Can Nuclear Power Save Our Planet? | The New Fire

This eye-opening documentary follows the young entrepreneurs building next-generation nuclear reactors and the scientists fighting to spread the truth on what it will take to solve climate change.
Subscribe to Earth Stories to watch more documentaries: bit.ly/3iUO7th
Content licensed from APT Worldwide to Little Dot Studios.
Any queries, please contact us at: [e-mail]
#NewFire #Nuclear #ClimateChange

[@moebees3060]

It's not an engineering problem. It's a problem of economic greed and individual entitlement.

[@jeffreyryan7671]

EXACTLY!!! Do you see any REAL efforts to stop using fossil fuels in the U.S. or many other of the worst offenders? And I mean serious attempts. We have had the technology for decades to stop what is now the inevitable. If people were informed about *fail-safe* nuclear technology that eats what the current plants call "waste", yet that waste has only single digits % of it's total energy used. But the public is incorrectly SURE that nuclear energy is unsafe, and unreliable. But if we started building the "new generation" of fail-safe reactors designed in the late 50's .. today that runs off so called nuclear waste, it would still be too late. The rich want there money despite the fact they already have too much to spend now.

[@marianmarkovic5881]

Its problem of public blindnes

[@kimweaver1252]

In short........ yes. Consider: As there is at least a 10 year lag between the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere and the full manifestation of it's additional heat absorbing potential. So even if CO2 emissions dropped to zero today, the heating from that gas would continue to increase for at least a decade. It has a residency period of over 800 years, probably over 1000, given that the sea can't absorb it endlessly, and we are simultaneously killing off the systems that have been sequestering it. When the seas stop absorbing the 30% of additional CO2 industrial civilization produces, it will be catastrophic. THEN we can look forward to the seas becoming a source of CO2 instead of a sink. Double catastrophe. Methane is already freely emitting in the Arctic, from permafrost, continental sediment drapes, wetlands in high latitudes, and other natural sources. Average methane concentration is now nearly 250% higher than in pre-industrial times. A bolus of it is 156 times more potent than CO2 upon emission, 86 times more effective at absorbing heat after 20 years, and 34 times after 100 years. It is oxidized by the hydroxyl reaction in the atmosphere. The hydroxyl radicals are produced by interactions of water molecules with high energy particles. The rate of production is pretty constant, while the number and quantity of industrial chemicals which are able to react with them is increasing, leaving less for the methane. Add in the leaky natural gas industry and the unstoppable emissions from the fractured shale strata into the more porous overburden, plus leakage from coal mines, and you have another significant source of manmade GHG. The increased heat in the Arctic is profound, with the temperature in a Siberian town reaching 100 degrees F. It is driving the altered weather patterns that have produced "unprecedented" (a word now heard much more often) fires, storms, rainfall, heatwaves worldwide. This is melting surface ice and snow rapidly, exposing darker land and water beneath, reducing albedo and increasing the RATE of heating and degradation of the remaining ice and snow. The push to eliminate coal from the energy mix, if it is actually accomplished, will eliminate one of the most significant sources of CO2. It will also reduce the amount of SO2 and black carbon (soot). Carbon at altitude absorbs heat and re-radiates some back to space. SO2 reacts with water vapor to produce sulfurous and sulfuric acids. Sulfuric acid is very reflective (think Venus). Eliminate these products which wash out of the atmosphere in a coupld of years, and we precipitate instantaneous heating of the surface. So..... burn coal and guarantee increased heating over the next millennium with acid rain producing even more CO2 when it is neutralized by carbonates. Plus the carbon darkens the snow and ice, increasing the melt rate. OR Stop burning it and see rapid heating in the short term. Hobson's choice. Of course, if we don't survive the near term, the long term effects are moot. Can technology, engineering, or industry save us from ourselves? I refer you to the sage Will Rogers....... "If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?"

[@chrispetersen4639]

A 10 year delay? Try 50 years, James Hansen already warned the US congress / the world about global warming in the 1960's. This was followed by big oil n' gas etc using the standard playbook (Invented by big tobacco) of spreading misinformation so they could continue destroying the planet. No politician / national leader can claim ignorance on this subject...!

[@kimweaver1252]

@@chrispetersen4639 This figure was updated a few years ago. It was originally thought to be 50, was corrected to perhaps 20, and is now thought to be, but certainly not conclusively demonstrated to be about 10 years. I don't know for sure if the increased level of methane is somehow affecting the CO2 effectiveness.

[@Healitnow]

Paint all roofs white, all roads white, all flowers planted should be white, allow only light or white siding for buildings and legislate that all dark paints that gather a lot of heat no longer be manufactured for buildings or cars. We created global warming artificially, and we can reverse it the same way, at least long enough for this to take up the 10 year lag time. Then we better get it right.

[@neelroy2918]

Very well put and informed. One addition: even if we stop today not only warming continues but aslo continues feedback effect - ice melting has resulted in more water which has caused less reflection more absorption of heat which is leading to more ice melting and so it will continue for some time to come even if we stop today.

[@kimweaver1252]

@@neelroy2918 Yep, the continued heating drives the feedbacks, so that was implicit.

[@wthomas7955]

The planet will still be here after we're long gone. It doesn't care whether people survive or not.

[@Hummmminify]

There are more beings besides people at risk......

[@wthomas7955]

@@Hummmminify The planet is unconcerned about their survival as well. Populations of all sorts of beings have come and gone and will continue to do so.

[@martiansoon9092]

We need around 5-10% of global GDP to be directed to make new innovations in renewable and sustainable technologies. And that kind of shift should happen now. Large part of that should come from changing all fossil fuel subsidies to empowering green innovations. And most of the GDP should be directed for making the greener and still habitable world.

[@wadegielzecki8373]

The great biological wet blanket is Malthusian human overpopulation. Improvements in resource/pollution issues will be overwhelmed by more deadly resource/pollution issues, as mankind expands in size. Take a lesson from lemmings and go over that cliff without balking, in case that is a softer landing.

[@akashprintingpressdk6385]

Great but very long video please make some short but yet detailed video

[@GsoNice]

The planet will be fine. It's us that's screwed.

[@costantinovolpe2092]

Exactly

[@neelroy2918]

Yep.

[@notabene2403]

@Ginamarie P us plus most other species, which means a couple of 100 milluon years of evolution are lost!

[@koicaine1230]

Sharing. I've never heard of this type of system (Salt) and would much prefer it over traditional Nuclear power. I wish I could invest, but I'm broke..

[@ollie2052000]

Greed, is the death of humanity. We stopped paying attention, we aren’t getting out of this one alive.

[@jeromethibodeau4378]

500 blown up nuclear power stations say, YES!... They said, YES! Is anyone left to read this..., YES!

[@LHoover]

Three cheers for the Atomic opera!

[@Captain_Nemo-y7q]

The question posed in the title of this video is the wrong question. The 'planet', i.e., life on earth, is not doomed, although our presence will cause it to contract somewhat over the medium term. The real question is: Is it too late to save our doomed civilisation?". Another way of putting this is that life will go on but humanity might not.

[@konstanzeallsopp3087]

It isn't true that people won't change their minds if they are educated about real nuclear power. I was one of the greatest opponents of atomic energy in the 70s and 80s demonstrating against nuclear power plants in several European countries. However, way back by 2000, and having heard about new nuclear power plant technology, I realised that renewables don't cut it, so I became one of its most vocal proponents. Even people who grew up with the "horrors" of a nuclear meltdown and the destructive power of atomic bombs are perfectly capable of realising that ONLY nuclear power plants can take us into the medium-term future of producing electricity. When it comes to container ships, airplanes, and cars the way forward isn't highly expensive and wasteful as well as insanely heavy lithium-ion batteries and electricity from nuclear power plants but rather the fast development of hydrogen fuel cells. How do you stand on that? EVs are a fad pushed by Elon Musk to become filthy rich, solar technology has a huge carbon footprint and both solar and wind energy work with products (turbines, voltaic cells) which can't currently be recycled and which have an operational life of 20 and 10 years respectively. Never mind the ecological damage and the insanity of trying to have enough batteries to store the electricity produced by them. Whether you go for small or large nuclear power plants, they can be integrated into the current electricity distribution infrastructures (be it diesel generators or coal power plants) which makes them so much cheaper to build and to exchange coal and oil with nuclear. After all, we have been doing it for decades, all we have had to do is develop newer and even safer plants which we have been developing for 20 years. We have just not found the necessary lobbyists who will push for nuclear as those who have an interest in fossil fuels have been and keep on pushing for fossil fuels. As to the question of "Why did we stop?" We stopped because the fossil fuel lobby groups convinced us that new types of nuclear power plants would not solve our problem. Let's do fracking instead. So much less dangerous! We are at the mercy of large organisations which push policies through governments which favour fossil fuels. We will not manage to go forwards until we see where the real danger comes from.

[@briankleinschmidt3664]

The Earth is not doomed. It is men who come and go.

[@Azamat421]

Um yes it is

[@PeterMilanovski]

​@@Azamat421the earth didn't go the way of the dinosaurs, it ain't going to go the way of humanity either..... It's going to still be here long after we are gone!

[@neelroy2918]

Such a wasted opportunity. I wonder if documentary makers do any research _what_ people want to know. From my point of view _at least_ following should have been addressed (No, I personally do not support nuclear energy because of nuclear waste): - It's a engineering problem: If it is, then by using nuclear energy what you are saying is you continue your lifestyle. We will build more nuclear plants. I doubt that approach stays sustainable even in recent future. - "Numbers don't add up" - You made 55 minute documentary. Which numbers you were referring to? Or do you think we are stupid and won't understand? Were those numbers following: --- Area needed for Solar\Wind --- Time needed to come up with designs that are more acceptable\efficient --- Energy consumption vs production --- amount of time needed to build nuclear plants vs renewables --- ...

[@jeffreyryan7671]

I like the stupid title of this video: "Is It Too Late To Save Our Doomed Planet?". Well if the planet is doomed, then by definition, it's too late.

[@mrmacedon]

*George Carlin* "There is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine; the people are fucked! Difference! The planet is fine! Compared to the people, The planet is doing great: been here four and a half billion years! Do you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here what? 100,000? Maybe 200,000? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. 200 years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow, we’re a threat? That somehow, we’re going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us: been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drifts, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere; we are! We’re going away! Pack your shit, folks! We’re going away and we won’t leave much of a trace either, thank God for that. Maybe a little Styrofoam, maybe. Little Styrofoam. The planet will be here, we’ll be long gone; just another failed mutation; just another closed-end biological mistake; an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance" You aren't going to "save" anything

[@martiansoon9092]

WARNING THIS IS AN NUCLEAR AD! It is not discussing really about the doom and gloom that was the headline. Wondering why this video turned to be an nuclear power ad?

[@ligbzd837]

All consumers can help this process by slowing down our consumption of energy. Examples are turning off lights, use less electronics, drive less walk more, travel less, use manual labor more, eat fresh food rather than cook them, use less water, buying less stuff, recycle, etc.

[@marianmarkovic5881]

yeah,... thats nice, but you have no idea how much power industry needs, in many situations it needs power 24/7 becouse if continuus processsudently stops, it can and will damage equipment that cost bilions. thats problem whit solar and wind, they cannot provide power in quantities and stabilities modern society needs.

[@ppss.6302]

48 comments, 5k views. Nobody cares, engineer your way out of that.

[@mikebocchinfuso9437]

How much are the subsidies (hidden and not)?

[@juliebarks3195]

Is it worth saving.?

[@oneshothunter9877]

In my opinion - absolutely yes!

[@juliebarks3195]

@@oneshothunter9877 Life has pushed me to the opposite opinion. But for the sake of my offspring, I agree.

[@oneshothunter9877]

@@juliebarks3195 I'm sorry to hear that, and of course I'm not going to ask you what happened, but for sure, I wish the best for you. I'm old enough - almost 60 years - "to not need to be scared" for my own sake, but like you, I can't help thinking about my childrens future. Long story Short: I live in Greenland which is "Up front" regarding the undeniable signs and consequences of climate change. For now some thinks that it only benefits our country, less ice and such, but I think it's wrong. And if true, it's only temporarily, it will bounce back and hit hard eventually, I'm afraid. Again, Julia, best wishes to you from Greenland.

[@juliebarks3195]

@@oneshothunter9877 Bless you, for those kind words.

[@Hummmminify]

Absolutely.....our jewel of a planet was so full of life a short time ago and all we need to do is restrain ourselves and our overactive sex glands and start to take care of what we have, stop wasting and share it with those less fortunate. As for power...use less by instituting shorter work weeks with more pay....traveling less, eating less, producing less and living healthier life styles. The most essential component is education of the young, girls and boys. Real knowledge not fantastical religious propaganda....education that includes sex education with emphasis on sexual responsibility. We need to start immediately.....enough said....

[@jimmy7879]

Very good video. I am pro nuclear.

[@nottenvironmental6208]

Bring on batteries as they produce baseload power. With wind and solar, cheapest power available

[@Deeezznuts]

how to destroy earth in 100 years speedrun

[@ambercline5937]

so why is this not happening yet?

[@ohzone6464]

You could have a 'reactor" in your back yard = & you wouldn't know the difference,,,,except your power bill would dissappear!!!

[@rickricky5626]

what a joke......if we had 500 years to develop our way out of this......we ran out of time 75 years ago....very soon all will see that it is over...out of time,,game over

[@ambercline5937]

if you have the tech share it..... we are desperate now

[@humanperson5134]

SMRs that consume ONLY spent nuclear fuels should be deployed. If a SMR requires even 1% of new nuclear fuel it should never be deployed.

[@kimweaver1252]

Nuke power plants have reactors which can't even use a full 1% of fresh fuel. After 0.5 to 0.7% of the UO2 is reacted, the daughter products and their decay products absorb sufficient neutrons to impede the chain reaction. I'm guessing you mean MSRs.... molten salt reactors. I don't believe there are any grid power scale msrs operating yet.

[@humanperson5134]

@@kimweaver1252 Hi Kim. I meant Small Modular Reactors. SMR's and MSR's and all fission machines are currently abhorrent and potentially miraculous at the same time. Radioactivity is the worst pollutant to leave behind. Design a reactor that consumes our vast stockpile of nuclear waste - even if it isn't the most efficient energy producer. Then fission will be a 'solution.'

[@glencmac]

Yup, too late. Been too late for 20 years. Might as well party like it's 1999. Your kids and grand kids have no future. We destroyed it all.

[@neelroy2918]

No. You cannot give up. None of us can. Our kids' future has to be more important than our desperation. So, no.

[@glencmac]

@@neelroy2918 Climate change is like driving in the desert. The needle is on E and you just past the sign saying "Last gas for 75 miles". We've already passed that sign. Sorry.

[@neelroy2918]

@@glencmac Yes, then you get down and walk. Until you can't. And then you crawl. Giving up is not an option.

[@glencmac]

@@neelroy2918 At some point you have to accept that whatever you might do at this point is futile. You have to accept the reality, turn off the life support and let nature takes it's course. We have lived the last century bickering like a disfunctional family about what to do with sick Aunt Mary. And since no one did anything up to this point, the only thing to do is let Aunt Mary progress naturally. Sorry, not pretty, but it is reality.

[@neelroy2918]

@@glencmac yes, and it would have been okay if it was Aunt Mary Glen! It's our children!

[@3tapsnu0ut87]

Drop the right turbine in any area of any ocean with a strong current going in any direction!

[@rockskipper5353]

Put all ur fingers in a bowl of water and tell me the waves and currents don't stop

[@neelroy2918]

@@rockskipper5353 didnt get it. Sorry. You mean turbines will disturb ocean currents?

[@bonnieprather610]

Nuclear waste storage/meltdown is essentially forever

[@terrymoore861]

The pole shift is causing the escalation of extreme climate change, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. This is already causing huge and increasing losses of life, homes, businesses and world food production as well as the collapse of energy supplies, world infrastructure and health services. The losses exceed the cost and the ability of humans to make repairs. We are all in for a bumpy ride! If you think things are bad now....prepare for it to get a lot lot worse!

[@kimweaver1252]

Uhhhh, no, not likely. You will have to demonstrate that the changing poles, of which there are many, can do what you are attributing to them.

[@kevinclark6528]

Sorry , but I aint drink n the kool-aid. Lightning- there is energy in the air-figure it out. And I dont give a damn whether U can put a meter on it.

[@Έκπληξηρυσός]

Humans are land animals so comparing cars and airplanes is nonsensical. Humans will always have instinctive fear of falling from the heights because they caaaant fly. You can't dismantle instinct for self preservation that get us here trough eons of evolution, just with statistic.

[@dianaschneider7087]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@williamnichols429]

This sounded like a thinly guised nuclear sales pitch.

[@PeterMilanovski]

That's exactly what I felt throughout this video....

[@mikebocchinfuso9437]

First put one in a rich white neighborhood

[@Fishcakebuttie]

The world isn’t going to do anything.

[@jazzypoo7960]

*All human constructs fail.*

[@moebees3060]

Call it nuclear nightmare 2.0.

[@Maven0666]

Yay! I’m first to comment! You are doing fantastic and I am grateful!

[@jjjj2411]

Congrats ! You get nothing

[@seandepagnier]

we can't afford to over exploit anything with finite resources such as uranium. if anything reserved for use in space and future use, not to waste on ground-based reactors.

[@Azamat421]

Lmfao slow as fuck nuclear rockets nope

[@Azamat421]

Plus we will will proably be extinct

[@markschuette3770]

the ONLY way to shift the economy (capitalism) to a zero carbon output is the TAX CO2 !!!! and we also need to tax the wealthy since they robbed the citizens of the wealth that was in our countries/planet's natural resources. and high tech, centralized, understood by few, nuclear energy is a mistake. We DO NOT need as much energy as we produce now! the mantra of nuclear IS producing as much or more energy than we do now! what we need to do is Conserve energy via expensive energy (that pays the full cost of its impact on the environment) thus that means a lower consumption lifestyle- and that scares people. if we get cheap energy of any kind we will destroy every ecosystem on the planet. environmental sustainablility is the ultimate goal.

[@dontalkt2meboutheros]

The planet is fine. Thrived through many ice ages and warmer interludes, (void of ice caps warmer). It's our way of living that's under threat. Modern life is under threat... Yay!

[@gtRELIC]

I agree. Even if 99% of life goes extinct and all that's left are plants, fungi and bacteria🦠 the planet itself will survive until the sun eats it.. so long as a rogue planet or moon doesn't smash it to bits

[@saminazarene6883]

Promotion of nuclear power...nuff said

[@PeterMilanovski]

I can't believe when I see people who look happy to be working on building a new nuclear power plant! Did these people live under a rock all their lives? Which part of nuclear fission and radioactive radiation is bad for humanity they don't understand? I love how they use the term base load! Like as if there's no other way to achieve it! My solar system is my power plant, my battery provides my base load day and night! It produces no emissions! If I were to upscale my solar plus battery system, I could feed back into the grid a controlled amount of energy to provide that so called base load.... Naturally a lot more properties would need to do the same thing and a grid tie inverter would need to be designed to provide a base load for the grid, it could be done and relatively a lot faster than putting up a new power plant..... This video is a reminder to stay vigilant because because as young people grow up, they are attracted to the same thing that got us all in this nuclear mess ..... They need to be re educated.... And shown that they are a victim of the nuclear energy lobby propaganda machine.... That's exactly what this video is all about.....

[@moebees3060]

This is fucking insane!

[@SuperTonyony]

Care to elaborate?

[@4460532800218528]

Define Doomed.

[@mrmacedon]

Clown The planet is fine; the people are fucked! Difference! The planet is fine! Compared to the people, The planet is doing great: been here four and a half billion years! Do you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here what? 100,000? Maybe 200,000? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 years. 200 years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow, we’re a threat? I suggest you listen to George Carlin about "saving" the planet

[@kimweaver1252]

@@mrmacedon You completely miss the point. It's global systems which support life which are threatened. Without them we are doomed. As individuals, we know all of us are doomed. What is new is that we are conferring extinction to our species. And of our favorite and unfavored fellow creatures.

[@mrmacedon]

@@kimweaver1252 the title of the video says "is it too late to save our planet" not to save humanity as species, go and watch the video from George Carlin about "saving" the planet

[@kimweaver1252]

@@mrmacedon Don't be pedantic, boobalah...... No one is worried about the planet disintegrating into dust. It's the part of the planet which we count on for survival, the thin skin of the biosphere, which is threatened. You are being a boob. In full view of the world.

[@everythingmatters6308]

@@mrmacedon The planet may be fine, but the biosphere certainly isn't.

[@lourobin2728]

Is Elon Musk listening?

[@SuperTonyony]

He's a scumbag. Who gives a crap what he thinks?