear power is also an attractive choice for companies hoping to meet global net zero goals. Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utilities, will construct, own, and operate four reactors across Washington. Amazon is also investing $500 million in X-Energy - a developer of small nuclear reactors and fuel. X-Energy's designs will be used in the Energy Northwest project, the company said. Amazon is also partnering with utility company Dominion Energy to "explore the development" of a small modular reactor project near the North Anna nuclear power station in Virginia. Amazon executives said nuclear power offers the cleanest energy to meet the demands of its large data centers.
![เปิดใจ "อาจารย์เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม" อดีตเคยสุดทุกทาง ถ้าใช้หนี้หมดไปบวชแน่ l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IxeE0xVhy08/mqdefault.jpg)
Nomiky out here with a straight face making arguments from the 80s against nuclear😂
Considering that all the toxic waste we've ever created from all our nuclear fits on a football field should tell you how much "waste" there is, and the modern reactors create almost none.
She's a nut job.
Seriously I guess someone didn't do their homework.
@@blackjackjester if we put as much money into nuclear as we have in wind and solar for the last decade, we would be able to burn it in the US by now.
Nomiki has ZERO idea what she is talking about
Nomiki on kamala. Translate from Finnish, trust me.😂
Like 0 literally
I’ll give it to Nomiki for at least having the strength to endure having every single one of her arguments be dismantled in 20 seconds at the end of this clip 😂😂
When Nomiki is placed next to an intelligent person she breaks.
Yes... so true 😂
Neither host knows much about this topic. They need a guest and in general the hosts need to talk less and smart guests talk more.
I keep saying putting Amber next to Nomicki is enough for Amber to get a raise
@@kwasiopoku8589 Enough for Nomiki to get a raise to be next to Amber!
The term "clean energy" is proving to be an oxymoron. Between destroying the biodiversity and leaching toxic chemicals into the soil where solar panels and windmills are deployed, the procurement of their building supplies require huge co2 inputs as well. We as a society do need to address the energy issue, but man oh man can we please be honest about it.
Everybody knows wind and solar components come from the climate stork, 100% clean and safe
Nomiki is just the absolute worst!
Amber is just the absolute worst!
Was Nomik seriously comparing wind and solar to nuclear power? That's like comparing a AAA battery to a V8 engine. The toxic waste resulting from mining, processing and disposing of lithium batteries is far more than nuclear waste, especially compared to the laughable trickle of energy wind and solar produce vs. gigawatts produced by nuclear.
yeah, but when most people talk about solar power they want to ignore the storage requirements because they don't understand the engineering. They think you just put power into the grid and it stays there until it gets used.
@@notnotkevinjohn Excellent point. I mentioned lithium batteries, but didn't add why. Thanks for filling in the blanks!
Lithium isn't the only type of battery. Sodium ion will be used for storage as well as dams. And batteries can be recycled. I think you need to look into the latest tech. China is producing wind turbines that can provide enough electricity for 25000 homes. Maybe not 25000 US homes as the US is one of the most wasteful and polluting per capita. Add to that, wave technology as well as other forms of wind, nuclear shouldn't be required.
As for defense reasons, Nomiki has a point. Would you like to live next to a nuclear plant or a solar farm?
@@830118nuclear power plant 😊
Yea what is she talking about solar being cheaper? The only reason that solar is cheaper for her is because taxpayers are paying for it, and not investing in more efficient fossil fuel use.
I'm not against clean energy at all, but her arguments are horrible. The panels aren't free. I literally just got solar installed on my roof and it's a 10 year minimum to pay off the panels, and that's AFTER the price of electricity has gone up 50% and AFTER a 30% tax credit.
I appreciate how Amber Duke is remarkably capable of remaining calm and measured when facing such shallow arguments which do not include inconvenient truths about the environmental costs of renewable energy.
Lol! Amber can remain calm while swearing, sighing and rolling her eyes!
@@tonyg76 give it up tony, no one cares about your nonsense
@@keeganmacnichol4694 Free speech, so go away troll!
@@tonyg76 Am I the troll? Or is it the guy that spams every comment section simping for Nomkookoo?
She's had lots of practice working for The Hill
Who is this anti-nuclear lady? She doesn't know the first thing about it. People like her are the reason we're so behind on climate goals.
Can we give amber a raise?
The producers should do a word count for Nomiki and whoever she's on with. I'm pretty sure there'd be a 3:! ratio with Nomiki having the 3. She's definitely a rambler with virtually no substance.
I can’t listen to Nomiki. She is the only host who will straight up lie when making an argument. When you claim there is no pollution or cost with solar and wind power you are either a liar or an idiot. Neither type of person should be hosting the show
Amber fact checking nomiki is so good lol
Former President Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn visited the Three Mile Island 2 weeks after the accident. He was a nuclear engineer and he understood the actual dangerous and did not succumb to sensationalism as driven by the media! Jimmy Carter is 100 years old and is not dying from radiation poisoning even though he was at the site of what we consider the worst nuclear accident in the United States history. So, is the great Jimmy Carter wrong or are you wrong about pushing this anti-nuclear bull crud?
Thanks for this, I did not know that about Carter.
He was rumored to have visited Chalk River Ontario back in the day where some accident occurred..
I think TheHill should put a large Thank You For Your Patience sign at the end of the segment thanking us for all that patience we have listening to all the nonsense coming out of the Nomiki mouth.
I am just so tired of people making bad engineering arguments about wind and solar. We need to start making apples-to-apples comparisons of our power options, and to do that, you need to look at the cost and environmental impact of not just the technologies to collect the power but also storing it until it's needed. So if you want to have a solar installation that replaces, for example, a gas power plant, you need to have enough battery storage that it can take the power from wind/solar and smooth out the graph so that on the other side it can deliver the power on demand to the grid. What we have now are installations that deliver power straight from solar/wind energy to the grid not when it's needed, but when it's available. This is great for offloading work from fossil fuels to renewables, but there's a limit on how much of this energy you can use without involving storage solutions.
This is why literally every solar or wind power installation in the country is backed by fossil fuels. When RFK and his group successfully shut down the Indian Point nuclear power station in NY, the amount of fossil fuels used in that state went up by almost exactly the amount of power the nuclear plant used to generate. This is why nuclear power actually IS a genuine threat to fossil fuel interests in a way that wind and solar are not.
"Solar has no toxic attributes" = She knows nothing about solar panel manufacturing, implementation and disposal.
She has literally no understanding of energy at all. My dog knows more than this. Its an embarrassment
Nomiki is basically a living breathing talking point. Her knowledge goes no deeper than just spewing talking points.
Another negative about solar is about the amount of land required to create enough energy. Where I live, solar farms are cropping up and miles and miles of land are being covered completely by solar panels. That can't be good for the environment.
I only came here just to listen to what new illogical reasoning Nomicki will deliver
If big tech’s ambitions lie in nuclear, I’m all for it, with one caveat. They need to have these projects privately insured, liability does not fall on the taxpayers. Taxpayers aren’t going to see a dime in the returns that big tech investors are going to receive. That means, as a taxpayer, I don’t want a penny of my taxes funding their investments. If big tech wants to keep the return on their investment, then it needs to be 100 percent their investment.
Nomiki has literally zero idea about energy and what constitutes green energy. Every point she made was refuted and can be further refuted five fold. This was at least the 10th video where she yaps off her emotion and has zero idea about the topics she frantically spews about.
Nomiki is ridiculously misinformed. She's commenting on exaggerated claims for nuclear power plants from 40+ years ago. Those stats don't even remotely apply to the newer compact nuclear reactors that are being developed now.
How can Nomiki be wrong on EVERYTHING?!
Yikes! A broken clock is still right twice per day, and that's more than can be said of Nomiki.
I'm embarrassed for a competent and ethical journalist like Amber to have to share screen time with Nomiki, who is such a partisan hack that she is literally to journalism as McDonald's is to fine dining.
Nomiky you really need to look up the article about when Germany try to go 50% renewable energy and how it backfired. I'm aware what time comes improved technology and I'm not completely against renewable but sit there and act like it's the cure all is ignorant. Sure we should use renewable but to sit there and say nuclear is the worst thing ever is completely wrong
Nomiki here with a surface level understanding but trying to report on it🤦
"Wind and solar does not have toxic attributes to it"
The batteries needed to make them reliable do.
Skip nuclear, wind and solar. Fight for disclosure of zero-point energy, antigravidic energy and Alcubierre energy.
My pet unicorn is all I need. I ride her to taco bell every day and she generates enough power I can sell most of it back to the grid while running my ac with the windows open.
I don't know what Nomkookoo is talking about, I don't even think she knows what she's talking about.
This isn’t even a legit discussion. Apply 1/5 the innovation placed on renewable’s into nuclear and this issue is no longer a topic
3 Accidents at Plants built in the 1960s is all it took, otherwise we would all be on nuclear energy today. Germany closed 13 nuclear plants and now they're using coal. Hopefully, the AI industry will get us back on track with nuclear power once again. Nomiki doesn't understand that we need an increase in 24/7 "base-load" power which is NOT renewable power since battery storage lasts a very finite amount of time.
Using a typical lib line - is Nomiki a nuclear physicist? Why is she opining on nuclear power then? France recycles nuclear waste, the US does not. Also, this technology is light years ahead of were it was during the boomer days...
Nuclear waste goes into water?? Explain to me why France, the nation with the largest share of electricity generated by nuclear power, has cleaner drinking water than the US (source: Yale's Environmental Performance Index, 2024).
They're probably talking about Fukushima. There were thousands of gallons of sea water that were used to cool the reactor. These became low-grade nuclear waste and needed to be quarantined until they cooled down. Then they did, and the water was pumped back into the sea, but people who's knowledge of nuclear waste and radiation is based on episodes of The Simpsons lost their minds because in their view nuclear waste is glowing green ooze; not water with short-lived radioactive particles in it.
Probably the two least capable people of having a valuable discussion on this
DOES anyone else not TRUST google here?
I trust nothing.
Amber is a juggernaut. The contrast is wild.
I like how Nomiki Konst says that solar power is super cheap for consumers because of tax credits and industry subsidies. Man, she is not bright.
Don’t give Amber too much credit here. Saying “Wind, Solar, and Hydrogen Energy” is idiotic. Hydrogen is not an energy source. We can’t mine hydrogen anywhere. We have to make it with energy and then we could transport it (or store it) and get some fraction of that energy back at a different time or place. In other words, hydrogen is an energy carrier like electricity is, you don’t mention it in the same breath as wind and solar.
Too bad they didn’t actually talk about Kairos power which is an interesting company.
In general all these hosts are know nothings when it comes to anything technical. Get some guests to talk about that for Pete’s sake.
SF6 gas thousands of times worse than CO2 and does not get processed by trees but stays in our atmosphere for 3000 years. Wind and solar use more of this gas as an insulator due to the distance between generators. Namiki needs to stop acting like the answer is so easy. Always remember that you don’t know what you don’t know and maybe you can humble yourself a little.
There was so much ignorance going on it's honestly hard to know where to start. A complete inability to comprehend the tradeoffs in these technologies.
@@drewjaques7437 I wish a popular podcast would have an unbiased electrical engineer that works in the industry, on their show to discuss it for a few hours so more people would understand some of these complexities.
Nuclear waste can be reused as a recycled.Why don’t they invest on that tech and by reusing they will reduce the time of nuclear waste my 10x (until 10/18/24) it can be done.
the amber leftist reaction expression needs to be patented
Nuclear is the only feasible non-carbon production power production method. I don't believe Nomiky is an expert in this area. Has it occurred to her that she is paying so much for power to subsidize other peoples solar and that's not sustainable. As for her statement that semiconductor foundries produce no waste, I just don't understand what's going on upstairs. Nomiky needs a fact checker.
Use wind which is bad for the environment and and an eyesore and use solar. Ask all the kids digging out rare earth minerals for your solar panels.
Wind and solar aren't as clean as billed. Offshore wind is destroying fisheries, birds suffer, and both will fill landfills exponentially.
“Exponentially”?
This has been discussed ad homonym…😂😂
@@grizelda4526 I heard that too. Lol
Funny that she mixed that one up, she talked ad nauseum.
She knows NOTHING about wind, solar or nuclear power
She knows nothing about ANYTHING. I'm surprised that she can even find her way home at night.
Ugh! Nomiki is a toxic attribute.
Where is Schelenberger when we need him. 🤣 Nomiki is off her rocker
Wind and solar has tons of unrecyclable waste. Thanks!
1. Did you compare this to the waste generated by other sources of power?
2. Do you not trust engineers to work out a solution in the next 5-10 years?
Frankly, you sound tribalist.
@@A-Wesker-5you just hand waved away a problem by saying scientists will figure it out in the future. Maybe don't call other people tribalist
@A-Wesker-5 no. I do not trust engineers to figure out how to eliminate the waste they produced with disposable solar and wind technology. And I didn't even get to the ev environmental disaster. All the lithium that needs to be mined for electric vehicles and all the batteries that leave unrecyclable waste is even worse! 🙄
Please eliminate this Nomiki!! She is terrible. At least Brianna was intelligent...still a radical leftist, but more formidable in her arguments, which made her somewhat tolerable.
Every time they remove a cohost due to our complaints, the replacement is even worse. We complained about Bri, and so gave us Jessica; we complained about Jess, and so they gave us the absolutely UNBEARABLE Nomiki. If we continue in this direction, I fear that we'll end up with Hillary Clinton.
Comparing nuclear to wind and solar is a complete joke.. one is realistic and feasible and the other is a pipe dream.
Why do wind and solar need incentives if they are cheaper already??
Because many people don't have the initial capital required to recognize the savings over time. The ROI on these technologies is several years or more, not everyone can afford that.
@@notnotkevinjohnthe same argument can be used for nuclear power.
@@dhayes907 Yeah, we should absolutely be making the same arguments for nuclear power and making public funds available to bring it online.
Nomiki is also clueless which doesn't give her argument any legs to run on.
And it's useless. AI that is.
Zero cost, who's paying for the upkeep??
Lol nomiki clearly ignorant of energy. Who keep allowing this woman on?
Nomiki really needs to do her research as her arguments are extremely ignorant and dated. Modern nuclear power with new material science and sound research is really our best bet when tackling climate change and environmental responsibility. The bottom line is; she sounds like an idiot.
*is
It’s been discussed “ad hominem” 😂
Man, I can barely watch this lady. She's the worst yet.
I'm ok with nuclear power as long as we keep it in rural areas and away from big cities, I don't want to be the one dealing with the side effects
Dumdum acts like solar doesnt have environmental impact, no surprise there.
Her facial expression while being debunked: I'm going to believe it anyway
wind and solar LOL... she better do some real research
Mechanical engineer here...with a nice side interest in nuclear power. (I don't work in that field but have peers that do).
It's extremely "green", and would be far more so if the industry wasn't hamstrung by politics and fear mongering and new molten salt type reactors could be built. Almost all of our current plants are 30-40 years old and old light water types.
Molten salt breeder reactors only produce a small fraction of the "waste" of a light water reactor and what is generated only needs stored for 100-200 years...not 10,000 years or anything.
We can store things for 100 years no problem.
Plus they are meltdown-proof so very safe.
3-mile island was a pretty minor incident that got blown way out of proportion by the media due to the recent movie release of "The Chine Syndrome".
And to date, in the industry of US commercial nuclear power generation, has a far better safety record in operational fatalities compared to other sources like wind. (Last I checked, it was zero for nuclear in the US...that may have changes since I last looked it up)
You need to change zoning laws homes need to be more energy efficient
Ac is the largest use of residential electricity, but supply side is the problem. We need solutions on both power supply and demand.
FYI at 2:50, there is no "toxic waste going into water or radioactive aspects" to it. The cooling water is recycled and segregated from any and all public water sources. France gets over 70% of it's electricity from nuclear power yet there's no sign of toxic waste in the water nor radioactive "aspects". It's perfectly safe in France so if they can do it, why can't we? It seems the big obstacles are the groups with an irrational fear of nuclear power so we have to run antiquated plants and never build newer modern plants that are far more safe, efficient, and reliable. So since we're not allowed to build those because of the lawfare the "no nuke" crowd will put forth we can't have nice things.
BTW, tech companies don't "get away with whatever they want". It isn't like the power supplier nor the tech company can suddenly ignore existing regulations. That's a simplistic lie.
AI proving Knowledge really is Power
Who knew?
Dear God. I was watching Nomiki talk and I suddenly saw Cristin Milioti's Abby Flynn from 30 Rock
Wow, of course Nomi's take on Nuclear is beyond insane...
Not that Amber needed more ammunition to point how useless Wind and Solar is, but the footprint of those two would be astronomically larger in order to produce the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant.
"Heat Island Effect" is also a concern with solar which immediately effects the surrounding environment making it uninhabitable for the wildlife found in that area. Even without that effect, the displacement of wildlife or people in order to make the massive solar and wind farms needed is also a big drawback.
Also as pointed out by others, nuclear waste can be recycled, and renewable energy as it is now is backed by the oil companies because they know wind and solar are not sustainable.
the authoritarian hates crypto imagine that😂😂😂 YOU AIN'T NO DEM
Hey, guess what Nomiki, tech companies are very aware of Solar, wind energy and various kilowatt efficiency trade-offs with other forms of electric power generation.
So that's what it means to have power. Real power.
We don’t have an “unregulated free market” 🤣🤣🤣
What?? It's not using windmills?? Shocking.
How to clean up and hold nuclear waste. ? GOLD
When did this become a debate show?
Think about how far computers have come since the 1980s
Now think about thats when the last nuclear plant was built...
I really appreciate your efforts! Just a quick off-topic question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?
SMR for the win!!! The Nuclear future is coming!
What could possibly go wrong…
skreech ( Nomiky ) should research her topics before the show. Yes Amber you got away with the " little amount " of waste in nuclear waste. Its the destructiveness of the " small" amount that is important. One, if not the most powerful, toxins known to man. ...Amber should know there is a lot of carbon spent mining, refining , transporting nuclear fuel , which is becoming harder and harder to get as the good ore is become hard to find . At best (which it is not)a transition source of power,
Nuclear is reliable?? untrue. while nuclear power plants go off line often and unpredictably , causing all the other nuke plants on the grid to have to shut down for safety reasons ( to prevent melt downs ), wind power and sunshine can be very accurately predicted , thus the grid can constantly adapt.
. The price of electrons produced by nuke plant are 3-4 times the cost of wind and solar. And will never catch up as wind and solar keep getting cheaper and cheaper, while nuclear becomes more expensive. Its why all of wall street will not finance any nuclear plants w/o the tax payer ( goverment) to financially back them up. The nuke plants more often than not cost the consummer 2-4 times the orginal estimates ,often having to halt projects before they are finished.
There will only as many nuclear power plants as the "pro-nuke" goverment and politicians , can force it on the public.
There is one nuclear power source that we need: the sun which supplies enough energy to the surface of the earth in one hour to supply all the power needs of the planet for 1 year. Nuclear power is a dying industry , dying a death of economic reality, only kept alive by the pro nuclear industry. read aromy lovins essays at the rocky mountain institute.
Nomiki needs to solar and wind powered toys if her power bill is that high.
Thank God . Hopefully tech companies will lead the way to a Green and powerful future ⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡
Wind, Solar, and other green energy.....like... nuclear?
Oh look another person that doesn't grasp the concept of hot rock makes hot water. Same type of person that refused to ride a train in the 1800's because they don't understand how it works without horses pulling it.
Guess the DW is going to have to launch a lingerie brand now.
Is the girl on the left ever right.
No toxic attribute to solar? Have you looked intoat all lol
Plenty of empty desert, with lots of sun.
Maybe. But we can produce 100x more energy in 1\100th of the space with nuclear.
@@ogChaaka I'm not against nuclear. With proper handling of waste.
How close are those to population and industrial centers where it will get used? How much transmission loss will you see on an already inefficient power supply?
This is so painful to watch
Every. Single. Take. From her is dumb. Use fossil fuel bad. Use clean energy bad.
The new host is just awful. No negative impact from solar. What about making the panels or the batteries to store it. Clearly she's so brainwashed by her viewpoints.
So it isnt cost effective or safe for citizens but great for companies. Make it make sense.
It is safe, and the things that prevent it from being cost effective are ineffective regulations, not actual technological problems.
You know more people die from solar and wind power then they do nuclear, right? It is either the safest, or the second only to natural gas/hydro.
let me Free
The succession of left-wing hosts since the sacking of Brianha is causing me to suspect that her defenestration had less to do with the Middle East conflict and more to do with this channel's strivings towards right-wing ideological conformity. There are little more effective ways to demonstrate the reasonableness of a rightwing point of view-irrespective as to the *actual* reasonableness of that side's view-than to people the leftwing side's spokespeople with uncharismatic dimwits who use paint-by-numbers to fill in their tired and unresearched talking points. Briahna regularly stumped her rightwing co-host. Why? Because she was knowledgeable, intelligent and effective, something that cannot be said at all about her successors. Ever since her firing, meaningful debate between the two sides on this channel has been more a source of comedy than edification. Fix this or you will lose any possible claim you may still have of being part of the so-called "New Center" of political discourse.
There was nothing left or right wing about this video. It's a discussion of rival technologies. If someone is coming to a conversation about technologies and their agenda is anything other than looking at the data and coming to conclusions that the data support; they're doing a bad job.
Its getting harder to find intelligent people who will defend the democrats. Plenty of intelligent leftists, but democrats are increasingly indefensible.
@@notnotkevinjohn The video is a shining example of the ongoing ideological imbalance in The Hill Rising's presentation. Though the topic of the video itself should elude any forthright ideological positionality, whether or not it does has little impact on the question about the general balance between left and right which is part of the show's idea and appeal. That there is an ongoing imbalance is clear, so it is important to call out the examples of that imbalance when they appear. This video was obviously an example of the imbalance. This shouldn't be confused with an ideologically prescriptive analysis: we're talking about quality of the work, not that the work itself exhibit any political leaning. Since the two commentators' political leanings are there by design, since one is on the right and the other on the left, and since Rising wishes this to present balance in their coverage, the expectation that both commentators be of equal quality is a necessary requirement to achieving the channel's goal of balance. There's nothing right or left about that, only that the channel live up to its standards. I am on the left but I would be saying this if the proverbial shoe were on the other foot but it is clearly not.
@@CarlosDenglerArt I don't think it's a very strong argument to acknowledge that there is no left/right axis to this issue, but still claim it demonstrates that there is no ideological imbalance at The Hill. That's a self-contradicting position.
@@notnotkevinjohn I am not claiming that there is not a left/right axis to this issue. I believe there most certainly is. I am agreeing with your initial statement that on this channel the nuclear issue should be examined by its merits and not by how one side or the other wishes to see it. But what I am trying to emphasize above that is something altogether different. My initial statement concerns the extent to which this channel is taking seriously its understood goal of presenting issues with a balanced approach. Since Briahna was booted, I am claiming, it has not been taking this goal seriously because of the clear absence of quality commentary coming from the left side of its presentation. On the right side there appears to me to be strong perspective, but ever since Briahna left, that has not been the case for the left side. This video is exemplary of the absence of that quality commentary and my only point about it is simply that, the imbalance in general, not how the nuclear issue plays to one side or other. This video could have been about something else and, assuming that the trend of poor commentary quality on the left was still a factor, I would have left the same comment. I think this is a pretty clear and consistent claim that I have made. I am not sure what is self-contradictory about criticizing a channel for failing to present quality commentary on both sides of the issue while also asserting that the issue in particular has different resonances depending on whether you are on the right or the left.
Nuclear power looks great until you look at the TOXIC WASTE problem
Tech companies are turning to nuclear power to advance their AI ambitions.
From Amazon to Google, companies at the forefront of the AI boom are investing in nuclear energy to fuel data centers - which provide the infrastructure and resources needed to train and run AI models.
Aside from generating enormous amounts of power, nuclear power is also an attractive choice for companies hoping to meet global net zero goals.
Energy Northwest, a consortium of public utilities, will construct, own, and operate four reactors across Washington. Amazon is also investing $500 million in X-Energy - a developer of small nuclear reactors and fuel. X-Energy's designs will be used in the Energy Northwest project, the company said.
Amazon is also partnering with utility company Dominion Energy to "explore the development" of a small modular reactor project near the North Anna nuclear power station in Virginia.
Amazon executives said nuclear power offers the cleanest energy to meet the demands of its large data centers.