CRITICAL: Greens For Nuclear Energy - a documentary

[@Kenlwallace]

I used to be a Hellen Haldicot fan boy back in the 60’s, because nuclear seemed scary and planetary CLIMATE armageddon hadn’t been discussed. Since then Nuclear power turned out to be safer, always ‘on’, cleaner and more reliable than alternatives. The day Nixon shut down the next generation, passively safe, far more efficient (much less waste) Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) experiment about to go into phase 2, was the day Climate catastrophe became inevitable. We’re now 50 years late resolving THAT catastrophic decision.

[@Kenlwallace]

@foot bru i couldn’t spell in the sixties - just trying to keep it real

[@Kenlwallace]

@foot bru late 60’s

[@benchapple1583]

'The longer the half life, the less radiological danger is present.' It's taken more than fifty years for people to realise this. That is the true wonder of nuclear physics!

[@StormGod29]

It really should just be obvious right?! If the half-life is a billion years, what are the chances that this atom decays in the next hour? Now if the half-life is 138 days (polonium 210) you had better get TF out of dodge because it is happening now.

[@bobleclair5665]

Then what’s the problem? Bury it under Washington DC or New York city

[@kylekataryn3454]

@@bobleclair5665 most nuclear spent fuel is already stored on site, at the reactor.

[@bobleclair5665]

@@kylekataryn3454 good place to keep it,

[@kylekataryn3454]

@@bobleclair5665 i think most of the public are unaware just how energy-dense nuclear fuel actually is.

[@birch8005]

Greatest is the ever documentary about how nuclear is useful.

[@ericgulseth74]

I've been pro nuclear since the early 90's when I did research papers in school on it and it baffles me that here we are, 30 years later, still with the same old fear mongering tactics putting it down. This was before carbon was front and center in the climate debate. We have a tool to help get us where we need to be, yet this unrational fear is holding us back. It's the trolley problem. We can stay on this track and everyone dies (edit: It's everyone's problem), or we switch and maybe there's a nuclear accident where some people die and it's localized. Nobody wants to throw the switch... And you didn't even hit on the statistics that show nuclear is on par with solar and wind as one of the safest per TWh produced.

[@drakekoefoed1642]

fear mongering, not wanting to be exposed to radiation. you must have flunked school

[@ericgulseth74]

@@drakekoefoed1642 Maybe, but I did learn about capitalization and punctuation my time in school.

[@OCedarJ]

@@drakekoefoed1642 you are always exposed to radiation, which is a natural phenomenon. I hope you never go to the hospital for radio exams or that you never take the plane to travel, you're getting radiation big time there 😉 What is killing people of radiation is Radon, a natural gas killing 20k every year in Europe... That's more than Fukushima & Tchernobyl together... That doesn't get as much press as if a toilet is clogged in a nuclear plant. Nothing is to be feared, everything is to be understood - Marie Curie

[@lukabozic5]

@@drakekoefoed1642 So you want to be exposed to way more aggressive Lithium instead?

[@Anuchan]

According to the AEC nuclear power is extremely safe. Unfortunately, when a catastrophic accident happens, the environment is devastated for generations. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are the worst examples. The worst part is Fukushima was easily avoidable, but the engineers made a decision not to worry about a large earthquake. 9.1 earthquake caused a tsunami that flooded the plant and caused a meltdown.

[@richardburnard932]

Great to finally see some balance from the Greens on this. Life is all about balancing risk, and when it comes to generating electrical power Nuclear has 'always' been the best of all the less than ideal options. Whilst we should of course all aim to do all the good stuff (use less energy, build high quality insulated homes etc) the earths population needs sufficient volumes of low carbon electrical energy for manufacturing, transport, heating etc. Until we come across something better (e.g. fusion .. in 30 years!!) need to build simple, low-tech new nuclear NOW. Note UK projects like SMR and Sizewell C could be part of the solution but these projects are already getting bogged down by the private sector protagonists leading to design creep and delays - both at least 10 years away IMO. Lets just take a basic 1970's PWR design and use modern technology to make it quick and easy to produce.

[@andersohlsson3708]

Very good video! The question about the spent fuel from todays light water reactors is very often a issue for those who are against nuclear power. Therefore I'm missing more on the topic of the possible re-use of today's spent fuel in future genIV reactors that reduce the need for spent fuel repositories!

[@archcollie5708]

Great video, commentary and research. Well done.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Thank you!

[@gerrywillmott6484]

At last, common sense and objectivity, modular nuclear is the way forward and the uk must promote this. We could be a world leader through companies like Rolls Royce and generate considerable economic benefits. Well done you enlightened greens

[@hellomate639]

I've been so pro nuclear for so long. People would rather throw paint on priceless works of art - making people who love beauty and priceless things - pitted against the climate movement. The people who love works of art are the ones who also love the planet and nature. It's pure virtue signalling when there is 0 a-to-b planning on how to actually combat economics in a framework that we can actually pay for and afford. Nuclear is BETTER than solar. It has so much less of an impact on land use. Like, the core of the earth is sustained by nuclear reaction. Nuclear + electric vehicles will help offset emissions. Hell, nuclear energy being cheap and abundant would allow us to research feasible tech to reverse climate change.

[@OhWell0]

I hope this becomes consensus.

[@-LightningRod-]

No

[@hellomate639]

@@-LightningRod- If you're anti-nuclear, you might as well be a coal roller. If you don't like nuclear energy, you don't actually love the planet - you love being a moral narcissist.

[@-LightningRod-]

@@hellomate639 Sorry friend, reality and history says that Nuke's are the MOST expensive, cost over run , time delayed form of Power ever created. Every single one that has ever been built still exists today as decommissioning doesn't exist for such facilities. Mostly Union's push for Nukes because of the Money. Solar Wind Storage and diversified generation sources are the future. Only Cities and giant corporations need On demand Power in Monstrous sizes. By the way whatever happens to the waste of whatever kind there is,...nothing except a huge buildup of probably not necessary waste tied up in over regulation and capitalitic pipe dreams sold to john q public to PAY for. I really don't understand the narcissist part, i can't help you there my friend, but i do hope this expanded comment helps you to make the right choices in the future

[@hellomate639]

@@-LightningRod- Yea... no. Nuclear energy, when regulated efficiently is cheaper than other forms of green energy. Not sure where you're getting this drivel from. Also, the anticapitalist stuff on the internet these days is just another propaganda mill. Markets are a reality of nature, capitalism is an extremely broad ideology that actually overlaps with socialism - and even communism in the case of China with its Dengism. Not that China is a shining beacon of morality. But, if you actually spent any time on the meanings of these ideologies, you'd know that.

[@-LightningRod-]

@@hellomate639 Well,...i could point to the Canadian Nukes that i did work on and the solar farms as well, i did not work on wind projects but i know people that did. My experience is that China has found 21stcentury Projects to be cheaper than coal and is prevented by the up front cost comparison between coal and solar or wind. Nukes are , ..≥Over regulated and always will be when there are Billions of dollars at stake. You might call it "drivel", but it is my honest response to your replies. I am familiar with different ideologies and recent times with COVID have exposed many ideologies that are just pure nonsense. Globally, ...it would be hard for me or you to point at a single Nuke that was on time, on budget with maintenance guidelines followed that support your assertions. Nowhere in the World will you be able to point out a single successful decommissioning of a Nuke.

[@SJ-xg1uf]

I remember when I was 16 years old and and vehemently opposed to anything nuclear. Then I watched Pandoras Promise & everything changed. I started watching video after video learning all I could about Gen 5 reactors & about SMRs. Now I've done a complete 180 in FAVOR of nuclear energy. Anybody who is against nuclear power has very likely never listened to any sort of scientist outside their echo chamber.

[@joehong624]

Rational conclusion

[@valdisfilks9427]

Brilliant analysis and video showing how old anti-nuclear fear is stopping solutions to solve climate change.

[@-LightningRod-]

howabout Nukeular common sense?

[@oldones59]

What is "old anti-nuclear fear" ? Where would the spent fuel be safely and securely stored? Who would work at such a facility? You can't just dream up a solution to energy production and distribution, then force it on people.

[@eldrago19]

As someone told my father in 1977, "I share your concerns [about nuclear waste]. But at least we know where most of the nuclear waste is. We've been dumping waste from coal plants into the atmosphere for decades and we don't really know what effect it's having."

[@theAraAra]

Sad that this has so little views

[@dr3540]

This is a side posting. Main platform is Vimeo. Hopefully it will get many more views in both places. At the time of your comment < 48hrs since it was released.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

I know, but give it time

[@yegfreethinker]

Don't worry we pro-nuclear guys will make it. Soon our view will be the majority.

[@susiea1419]

So glad Greens are realising we cannot have clean energy without nuclear power. It’s the reason my husband stays with Labour!!

[@crhu319]

He's an idiot and the no nuke Greens are correct.

[@harrywalker5836]

are you mental..go visit fukashima, chernobl,ect..you are a dmb ass. you know nothing about ancient tech. they dont want you to know about.. we only have nuke power for the military,,no other reason,,they dont give a sht, if you die from it..wake the fk up lady..

[@-LightningRod-]

So, UNIONS are driving Nukeular? makes sense with all the cost over runs.

[@susiea1419]

@@-LightningRod- sorry can’t quite understand what you trying to say!

[@-LightningRod-]

@@susiea1419 nuke's are FAMOUS for cost over runs, FAMOUS for not meeting Construction targets and Notorious for not being durable, ...ask yer shop steward.

[@terminusest5902]

Generation 4 nuclear reactors offer the opportunity for nuclear power to be competitive with fossil fuels. This includes production, fuel and operating costs. Some Gen 4 reactors can also work using nuclear fuel waste, nuclear weapons material, depleted Uranium and rare earth mining waste, Thorium. Current nuclear power mainly comes from Pressurised Water cooled Reactors that remain very costly, including the costs of making them safe. Gen 4 reactors use the natural laws of physics to make nuclear power safer so much less needs to be spent on additional safety. The huge domes build around current nuclear reactors are mostly empty. These huge domes are needed due to the risks of high pressure water/steam and hydrogen from water which can explode. Without water in a reactor such huge containment buildings are not needed. They can still be contained in a much smaller and cheaper structure that is still safe enough to survive the impact of a Boeing 747. Some of these reactors can burn up the nuclear fuel much more effectively than PWR reactors and also do not require metal fuel rods that have a lifespan of 2 years and can potentially melt down. Replacing the metal fuel rods is very costly and most of the expensive, enriched Uranium, over 90%, remains unused. And becomes nuclear waste. France does recycle some of its nuclear fuel but it is very costly and difficult. The fuel from existing nuclear fuel waste could provide decades of nuclear fuel if it was recycled. And Gen 4 reactors that use depleted Uranium waste for fuel could supply fuel for a century. With virtually no cost for the fuel itself and no difficult processing. The most popular type of Gen 4 reactors are the MSR, Molten Salt Reactors which have huge potential in safety, cost and low waste. Actually able to burn up over 90% high risk nuclear fuel waste. High risk in that nuclear fuel waste needs to be managed very carefully but can be managed. Finland has now opened a deep earth waste repository. This waste can be placed a mile below ground in very safe geological regions. There are also more options to increase safety. Including putting waste into forms of glass, ceramics or cement materials that make the waste very inert. The waste could also be recovered in future to be used as fuel with recycling or Gen 4 reactors. China is now operating an MSR reactor and a gas cooled pebble bed reactor. The pebbles are very safe spheres that contain nuclear fuel that are highly heat resistant. Much safer than metal fuel rods. Britain is planning to build Gen 4 SMR, Small Modular Reactors, by 2030. The US and Russia are planning to have prototype MSR reactors operating by 2030. Indonesia is also planning to develop MSR reactors with a US company. Many other countries have design projects. The US has many Gen 4 projects but building Gen 4 reactor prototypes is not cheap or easy. Much more money is invested in fusion reactors which have major development problems. Gen 4 technology is mostly existing. But testing is needed.

[@dasy2k1]

I agree the Elysium industries reactor concept looks very promising

[@JohnChampagne]

Governments should require that industries operate within limits that are endorsed by the people. If random polls show that most people want slower extraction of particular kinds of resources, or less of this or that kind of pollution, then corporations should reduce their impacts, to bring reality into line with average opinion about what is acceptable. The policy will embody in practice the idea that we have a shared right to define limits to environmental impacts. The way for industries to reduce emissions or rates of extraction or extent of encroachment onto wildlife habitat would be for them to pay a higher fee proportional to impacts. As the fee goes up, their effort to reduce that kind of impact will go up. A Dutch auction (decentralized, requiring no auctioneer) can find the right fee amount. The most profitable industries will be those that can produce goods and services without causing great harm to the environment. When we make prices more honest, the best solutions will emerge automatically. Newer reactor designs operate at higher temperatures than do pressurized water reactors. Higher temperature means that these reactors can be used to drive industrial processes that require high heat (such as manufacture of fertilizers, which currently uses a lot of natural gas). Molten Salt Reactors can be used as an energy source for pulling carbon from the air to make liquid fuels for transportation. We don't need the mines associated with supplying massive amounts of batteries for cars and trucks. We can make fuel for cars, trucks and planes with Gen IV nuclear. We could even bury some of the fuel produced in this way as a stable carbon sequestration strategy.

[@dodiewallace41]

Anyone interested in comparison of the Green credentials of our energy options should take a look at the GLEX energy page. Here you will find easy to use tools that shed light on aspects related to energy consumption and energy sources. The aim is to better understand the totality, which requires focus on climate, health, economy, nature and the environment. The goal is to provide the user with relevant information that provides just such a comprehensive overview. It is not a goal that those who use the tools agree with everything, but that the debate changes focus from opinion-based to fact-based. this is fundamental in order to be able to mitigate the climate challenges while meeting the sustainability goals.

[@seangeoghegan]

Good article. Nice to see the realisation that the radiation dose to a human from long-lived isotopes is miniscule, undermining the health protection argument that has been put by those anti-nuclear over the past decades. The visual presentation of the volume of fuel and used fuel in a nuclear power plant also puts in perspective the energy density of uranium. Health, waste and carbon dioxide generation during construction are all able to be managed. The key argument against nuclear power turns out to be weapons proliferation and the end of the world from nuclear war. This is the only argument that stands up to scrutiny, and relies on an assumption that no human system of relations and commerce will overcome the potential for malevolent players to proliferate nuclear weapons. The article does not adequately address this objection to nuclear power, and I think this is the Achilles heel of nuclear power to eventual popular social acceptance. It's pleasing to see the poll results show replacement of existing nuclear capacity is supported by the vast majority of those involved in the large environmental movements. I agree that we need to follow the evidence, so we need to move away from ideology and to well-founded evidence-based policy.

[@markwilson4052]

This is an excellent documentary. I know one of the talking heads. As Green Party member myself, I really wish the Party would get with the programme.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Not Rosi by any chance?

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Many thanks for your kind comment!

[@stevesmith-sb2df]

We need reactors that have the efficient burn up of plutonium and minor actinides. This will greatly reduce the time that the spent fuel needs to be stored in a vault.

[@dasy2k1]

The Elysium industries reactor looks very promising for this.... Its not ready for comercial deployment yet but is from what I understand ready for a small scale working prototype to be built

[@ElodieLaneuze]

I’m well impressed Mark! Not only that… I learned something! Thank you … Glad to see you’re looking so well 😉 Keep up the good work 👍🏼👍🏼

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Thanks so much Elodie! Hope you're well! x

[@anteeko]

When I finally realised that the green obsession against nuclear energy had likely enormously increased CO2 and our current climate I got angry.. I am apolitical now. Political parties make everything worst, including the green that are making the current crisis worst.. it is disheartening.

[@anteeko]

@foot bru "I find your logic that the Greens have made things worse, by trying to save the planet, too bizarre." The green -> nuclear is bad!!! and lobby heavily to (successfully) kill the industry. Result few decades later the world is burning coal like there is no tomorrow. The Green -> renewable is good!! and lobby to (successfully) direct gigantic subsidies toward it. Result enormous quantity of solar panel and wind turbine get build while they have limited life time and we are facing a gigantic waste disaster as a result of excessive production. Not even talking of the intermittence problems. The green are not helping the environment, they just want to feel good with immediate, unproven solutions and are not capable of compromise.

[@anteeko]

@foot bru "I disagree with everything you say. Nuclear WAS bad - severe risk of nuclear war, severe risk of accidents." Yet nuclear is the safest energy source available with nearly no CO2. The green made Nuclear so toxic politically that research and new development are nearly impossible. Killing our best opportunity to control CO2 level decades ago. Nuclear war risk? this risk existed whatever we use nuclear power for energy or not. Accident risk? Nuclear risk accident is incredibly low. Fukushima accident kill less than ten peoples yet it was more on the news that the tsunami itself that killed 200.000!! And new design just shutoff on their own in case of problem and can use nuclear waste as fuel. Nuclear death per energy produce? Coal kill 800 times (not a typo) more peoples per unit of energy produced. The green ignore that. Easier to ignore deaths when you don't see it. Peoples (specially the greens) just don't understand nuclear power and keep pushing for other (far more polluting) option "I'll trust renewables before I'll accept that. Watch Australia in the next 20 years - large country, running entirely on renewables." Australia run on Coal and is a CO2 nightmare.. if any country Australia is an example of a missed opportunity to use nuclear to preserve our atmosphere. And the ecological nightmare of renewable is not quite apparent yet but the volume of waste it will generate will be gigantic. Not even talking of the storage problem that is not solved yet. The green have choosen to lobby to pollute our atmosphere.. and we are getting closer to a tipping point. All that was avoidable if the green studied a bit more and took CO2 a bit more seriously.

[@anteeko]

@foot bru "The greens opposed nuclear power for the noblest of reasons." This is the problem. Peoples take decision because they "noble" not because they have studied the economic and science of it. The result? The world is now produce CO2 like there is no tomorrow and the green keep pushing for bad tech (renewable have enormous problem when it comes to the environment). Being emotional is not the same as being smart. "You're commenting with 20-20 hindsight - "it didn't happen, so they were wrong"." No, all I said was known for decades if the green weren't so lazy. >I prefer to think that their loud and vehement opposition helped AVOID nuclear war. Nuclear war risk is the same whatever we are using nuclear for clean power or not. You make the same mistake the green do, sorry but you don't understand nuclear. And because so many are like you, we are facing environment catastrophy (entirely avoidable). "Maybe we would have had five Chernobyls, and maybe three Fukushimas, and maybe ten 3 mile islands." We cannot have other Chernobyl because there is no nuclear power plant without concrete confinement. Even if that had happened if we had 5 Chernobyl, 3 fukushima and say hundreds 3 miles island event it would not come even close to the death caused by coal production and burning.. It would not even pass 0.1% (generous and assuming safety improvement made after each event: 100% dumb-dumb scenario) You feel good because you don't see the deaths from coal production (while nuclear event are over dramatised) As I said again, peoples need to look at the number for real, rationally and with cool heads. Because people are emotional have chosen a path of high atmospheric pollution, barbaric energy source with massive death toll. And the crazy thing is the green have a huge responsibility for it. "And maybe nuclear war" We just have the exact same risk of nuclear war now. We basically have all the con of nuclear with any pro of nuclear for society. The worst case possible. "Thankfully we didn't. And you can be a smartarse and accuse the Greens of killing babies." The numbers don't lie. Coal kill 800x more than nuclear. now that you know it, how do you ignore that? All choices have consequences in the real world there is no "magic/fell good" solution.

[@anteeko]

@foot bru ""Coal kill 800x more than nuclear. now that you know it, how do you ignore that?" I don't. I just choose not to replace one dangerous product with another." And how nuclear is more dangerous when the stats show it has the safest energy source AND proceed nearly no CO2? (and this doesn't include the medical/hygiene benefit from radioactive isotope produced by nuclear reacteurs that safe many) "You and your country should do what is right for you/it." And the number indicate Nuclear is safer, far safer. "And who is that is loudly pointing out the dangers of coal? The Greens (amongst others)." Yet their policies have led to forcing humanity into far more coal energy production. "The Greens did not argue FOR coal - they argued against nuclear. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you." Arguing against nuclear is arguing FOR COAL and fast climate change. I used to vote for the greens, I actually only voted for the greens until I realised how dangerous their influence is for the environment, the peoples and the climate. You said it yourself, you prefer an energy source that kill 800 time more over an irrational fear of nuclear war... yet it is totally irrelevant.

[@RudyAmid]

I've been a "global warming" skeptic for a long time. I think there's a fair bit of political confusion injected into the real issue: our dependence on Saudi Arabia oil. I've been s supporter of nuclear energy and was not really afraid of the dangers of it. Of course I have a bit of NIMBY-ism, but with careful research and financial support, I think we can deploy a bunch of nuclear power plants throughout the country (any country) without endangering anyone. Also worth noting, the documentary missed the point of renewable energy (ie. wind and solar) using gas as supplement for steady power generation. Nuclear power is steady generation of power, so it will indeed make a HUGE dent in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

[@-LightningRod-]

"Global Warming Skeptic", ...well obviously yer an idiot and too stupid and foolish to listen to.

[@susiea1419]

Can you show this video at the conference in Harrogate in September as it’s excellent?

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Thank you Susie. I can't make it to Harrogate unfortunately, but we intend to do screenings for greens around the country

[@susiea1419]

@@greensfornuclear.energy that’s great news. Hopefully it will change attitudes

[@harrywalker5836]

@@greensfornuclear.energy buddy, im a dumb fk,,in aus, 63..i, can tell you, the greens are in with world domination, there controled by the elite..theres nothing you,i we, can do, to save the planet. untill all these elites, schwab,gates,fouci,obama,hill, zuk, ect,are gone. & all the info the u.s & other gov,s keep to themselves , is let out in public. ie. salt reactors, tesla power. its the mighty dollar, , we have been kept dumb, controled, for over 10k now. with religion, gov lies,deceit. the sun, nothing else, controls earth climate.. 1 volcano, spews out more pollution, than we do in 1k yrs.. the earth is still here..how can you even think, nuke power is good. its only good for the military,,plus, do you want 300,000 tons of nuke waste, in your back yard, you can never get rid of..its mental..fukashima, still spewing sht in the oceans,,go fix that..

[@harrywalker5836]

@@greensfornuclear.energy humans with nuke power is like a 2yr old with a match. nuke weapons were used thousands of yrs ago on earth. tell me why, they let off 20,000 in testing. ??..it goes bang, it kills everything. what more do you need to know.??.. & for a 25,000 yr half life. +... you think your a person with a high iq.. i think not..nikola tesla, had free power, same as the ancients,,but,,you cant ''charge'', for free power.. plus, you cant make bombs from it.. sodom & gomorrah,mars, were nuked..go live in chernobl, fukashima, have a great holiday, cos we dont want you,on earth..

[@harrywalker5836]

@@greensfornuclear.energy you people are fk mad..the earth has been thru 6 ice ages, at least.. the climate changes,naturally,, it was hotter 200 yrs ago..you have no idea what it was like 1000 yrs ago. being green, solar, nuke, wind, ev,s, is madness, its like owning 2 million dollar houses, & paying for both..why..being green is not cheap or viable.. you still need manufacturing of minerals, & power to power the power.. your all dm asses, with no idea what the world is or has.or had, 100,000 yrs ago..people are getting rich,from being green advocates, & they dont really care..all those uni students, are brainwashed.by mainstream bs..

[@GordonMcDowellPublic]

Going forward, if you release more iterations of this doc, I suggest not using up 50 seconds before getting to at dialog... it looks like it is structured for a theatrical release, but I'd try to jump into the action or give a taste of the later on-the-scenes footage very quickly. People genuinely interested in the topic will wait, but most people directed to this video by any Google recommendation mechanism won't wait 50s. My favorite bits were in the 2nd half.

[@duncanchessell]

needs an edit for sure through the whole film. could be much tighter.

[@alalalala999808098]

fix it for you kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHq0equLoraom5Y

[@RudyAmid]

The TL;DR is already in the title. You can skip watching the video if you want to know the gist of the message. However, some of us do like the dramatic effect, so the slowness doesn't bother me.

[@mikedeane6018]

Very good point

[@stevesedio1656]

My experience with most of the global warming crowd is they think all we have to do is stop using fossil fuels. There is little to no understanding how much energy we use to maintain our standard of living. Or, how much more energy will be required to bring the rest of the globe reaches first world status. Without energy and ag (the other major greenhouse gas producer), we revert to hunter gatherers, where the earth only supports maybe 10 million). Nuclear technology has come a long way and could (should) provide power when renewables can't. But, as I understand it, their response is slow, we would still need peeker plants (or batteries far bigger than we have today) to deal with load transients. Do not let perfect be the enemy of the good - build nuclear.

[@JohnnyBelgium]

We have destroyed the biosphere. It is impossible to return to our natural way of life.

[@mikez2779]

their talk of reduction of energy consuption is largest lol ever go talk to people on the streets and ask how many of them would be willing to go back to 1960 in terms of standard of living? I reckon at the very least 50% would tell you where you can shove your ideas and trot off to buy their yet another new iphone... and thats only a tiny part of the problem the way bigger part is that there are billions of people around the world, in countries like China or India especially (but same about Africa eventually), who look to vastly improve their standard of living - which means they will end up consuming much more energy per capita than they do right now. So what happens when a several hundred million people would, reluctantly, start to limit their consumption - and at the same time several billions would ramp up theirs? Renewables were never an option. The basic concept of them is utterly delusional.

[@chapter4travels]

Every generation IV nuclear plant can load follow better than a natural gas plant.

[@sampad2973]

Nuclear energy.... Is the best choice

[@OCedarJ]

Thank you for relating your journey, we are legions to be in the same situation, and in the very uncomfortable position to battle our own side too often when we should really be all focusing on the real problem : fossil fuels !

[@richardcowley4087]

there will be no nuclear, wind, solar, tidal or any other without the use of bituminous coal and iron ore

[@terminusest5902]

It is hard to explain to many people that renewable energy is not going to be enough to supply our energy demand. We have all have solar panels on our roofs, if we own a roof, which most people do not, can supply power for our house. They will not supply essential power for transport and industry. The food we eat requires power for planting, fertilizer, harvesting, transporting, storing, and packaging. Many people living in overpopulated cities have no roof to put panels on. Many living in apartments. The worlds population is rapidly growing richer, this means huge increases in future energy production. China, for example is planning for 50 nuclear power plants to meet its energy needs. To replace coal and gas.

[@canadiannuclearman]

According to james Hanson and Colombia university the amount of lives that have been save by nuclear energy is I.8 million people. Because of displacement of dirty coal.

[@dodiewallace41]

All energy sources have trade offs, NP rises to the top when compared to the alternatives. It requires a fraction of the resources to deliver clean reliable power 24/7/365. NP really is the premier example of ‘dematerialization’ in which we actually use less to produce more. NP is the way to go to provide clean, reliable power with the least harm. the evidence all demonstrates that historically, nuclear has been the fastest way to decarbonize, requires the least raw materials and land, and results in fewer deaths per unit of energy produced.

[@dodiewallace41]

@foot bru Yeah, that's the danger of having infrastructure isn't it?

[@dodiewallace41]

@foot bru Infrastructure is vulnerable Foot.

[@dodiewallace41]

@foot bru W&S not working is just business as usual, energy infrastructure doesn't depend on intermittents. Intermittent and reliable energy are not the same thing. Some W&S makes sense if there is enough firm, reliable power to insure stability. Too much raises costs and weakens infrastructure. W&S operate on top of reliable energy, not instead of reliable energy. But Batteries will make it all better? So the best option would to build a wildly resource intensive and inefficient infrastructure, add the financial and environmental costs of storage, then double the ridiculously overbuilt infrastructure to charge the storage? I think the only reason this looks good to anyone is because we are so in love with the idea of RE being better because it's RE. Instead of looking at our options critically we give RE a pass. We believe it must be better environmentally and for humanity, not based on performance but on responding emotionally to what the term means to us. RE is actually nothing but a misleading marketing term like all natural or chemical free. there are appropriate applications for all energy sources, meeting the needs of 7.5 going on 10 B of us in vastly different circumstances will likely take all options. Reliable electricity supply is crucial for social and economic stability and growth which in turn leads to eradication of poverty. Energy policy should not favor wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, gas, or coal but should support all energy systems in a manner which avoids energy shortage and energy poverty. As NP is by far the lowest environmental impact we should be using it as much as possible. I wish this wasn't so damn political and that we involved input from engineers & grid operation experts more than we do. This isn't a sporting event or a popularity contest although we act like it is. Most of us have no idea what energy infrastructure actually takes and we should if we're going to be advocating for doing it this or that way. For a experts explanation of energy infrastructure that we don’t have to be engineers to understand this is a great resource. Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid by Meredith Angwin.

[@dodiewallace41]

@foot bru W&S is wind and solar. I don't expect you or anyone else to take my word for it, I do expect you to use data and evidence to fact check your opinions and be willing to adjust your opinions when it conflicts with the evidence. You would find the GLEX energy page useful. Here you will find tools that shed light on aspects related to energy consumption and energy sources. The aim is to better understand the totality, which requires focus on climate, health, economy, nature and the environment. The goal is to provide the user with relevant information that provides just such a comprehensive overview. It is not a goal that those who use the tools agree with everything, but that the debate changes focus from opinion-based to fact-based. this is fundamental in order to be able to mitigate the climate challenges while meeting the sustainability goals.

[@dodiewallace41]

@foot bru As a matter of fact. Until I was willing to critically look at what I thought I knew about NP I thought it was unacceptable. When I did I found my objections were mostly imaginary, formed by popular culture, not evidence. NP has decades of myth and propaganda to overcome, I hope we’re getting there. I wish this wasn't so damn political and that we involved input from engineers & grid operation experts more than we do. This isn't a sporting event or a popularity contest although we act like it is. Most of us have no idea what energy infrastructure actually requires and we should if we're going to advocate for doing it this or that way. For a experts explanation of energy infrastructure that we don’t have to be engineers to understand this is a great resource. Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of Our Electric Grid by Meredith Angwin. Like you I found that I had a lot of misconceptions about wind as solar as well. I had been thinking that what we needed was renewable energy when what is actually needed is clean reliable energy. 🤦 I had assumed that a unit of power production from them meant a unit less from FF, that they were cleaner than the alternatives, that power could be stored for use when needed like water or grain, and that if we just built enough of them we could meet our energy needs without FF. All of this was absolutely wrong. W&S are far too resource intensive and chaotic to ever be capable of doing the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. The inconvenient fact is that low-carbon energy generation depends on metals and minerals, just like high-carbon energy generation depends on oil and gas. You can’t call these metals and minerals with a prayer or make them in a lab. They have to be mined. What kinds, how much, and at what financial and environmental costs vary tremendously, and its not related to being called renewable or not. As dilute intermittents like wind and solar are so problematic both in the enormous amount of resources they require and in loss of efficiency when incorporated into infrastructure they have a far larger environmental impact than the other low-carbon options. Over dependence on W&S will involve digging, blasting & leaching more minerals from the skin of this planet than ever before. What's important is reliability, affordable, and low environmental impact. Focusing on renewable instead is counterproductive. If you're interested in comparing the green credentials of our alternatives do check out the GLEX energy calculator. Here you will find easy to use tools that shed light on aspects related to energy consumption and energy sources. The aim is to better understand the totality, which requires focus on climate, health, economy, nature and the environment. The goal is to provide the user with relevant information that provides just such a comprehensive overview. It is not a goal that those who use the tools agree with everything, but that the debate changes focus from opinion-based to fact-based. this is fundamental in order to be able to mitigate the climate challenges while meeting the sustainability goals.

[@Muonium1]

I do not support the expansion of nuclear power in its current hazardous and wasteful form at all. I DO very strongly support the expansion of incapable of meltdown and truly "walk-away safe" fast spectrum breeder reactors that, in contrast to the current 5%, burn 90%+ of their nuclear fuel, produce a minuscule fraction of the high level waste of current reactors, and don't need refueling or reprocessing of fuel for the life of the reactor. All of which is already within reach of current technological capability.

[@chapter4travels]

I understand your point but money spent on the newer LWRs like the BWRX-300 is better than money spent on wind or solar with all the subsidies and mandates that go along with them. They are walk-away safe and their underutilized fuel can still be utilized in a fast spectrum MSR later, it won't go to "waste".

[@Muonium1]

@@chapter4travels I'm entirely unconvinced on the first point. The price of wind and solar continue on their monotonic declines, 90% for the latter since 2010, while the price of nuclear continues to rise, with the recent criticality of olkiluoto 3 being exemplary - costing over $15 billion and taking EIGHTEEN YEARS to finally complete. It's not competitive and a single smr has yet to be built anywhere in the West.

[@chapter4travels]

@@Muonium1 You are comparing apples to oranges, renewables and nuclear are not in the same category. Renewables are very low energy-dense, intermittent electricity sources that are dependent on location, season, time of day, weather and 100x resource inputs. Nuclear is the exact opposite. This analysis will help explain why the LCOE metric is so wrong. festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

[@BobQuigley]

Best to be against bad engineering, construction, short sightedness. Against selling energy for less than the total cost of delivery. Against placing the contrived value of money above what's needed to do a proper job. Money's worth exists exclusively in our brains. Against not including cradle to grave costs of fossil fuels which is subsidized by the destruction of the commons in service to a handful of wealthy corporations and individuals. Yes nuclear will play a role, unfortunately it's path to growth is many decades long. In the meantime we must better use what we do have at hand. Consider repairing, upgrading already operating plants. Build HVDC interconnections across borders. Particularly in US get at the gynormous waste of energy created by our current building codes which ignore the opportunity for better buildings, less signage, sitting idle over half of every day yet still consuming resources.

[@StormGod29]

Yes, if I was King of the US tomorrow, I would instantly change the building codes to require super insulation on all new build structures. On day 2, I would have my boot of the NRC's ass and force them to figure out how to safely permit and inspect Thorium fuel cycle plants. The NRC is more hindrance than help right now and time is quickly running out.

[@canadiannuclearman]

According to james Hanson and Colombia university 1.8 million lives have been saved by nuclear energy displacing coal.

[@MattOatesUK]

A statistic missing is how many will die as a direct consequence of Japan returning to coal fired plants nation wide. That number is not zero for even the small amount of time they have returned to fossil fuels.

[@mikeryan2802]

It's estimated that up to 600,000 died over two nights during the Tokyo firebombing.

[@tyronedlisle4412]

Great film.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Thanks Tyrone

[@yegfreethinker]

Bravo it's about time that people speak up about the dangers of us not adapting fast enough. The fact of the matter is is with our climate changing so rapidly we need to get off CO2 right now and nuclear is the only viable option to accomplish that without destroying our civilization. Renewables could be a way to embrace the future long-term but in the short and medium-term- absolutely not. People asked me isn't nuclear power dangerous I say well is driving dangerous are all cars dangerous? There's a world of difference between a Ford Pinto and a Volvo. Yes we did have shity reactor designs during the birth of nuclear energy but our evolution in knowledge Has enabled us to design Generation 4 reactors that are inherently Fail-Safe due to using Such things as active input systems that need to continually do something to keep the reactor or else it will shut down. We could also use excess energy to create a carbon-neutral or even negative fuel using the Sabatier process or the Fischer Tropsch process to generate artificial petroleum fuels. This will be vital if we want to maintain our jet age propulsion while respecting Mother Nature. If you gave Humanity a big enough lever we could move the universe so let's get to it and fix this problem! ❤❤❤✌

[@-LightningRod-]

fast enough ,...Like next year with wind and solar or 30 years from now?

[@Anuchan]

What about the risk of terrorism? A terrorist group destroys a nuclear plant, causing a nuclear accident that forces evacuation of an area. Or the terrorists steal nuclear waste to make a dirty bomb. The proliferation of nuclear power has a high cost.

[@LudvigIndestrucable]

I have been pro nuclear for a long time, the problem is that we've left it far too late. We also have far too little nuclear fuel for our needs, if we actually switched, we have about 60 years of 235 and haven't managed to get fast breeders to work efficiently. Thorium holds promise, but is decades away from practicable. As with everything to do with the environment, we've left it too late.

[@chapter4travels]

We have enough uranium to last about 2 billion years, I think we'll be ok.

[@pathosattrition]

If demand for FF is driven by electricity creation, then how does "electrifying" developed economy energy production reduce demand for FF? How do we "electrify" electrical-production facilities? Do these people even know what "electricity" or "energy" even is? What about the environmental impact for the massive frontloading of minerals like copper & lithium required by "electrifying" energy supply chains? How does converting everything to require electricity reduce demand for electricity?

[@retiefjoubert55]

Basically this drive towards greater electrification goes hand in hand with increased electricity production from low/zero carbon sources. Sadly, at scale and within reasonable cost, this can only be done with nuclear electric or nuclear thermal. Side note: FF consumption to generate heat in industries and for heating and cooking is what is aimed at to be replace with electricity. Then lastly transport which would require batteries or fuel cell where electricity was used to produce the fuels.

[@juanreza6849]

The concept is that central generation of electricity for automobiles is much more efficient than every car converting liquid fuel into mechanical energy. central generation and uses less fossil fuel and in combination with nuclear, wind, solar.

[@Anuchan]

This video only discusses human deaths. There is no mention of the environmental effects of nuclear accidents. Chernobyl was the center of the Soviet beef industry. The irradiated meat was shipped throughout the country under the assumption that no individual would get too large of a dose.

[@juanreza6849]

Governments and corporations will only act in response to nearly universal personal commitment to drastic lifestyle changes e.g. 90% reduction in fossil-fueled transport, 90% vegetarian diet, 90% reduction in fossil-fueled industrial production, and a plan to justly reduce population from 8 to 1 billion over 2 generations.

[@BobQuigley]

As with so many of our wicked wicked global problems find at their root militarism run amok. US in particular bows to the congressional military industrial complex and it's fear mongering saber rattling propaganda. Born and raised in Pittsburgh, home to the first commercial nuke plant. The Pentagon used it's power to insist US commercial reactors use technologies nearly identical to the reactors in subs and aircraft carriers. Instead of innovation the industry became stagnant, stuck with dead end designs which became exponentially more expensive. Humanity today is paying the price. Yes we need nukes! Unfortunately the build out of better reactors will take many many decades, time we do not have as we add 51 billion tons of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere annually. Save every existing nuke that can safely operate, cooperate with China and other nations willing to invest. Acknowledge our dilemma and decouple the endless demands for more, more, more GDP growth at the expense of our only home's biosphere on which civilization is built. Stop with the hopium bullshit that this one tiny technological trick will save us! Only by coming together and acknowledging we are first humans not Americans, Chinese, German, English etc etc etc can we address the calamities of over dependence on burning fossil fuels. Lastly the hydrocarbons that make-up fossil fuels are essential to life today as we reach 8 billion precious humans. Burning them is a crime against the biosphere and the hundreds of billions yet to be born. We have a duty, responsibility to leave a livable earth for those yet to enjoy life on our wonderful home

[@lovasjj]

Environmentalists have ignorantly choosen the wrong solutions. We have pacified ourselves into believing renewable energy will save humanity while being incapable of doing the math. Instead of developing a scientificly proven course we applaud small improvements. Electric and hydrogen cars ....As they get more popular more oil will be used and fossil fuel plants built. Today 97% of Hydrogen is produced as a byproduct of hydrocarbons, otherwise hydrogen production demands a lot of electrical wattage to make from water. As the world invests trillions of dollars in batteries that offer slightly better energy density, solar cells that produce +5% more power or other "feel good solutions" , no one calculates the carbon needed to make them or the industrial waste flooding our landfills. Our governments does nothing to define the ROOT problem and they dance with joy as we export our manufacturing and pollution to Asia. We need Thorium reactors fast and dare I say more Uranium reactors now !

[@christinebennett2757]

To claim that 53% of environmentalists are in favour of REPLACING an ageing nuclear power station is entirely inapplicable as an indication of support for nuclear power. The risks of failing to replace an old nuclear plant poses significant risks to any community. What this video fails to acknowledge is that there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear wastes, which must be continuously kept cool over thousands of years. Who on earth can guarantee THAT?

[@greg5023]

I understand the question differently. All existing nuclear plants are 30 to 40 years old and are scheduled for retirement in the 2020s and current policy is to not replace the aging nuclear plants when they reach their scheduled retirement. The question asks the respondent if they support or oppose building replacement plants for those aging, soon to be retired plants. It is possible that renewables can generate the energy lost when those plants retire but, using renewables to replace nuclear represents an opportunity cost because we should use renewables replace fossil fuels and lower carbon emissions.

[@dasy2k1]

Thankfully some of the upcoming generation of nuclear reactors are capable of using what was previously nuclear waste as their primary fuel source... Sure they don't completely solve the waste problem but they make a significant shift in the right direction And what's more because that waste becomes a useful product companies storing it have more incentive to actually do it properly instead of chucking it in a storage pond and forgetting it!

[@radiobiologist]

30:08 pro nuclear old lady

[@Ugloke]

If you what to build more nuclear plants, I suggest you start moving existing ones away from coastlines, they will be flooded. You are looking at the wrong end of the problem. Stop industrialysasion!

[@DomDoesCoasters]

A Nuclear power station built today will operate until 2090, in which time sea levels will have risen by 500cm at the worst case, being as they're built with sea and coastal erosion defences with sea walls built to withstand 20 metre tall Tsunamis, I think they'll be fine.

[@Ugloke]

@@DomDoesCoasters It didnt go so well for Daici Fukushima.

[@radiobiologist]

233 likes!

[@GeoffTrevenen]

Watermelon mob.

[@timrickman8571]

You could have done without sodding Kevin, couldn't you.

[@ChrisEly]

The section begins @10:12

[@Rhetoscut]

A thought experiment: what if the Roman Empire had suddenly built a thousand nuclear reactors , electrified, then been sacked, followed by 1500 years of dark ages where no one new anythin much about technology not had the means to do anything much. Think we would be here now? We assume that our civilization will go on forever. No civilization has ever kept going forward in an organized fashion able to manage complex systems for very long. And ours won't either .

[@ignacioduran5993]

Very disappointing. Apologists for Chernobyl and Fukushima, and no mention whatsoever of the new fission technologies, or molten salt, thorium, mini-reactors, etc. Not to mention the total lack of consideration for fusion. To speak the whole time in defense of a generic "nuclear energy" without going into the nuances of different and necessary alternatives to the old and very dangerous technology, makes this video simply a political and propaganda tool for the current financial interests of the old nuclear energy industry. Very disappointing and intellectually dishonest!

[@scottspencer6899]

Wow this film really ripps off Oliver stones nuclear now movie.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Wow. That would be pretty amazing since ours was filmed, edited and uploaded before his was even finished

[@TedApelt]

I do think that nuclear should be used in places like Japan where solar and wind are simply not enough for the population. In the United States this is not the case. Solar + wind + storage can do over 20 times our current electricity production, and is not only the fastest way to decarbonize, but also the cheapest. Sure you could use nuclear, but it would be slower and more expensive.

[@DomDoesCoasters]

Out of the 25 fastest deployments of low carbon electricity, 17 of them were nuclear energy with only 4 being wind/solar. while building a wind farm can take as little as 3 years you could need around 90 wind farms to equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor, build any more than just 1 reactor at a time and you're decarbonising at lightspeed compared to Wind & Solar, not to mention that with standardised designs and a strong experienced industry nuclear power stations have been built in as little as 3 years in Japan and 4 years in South Korea. Now imagine if that was a fleet of several generating stations each providing as much as 6,000 wind turbines. Also take into account that Wind & Solar have a lifespan of 15-25 years and Nuclear Power Stations have a lifespan of up to 90 years. On the issue of cost, Wind & Solar only appear cheaper because that's not taking into account the effect their intermittency has on the market, fossil fuel backup, transmission upgrades ( and lots of them) as well as a LOT of subsidies.

[@pathosattrition]

Tell me you don't understand the relationship between energy density and civilizational development without telling me

[@retiefjoubert55]

Wind and solar with battery storage is not cheaper than nuclear. Facts.

[@-LightningRod-]

@@retiefjoubert55 facts that have no basis in reality you mean

[@jimgreen242]

Wow, the moderator is deleting comments pointing out factual inaccuracies in the video. What a disgrace.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Hi Jim, I can assure you that NO comments - other than profanities and outright abuse - are deleted. If you posted something and it was deleted I would respectfully suggest that it is possible it *might* have violated KZbins own guidelines? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . If so, try posting it again; I won't delete it unless it is profane or abusive

[@nomadicfenceman509]

I’ve watched a couple times now, very well done. Nuclear is the answer to what refer to as climate change. This entire sector of climatology is to say the least, very secular. So I will share my perspective from a theological view not expecting many to agree… the nutshell version. The earths temperature is rising just as a woman temperature rises when pregnant ( having baby in the oven) the earth quakes, the storms, volcanos, floods, fires and any other natural disaster you can think to add, are the birth pangs of a pregnant earth that’s going to give birth to a new DAY. That DAY OF THE LORD. Or better known as CHRIST second coming. There’s a correction on the horizon. And it isn’t about people going to hell or making some decision to change. When it happens you will have choice but to change… we all will want to change. The reason is that GOD IS GOOD! 👍

[@harrywalker5836]

you,,& me,,need a serious talk,,to streghten out your pathetic concepts of the world, god, & where man came from, you know fk all about our beginings. your a religious nutter..blind & brainwashed. the bible is a book created by man to control man,,nothing else..&,,its controling your brain,right now..

[@-LightningRod-]

secular with the vast majority , ...i dont think so

[@drakekoefoed1642]

if you are for nuclear energy you are not green. miss the news on fukujima? a billion gallons of radioactive water is going into the pacific. it will go north and visit the bering sea and gulf of alaska then down the coast of usa. storing the waste costs 6B a year for 50k years. the most expensive electricicity ever to exist.

[@factnotfiction5915]

> the most expensive electricicity ever to exist. Excepting in France, with 70% nuclear, which has electricity 2x cheaper than 'green' Germany (which mostly burns coal). Or, excepting in Illinois, with 50% nuclear, which has electricity 2x cheaper than 'green' California (which can't keep the blackouts from occurring).

[@sidsarkar]

What absolute rubbish. You stupid brainwashed idiot, how difficult is it for you to look up data and read up a little? Fukushima killed not a single soul and neither will it ever will. The water you talk about, you could literally drink it and be fine.

[@greg5023]

Fukushima's deuterium will never hurt anybody.

[@Izingana]

Even if w’ed all go nuclear now, it would be too late; constructiontime is more than 10 years. This ‘research’ was a waste of time! And again didn’t touch on the fact that waste will build up with a decay time of more than 100000 yrs..

[@theAraAra]

In the 70s and 80s, France decarbonized their entire electricity sector in 15 years with nuclear, which proves the obstacles are not technical but political. Germany still hasn't done so with renewables and is still the biggest emitter in the EU. As for the waste: it is being and can be recycled. After that, it can be stored in underground waste repositories like in Finland. PS: nice guitar songs!

[@AlexHaan]

We also need carbon free energy in 20, 30, 40, 50, ... years. Current nuclear power needs to be replaced too. And not everywhere sun and wind are a solution. Such intermittent sources need grid scale backup. Theories exist how to supply that. But nothing really practical is planned. All eyes are at 'build solar, wind'. Not at providing a reliable energy source to match demand. That is also decades away. Especially when it has to be built world wide.

[@dr3540]

Watch the film. All your issues are resolved.

[@greensfornuclear.energy]

Potassium 40 - the primary radioactive isotope in bananas and the human body has a half-life of 1.25 billion years, so your point is...? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@Izingana]

@@theAraAra They recycle the waste and the ones that they can’t recycle; put it in the ground for 100000 years, before it starts to decay. How long does our written history, with all it’s wars and power/culture changes, exist..?! Thanx 4 the compliment, but long ago..

[@mirupacha]

Thank You / Gracias for the information, from Oakland, CA - United States. One observation, though - you need to reach out to people of color & LISTEN to non-white & Indigenous Communities & People IF this is to take effect.