Nuclear Engineer reacts to Kurzgesagt "Do We Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?"

Skip Intro: 00:49
Breakdown: 13:43
Original Video‪@kurzgesagt‬: • Do we Need Nuclear Ene...

[@tfolsenuclear]

I used OBS this time instead of Zoom - Thank you all for your constructive comments! Also, I want a nuclear man action figure, it is adorable 😊

[@shortguy436]

10/10. The quality of your webcam and video was significantly higher, and so was the audio for both. Keep it up!

[@SpitfirinHurricane]

Nice job! The fps is perfect!

[@cryoine7194]

a lot of it has to do with "you never get a second chance to make a first impression" most people's first impression of nuclear power was the bomb, a single bomb of unimaginable power

[@Anastas1786]

"Most people's first impression of nuclear power was the bomb" and the people closest to "The Bomb" _went gaga for nuclear power,_ jumping at the chance to teach young children the fundamentals of nuclear science, filling their heads with dazzling future visions of nuclear-powered-everything and impressing upon them the potential of harnessing power the likes of The Bomb for the benefit of all mankind instead of for the detriment of part of mankind. I think the real trouble came a few decades later, when the early nuclear enthusiasts and their children were beginning to die and go quiet due to old age. _Then,_ most people's first impression of nuclear power became _Chernobyl,_ and the mass of people who never liked or trusted nuclear power to begin with jumped at the chance to emphasize how terrible the suffering was and how the _radiation_ was getting _everywhere_ and how we don't know what to do with the deadly, deadly waste and also this all started with _The Bomb,_ so how could we _ever_ have been so _foolish_ as to believe nuclear power could _help_ us?

[@Flametrooper118]

i have to add to the biofuel statement: Yes burning Biofuel releases Greenhouse-Gas BUT it is no additional Greenhouse-Gas: Plant takes CO2 via photosythesis splits up C an O2, builds C into it's own structure and releases O2. While we are burning Wood and Plants we are just burning CO2 that was already part of the cycle. Coal and Gas from fossil sources where stored undercround for millions of years and are added now to a cycle they where no part of anymore. So Biofuel is a much more renweable fuelscource as coal. We still need to be careful with it though because we can't burn every plant without cultivating new ones

[@lilysantiago679]

The 3 horsemen of nuclear energy. U shall not pass! NO. 💥

[@kungfreddie]

So what? If u don't burn bio then you can use coal oil gas Instead to fill that co2 gap.. and just leave the biomass in the ground. Bcoz gas/oil/etc has a far better kw/co2 ratio.

[@rynobehnke8289]

@@kungfreddie I guess that would work if you bury plants instead of letting them rot on the surface.

[@thetowndrunk988]

The issue is it takes a lot longer to grow the biomass, than it does to burn it, and therefore there’s still a net increase of CO2 over time.

[@GlebSem73]

But in nature it takes a lot more time for tree to decompose and release carbon back to the environment than for us to burn it.

[@tfolsenuclear]

If you want to see a reaction from a nuclear physicist, please check out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/on-WqHuYpLeVeqM

[@Somethingsomething5110]

We arent here for some all knowing god. We are here for someone’s opinion who’s educated on the subject instead of random tiktokers doing -10 research and misinforming their viewers. You are probably one of our furthest understandings of the subject as you deal with it in your job, and would love to hear what you have to say on the videos I use to try expand my knowledge and understanding on subjects.

[@markokostelac7282]

Oh my god I noticed something about that team Wind=Air Hydro=Water Nuclear=Earth Solar=Fire AVATAR ☀️🌬♨️🌊

[@localbrachiosaurus]

avatar fans when they realize that air, water, earth, and fire existed before the show

[@IroAppe]

5:47: While that's true, it's only very temporary, as the government parties have stated. Also, it's already over. There are contracts and plans, energy providers count on that and don't want to have these plants any further. So in a few years, the state would have to pay them to keep it up, and it would require a lot of investment to gain the personnel and resources to fully operate them again. I don't think that these parties will decide to pay for that. All signs point towards a very short delay, but then they will disappear. Unfortunately, and paradoxically, the green movements have convinced the major population so much, that nuclear energy is not working in Germany from a politics view. All parties in the Bundestag are avoiding that topic. Unfortunately that means, that silently, coal is taking over for these. Really silently, because you don't hear anything about it, but it's happening. Sure, there is a lot of construction of renewables. Germany for sure is trying to move towards a renewable energy future. But there are many difficulties, mainly politics-wise. For example, the plan to power the energy-intensive south with offshore wind energy from the sea, has been halted for a decade now, due to protests from NIMBYs ("not in my backyard") against the power lines, partly even conspiration theories like the electric radiation or something from those cables being harmful. So in summary, what really prevents Germany from becoming carbon-neutral? It's deeply uneducated beliefs and misconceptions from people, that prevent it from becoming politically viable.

[@nicolrb2210]

Resistance from those who know nothing. The biggest obstacle of humanity’s progress

[@whyplaypiano2844]

@@nicolrb2210 It makes me incredibly sad. I wonder what - if anything - we can do about it?

[@genericscottishchannel1603]

@@whyplaypiano2844 re-education

[@quantumrobingaming6667]

The big issues with the renewable market is the waste they generate during production, lifespan, storage and disposal. Both wind and solar farms are made out of some nasty materials which will not decay at the end of the life of the equipment. They are likely to be dumped in landlife if that. Also, the renewable storage issue isn't just getting enough storage but also what is the storage made of and how much of the world do we dig up to get the raw materials to build producers and store the energy. All in all nothing is perfect but a well designed well regulated nuclear industry could feed the world's energy supply cleanly for decades whilst we perfect the renewable methods. Like with EVs some of the renewable technologies feel like they are too early in their development cycle to really be workable at scale for decades to come.

[@tovekauppi1616]

In Sweden, we are taking big steps to electrify society. Most significantly by making new industrial buildings that will use electricity in the making of steel from iron. Sweden has a lot or iron ore mining and also produces high quality steel. This will dramatically increase our electricity consumption but it will also dramatically lower our carbon emissions.

[@vinnysworkshop]

K I R U N A

[@lilysantiago679]

Perhaps.

[@zangetsu2k8]

I hate wind power with a passion, takes up so much land, they make horrible humming noise, they kill things, and they can't be recycled.

[@rubensandstrom6824]

In fairness to Japan no one in their right mind would put a reactor in south east Asia

[@petersmythe6462]

I mean, it depends a lot on political will. If you were the absolute global overlord, you could probably find a way to do everything with renewables and use giant reservoirs and pumped storage to smooth out the erratic generation curve while messing with living standards and geopolitics as needed. The big problem is time and political will in all cases. How do you make this sort of thing happen without first achieving world domination?

[@ed0c]

solar and wind are not “green” do you have any idea what it takes to make batteries that can adjust for a cities needs?!

[@amanthatthinks]

Kurzegast is just a propergandu channel

[@isakrynell8771]

A major problem with so called renewables is space. We already have a massive foot print and just in America we need to allocate an aria equal to tree quarters of California to power the country with solar Another problem is waist. All those solar panels, three quarters of California, will be kaput in 20 to 30 years. The solar panels we are making now and for the foreseeable future can not be recycled and so all those panels will just end up in land fills somewhere. Can you imagine the mountain of broken panels we would have after 100 years. How is this renewable? No nuclear is the only solution.

[@norsehorse84]

And that's why we need to figure out better solar collector technology that allows for, if not entirely recycable panels, then at least panels with far more recyclable material. I still agree nuclear should be a big focus to replace fossil fuels while we're figuring that out.

[@gonnaenodaethat6198]

I slightly disagree a bit. I think Nuclear is the future of long term power, but with the aid of renewables. Battery tech is very not green in and of itself and has a short term plato in innovation. It would be better to make renewables an auxiliary to power smaller loads and create a cheap source for powering the nuclear plants or other things that would benifit from a solution off of the grid. That is why nuclear should be pursued to innovate smaller tech that can fit into other things like cars, water heaters maybe, maybe nuclear batteries even. Best example would be an ev with nuclear on board charging or...if we can figure out nuclear batteries, a direct drive between power and drivetrain. Imagine a little nuclear honda generator to power things off grid...so cool and quiet and green. Wont smack birds out the sky, wont interupt fish migrations, and wont depend on clouds not existing. Hell...solor power is kinda like nuclear...just the nuclear plant is the sun itself xD

[@royeaton3148]

🤘 𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕞𝕠𝕤𝕞

[@xcava86x]

"climate change" it's a joke that never gets old! :)

[@Mykst]

If it were actually a joke, yeah.