Nuclear Power Is FINE

Thank you to Masterworks for sponsoring this video, skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/adamsomething. Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.com/about/dis...
I'd rather prefer nuclear power as dying in the climate catastrophe isn't among my life goals.
Check out my Patreon: / adamsomething
Second channel: / adamsomethingelse
00:00 - Introduction
00:43 - Ad segment
02:40 - Why nuclear power is fine

[@AdamSomething]

6:31 Gahh, a speling misstake! Haevnt eveb noticrd!

[@Juserjus]

your short touch on the waste problem was not really convincing to say the least...

[@blau6832]

The waste storage topic seemed quite hastily glossed over...

[@sennanadam7612]

Tell the truth Adam something France plunders the poorest countries in Africa for nuclear power plants. Niger provides uranium to France, and its people live without electricity

[@AlphaDaxter1]

know*

[@skibididopyesdop]

@@Juserjus Bury it really deep and put concrete on it. Works like a charm and doesn’t contaminated anything, has been done in Finland already

[@vladislavpeshkov5476]

Not gonna lie, the sponsorship feels like a scam.

[@CarlosAM1]

7:13 you should have probably mentioned the Onagawa power plant, which actually had a good seawall, was closer to the epicenter and took both the earthquake and tsunami without any sort of meltdown and then literally served as a refuge for the tsunami victims

[@badethics7542]

Thank you, this is the first time I am hearing about the Onagawa power plant. I have literally never seen it mentioned anywhere else.

[@CarlosAM1]

@@badethics7542 well yeah, "Japanese nuclear power plant explodes after tsunami" is way more bound to go viral than "Japanse power plant is ok after tsunami"

[@00crashtest]

That's because the Onagawa plant was designed by Japan, whereas the Fukushima Daiichi plant was designed by Americans. We all know how much better Japanese cars are compared to American ones.

[@Demonic_Culture_Nut]

@@00crashtest Who made þe powerplants is irrelevant. What would be far more relevant is when þey were made and how well þey listened to þe kinds of warnings þat should've gotten Fukushima's renovated. Also, just because a nation produces one þing better þan anoþer does not make everyþing þe first nation makes better. Nation A's cars could be better þan Nation B's, but Nation B could've mastered nuclear powerplant construction. Not saying it's true here, but it does produce a nice mushroom cloud over your argument.

[@SorowFame]

@@Demonic_Culture_Nut why are you using the thorn instead of th?

[@karayour7950]

That masterworks sponsorship sounds about as legit as established titles claims of "buying land"

[@miroslavhoudek7085]

I'm always surprised when creators are trying to put out a "well researched analysis of a serious topic" and then they lace it with ill-researched scam promotion. This video is basically "nuclear power is good and so is this snake oil". Yeah, right, I'd rather hear it from someone trustworthy.

[@user-mb5px2cc6l]

@@miroslavhoudek7085 Especially a channel with a history of criticizing the socio-economic system

[@page8301]

Or Raid Shadowlegends...

[@chrisspencer6502]

Well art isnt know as an industry for fakes and over valuation bases on trends. Art must be a great investment 😂

[@vodkavecz]

@@page8301 At least Raid wasn't a scam like this. We all know what to expect from a mobile game, it's always p2w. And considering other phone games, it does indeed look way better than those.

[@richpryor9650]

Adam, you forgot to mention one other thing. People get caught up on Nuclear leaving behind a bunch of "forever" pollution but fail to realize that Coal plants leave behind tons of carcinogenic compounds such as arsenic, lead, mercury and a ton of other heavy metals and gases that stay in the environment for damn near forever. The ironic part is that coal ash left behind as waste is also radioactive, but they just leave it in piles to be blown away by the wind and rained on.

[@elpollo2805]

Risk wise, it's very unlikely that you will get an injury or die from nuclear waste, but you are much more likely to have health complications from coal's waste.

[@erneststyczen7071]

but unfortunately thats not what dumb masses think about. they are scared of green gue and see that when smoke is pushed away by wind, it just ceases to exist

[@TechBuild]

Exactly. Nuclear waste is safely contained while the waste from coal and oil power plants is discharged in the environment.

[@anydaynow01]

Same with "renewables". Don't get me wrong, we need renewables like yesterday, but I'm not so daft as to believe all the toxic waste from its construction hasn't been swept under the rug. Even when recycling there is a tremendous amount of toxic waste that stays toxic not for a few centuries, but practically forever. Renewables and batteries are a good right now solution to carbon emissions but in the long run, like generation after generation of dealing with thousands of hectares of renewable waste from both disposal and production will create a toxic waste nightmare for our great great grandchildren, versus just a few hectares of used fuel which will be used in next gen fission plants or stored in deep geo locations.

[@namename9998]

@@anydaynow01 Toxic waste remains toxic forever while radioactive waste decays to not be radioactive. And it would take Japan 19 yrs to reprocess 10k tons of solar panels and theres expected to be 78 million tons of it worldwide by 2050 while over the past 50 yrs theres only 250k tons of nuclear waste and it could be stored in 1-2 football stadiums. And people talk about planting trees for the environment while cutting trees down to build suburbs where they can have rooftop solar. Fewer trees means more flooding which means more crops lost which means famine and poverty and ghg from food waste. More flooding means rivers get polluted from ground pollution being washed into rivers that would have otherwise not been washed because the trees prevented flooding. Coal helped the industrial revolution. Society wouldnt exist today without coal. How will solar benefit society as much as coal or nuclear.

[@johncarpo4]

Can't help but feel Masterworks sponsorship will blow up in the face of lots of creators who are continuously shilling it

[@sysop073]

I thought he was doing a bit, I was just thinking "man this is going on a long time" when I realized it was serious

[@kingofthemoon3063]

Yeah it sucks, but I can’t blame a guy for wanting to get paid. I probably would have done the same thing.

[@eggsinhell1532]

My take on it is that as long as we’re all in on the joke, the creator and the audience, then no harm done

[@denver-gi7ot]

I actually prefer to see the ads contained within the video; that way the creator gets the money, not youtube, and you can just skip it.

[@marca9955]

@@eggsinhell1532 Yes, always depend on every audience member to be in on a joke.

[@neroe23]

As a Frenchman this warms my heart but mostly because it's 70% radioactive.

[@steemlenn8797]

Aren't you lucky that in the summer your climate runs on German gas power plant electricity?

[@giovannicervantes2053]

Also you're french so there's that

[@K0sm]

@@steemlenn8797 Aren't you lucky France is a the 1st net electricity exporter in Europe all year around in regular conditions (i mean, when half of our plants aren't shutdown for maintenance due to their age and delays because of covid) ?

[@naraera]

better check the coolant then

[@neodym5809]

@@K0sm not any more. Due to the abysmal conditions of French power plants, France depends on electricity imports from Germany.

[@jordam200]

I love that this community will openly criticize it's creator when he gets something wrong(masterworks sponsor). it's good to have a community that doesn't take the content creator's word for everything.

[@swaystar1235]

I find it kinda funny that out of all the people and out of all the sponsers, Adam has Masterworks

[@El_Andru]

Well, is not that he has it, is that he took it.

[@stomyonyomum]

And Kool aid man killed himself.

[@volo870]

Masterworks is starting to give me very strong Ponzi sheme vibes.

[@MusiKo14]

Tbh, it makes me respect them more that they explicitly say art should be “part of” your portfolio. I don’t think it’s another FTX. People just need to know that this is a 1-2% portfolio allocation.

[@volo870]

@@MusiKo14 I am not quite sure that evaluation of their art in not Ponzi-like... Moreover, I am not sure that their possession of the art is not without some convenient encumbrances.

[@eragon78]

@@MusiKo14 How is this really any different than the whole NFT nonsense? The issue is people are buying these pieces because they think they have investment value. Because people are buying them, the demand spikes and prices increase. Eventually though, you wont be able to find an end user who actually genuinely just wants the piece to have it. The issue is people arent paying buttloads of money because they actually enjoy the art, they're doing it because they think theyll make money off of it. That means the quality of the art is irrelevant, just like how NFTs worked. Nobody cared whether or not you actually owned the artwork with NFTs, what matterd is you had the log saying you "owned" it, and because people thought it was valuable for investment purposes, the exact same sort of bubble formed. But again, no end user to actually buy it. You have to sell it to someone else who wants to invest into it, but that will eventually run out. Eventually there will be no more people willing to pay the price for the investment and youll have to find an end user, but since nobody was actually buying the art for its actual artistic quality or whatever, that means its going to be VERY hard to find someone who wants to buy a piece for millions because they genuinely like how the piece looks. Its the exact same issue the NFTs had. Once you cant find that end buyer, the system crashes as people lose faith in the market since they no longer think they can sell it off for higher than they can buy it for. As the market crashes, people want it even LESS. Thats how these scams always work. You start up the scam, bloat the value by induced demand, sell it off high, then let the market eventually crash as people realize that nobody actually wants to pay the outrageous prices for that artwork, people were ONLY buying it with the intention of making a profit off of it. Its literally a ponzi scheme, exactly like NFTs and FTX. The function behind hte rising prices are exactly the same, its just a giant bubble of future speculation that there is always going to be another investor willing to buy it for more until suddenly there isnt and the market crashes.

[@torinriley7569]

@@eragon78 In structure its probably more similar to things like retirement fund groups which pool the money of those who join to invest in various growable assets. Art is in fact a pretty valuable asset with real growth potential much like real-estate, and has been for a while now, its just that the way its presented is honestly pretty bad. The actual basis is sound and has been a thing for a while now, unlike NFTs. Note that I'm not saying Masterwork is necessarily legit, but rather that their methods are pretty standard for "investment groups" like this.

[@eragon78]

@@torinriley7569 The issue is that Art's value is completely subjective (unless you are only investing on market speculation) which makes it an extremely volatile market. Again, its exactly the same issue NFTs had. It doesnt matter what an NFT actually was, what mattered is that people were paying millions for them which CAUSED them to be valuable. It was induced demand. NFTs were ONLY valuable for their investment potential, and had no real world basis for their value. Nobody was buying an NFT for its artistic value. Nobody actually thought some stupid monkey picture was worth millions of dollars. They bout it because they planned to sell it to someone else for more money. But the only people who would actually buy it are other investors. Fine art is SLIGHTLY better in that the art itself actually usually has some historical or aesthetical appeal which can raise its subjective value quite a lot. But the same fundamental issue still applies. You still need to ultimately find an end buyer or the market is unstable. If some random piece of art is being sold for tens of millions of dollars, and nobody would actually buy that piece for that much money because they seriously just want to have that piece in their collection for the sake of having it, then its JUST as unstable of a market as NFTs. If the only people willing to buy the art at that value are other investors, then the market is in a bubble that will crash as soon as no other investor is willing to take the risk on it. And a large portion of the art market is exactly in this situation. SOME art is actually worth tens of millions because of its historical value. Something like the mona lisa for example. But a lot of art by some artist nobody has ever heard of, especially modern art that goes for tens of millions, is not in that boat. Its almost always artificially inflated value from induced demand. So the only real difference is that modern fine art has SLIGHTLY higher value in its aesthetical appeal and history. But ultimately the exact same issue can occur of inflated markets due to induced demand which makes it an incredibly volitle market. Sure, you can make some money off of it, but you can also lose a lot of money too. Any market claiming to pay better than the standard stock market rates virtually ALWAYS carries some increased risk. This is no different. Its a much riskier market than standard index funds, and its not really something people should do if they want a safe long term investment.

[@moodynoob]

While I understand the need for sponsorship money, I seriously hope you reconsider sponsorships from unproven financial assets like fractional art shares (Masterworks). There are several points of concern with them, such as how the performance data of illiquid markets is very prone to selection bias, their high fees (which is understandable due to transport, storage and insurance cost of art) and the fact there is very little data on how specifically Masterworks has performed - especially since we're transitioning out of a low interest rate environment. Please don't risk trashing your reputation and be more responsible in selecting sponsors to shill.

[@eragon78]

From the sounds of it, Masterworks almost seems like a scam used to get people to invest a lot into art to bolster the value of that art so that the wealthy who own lots of those pieces can benefit vastly off of it due to the increased demand. Basically, its over inflating the value of that art because people are buying it as an investment rather than because they actually genuinely enjoy the art pieces. Nobody should ever be buying something that has subjective value like art as some sort of investment. The fact it has subjective value makes it EXTREMELY volatile. You should only buy those products if you actually genuinely want that art piece and value it yourself.

[@zackmuckerberg2341]

@@eragon78 The reason we have financial crises in the west in modern times is due to the stock market schemes. Food is not running out nor is housing I think it's time we ban it completely at least in the EU.

[@eragon78]

@@zackmuckerberg2341 Well, housing is running out here in the USA, but thats a totally different issue due to single family housing only zoaning laws, rather than mixed zoaning which allows for medium and high density housing. It artificially makes housing scarce here in the US which drives up prices for property owners, which means big corporations can go and buy all the housing and rent it out for insane value. But yea, thats a completely different issue. Housing is scarce by design, if proper zoaning laws were implemented, medium and high density housing could make it much less scarce and more avaialble to eveyrone.

[@Max-nt5zs]

How about the fact that the sponsorship flys in the face of leftism

[@mikicerise6250]

Sponsorship and Patreon and KZbin ads? I mean, we all want money, but... Masterworks? Really? xD

[@RiddleAnim]

So,to summarize; Chernobyl was the result of top-level incompetence,and Fukushima was the result of corporate nearsightedness. Both were human error brought on by those making important decisions being entirely unaccountable. And the lesson people learned from that was "Nuclear bad." Sometimes,I wish I could chain decision makers to desks and force them to read the actual data,before quizzing them on it,only letting them go when they can ace that quiz.

[@JohnArktor]

No the result is: nuclear is bad when ran by people. However safe nuclear plants are, they will still suffer from human error, negligence or plain bureaucratic nonsense. So nuclear is bad, as long as people run it or have an interest in interfering with it. A flawed but ultimately useful shortcut.

[@eric2500]

Very satisying, I'm sure, if all you require is accurate facts. But what we should require is international laws and standards, with frequent inspections and constant education for designers, maintenance crew, and people whose JOB it should be to explain all of this to people who do other things with their lives.

[@eric2500]

Human error screws things up again and again in human history. The profit motve and the national glory motive amount to more or less the same results - proof that there are ECONOMIC and POLITICAL aspects it would be stupid to ignore as we have in the past!

[@B1ack0utGER]

Human errors are something you can't prevent. There a "safe" nuclear power plant can't exist. Just that a human error in such a power plant has much higher impact than on a car for example.

[@etbadaboum]

Due to insufficient cooling, heating inside the reactor provoked a thermolysis of water producing hydrogen. H2 buildup at some point met the condition for explosion. French nuclear specialists advised Japanese authorities and Tepco long ago to install cheap hydrogen recombinator using a simple Sabatier process to nullify any explosion possibility. They refused.

[@greymonwar9906]

TEPCO is giving Japan cancer, literally.

[@rcytray]

I get that the money is good, but the Masterworks sponsorship is definitely blowing up in creators' faces eventually

[@kalinmir]

Sounds like buying nfts

[@10ahm01]

@@kalinmir not really, people buy nfts solely because of the belief that the value would rise, but people buy classical and iconic art because of the intrinsic value they attribute to it. I'm not sure why everyone is jumping to the scam claim, even though so far it sounds like many other stock investments.

[@henri3221]

@@10ahm01 The problem is that when a large group of people co owns a picture like a stock the seller can artificially push the price of the picture higher than its worth, especially because this concept is pretty new and there are a limited amount of pictures you can co-own.

[@botondhetyey159]

@@10ahm01 A good rule of thumb is that any product a youtuber sponsorship is shilling is either really bad, or overpriced.

[@MichealleShoemaker]

@@10ahm01 no art has intrinsic value

[@hibachimk240]

Man, I LOVE when the sponsor is around a third of the video and is integrated in a way that completely derails it.

[@IRosamelia]

What I liked about it was I had time to go to the kitchen and prepare a sandwich 🥙

[@dusan6566]

ye its bad but not as bad as ads

[@richardlooch2109]

it uses chapters though. so you can just skip the the visual indicator. I wish more creators did that. it makes it so easy to skip sponsorships.

[@reahs4815]

@@dusan6566 you get ads?

[@dukenukem5768]

@@dusan6566 What ads do you mean? That Masterworks crap was an ad.

[@documentthedrama8279]

Adam, you're a good guy. you make fantastic videos, which are super insightful. Please drop the ads or at the very least be selective. I completely respect that you need a steady income source.... no issues there. But masterworks.... you are far too good for that.

[@lq3552]

Man's gotta eat tbf, maybe he just didn't have many options

[@AstroPsych_]

Also, Thunderf00t? Really? After all the Gamergate shit? I literally personally know three separate people who I watched by radicalized into the alt-right _by Thunderf00t specifically._ I've lost track of one, another is now a devoted fan of Ben Shapiro, and the third is a full on Qanon cultist.

[@richardbagg8581]

Masterworks? Kinda seems at odds with the general vibe I get rom this channel.

[@GiubileiFernando]

I was astounded at the two minute sponsorship in a 9 minute video.

[@Bacony_Cakes]

[cinemasins ding]

[@rollutherhodie3076]

and for a scammy pump-and-dump too.

[@inquisitorinluzifera3406]

Can recommend Sponsor-Block for cases like that. Except you plan to really buy products from a sponsor.

[@Arkiasis]

Yeah honestly AdamSomething is becoming a total sellout and somemuch for the leftist views when they're peddling a fucking ponzi scheme. It's pathetic. Shame on you Adam.

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

He doesn't actually like the sponsors. He's only doing it to pay his bills. Everyone knows that.

[@noahkidd3359]

The fact that climate change is a thing and France/Germany are still having a hissy fit about the dangers of nuclear power is beyond me.

[@HoplessNihilist]

Germany is having a fit. We have plenty of reactors active...

[@thebrokenpuppet2714]

I mean France is doing better than Germany with this

[@ShadowGhostHD]

@@thebrokenpuppet2714 Yeah sure ... more than half of your reactors are down and france is BUYING electricity from germany. (not sure how the updates are so far)

[@TheOneSin7]

Yeah, some of them at our border and in pretty bad shape so we have to make emergency plans and hoard iodine pills in the closest cities ^^

[@paradox9551]

@@ShadowGhostHD It's the other way around, Germany is buying from France.

[@michaelpatterson5330]

Surely if there is a waiting list of people wanting to invest in fine art offering special access via an ad should raise questions.

[@SolarFlareAmerica]

Let's talk about those Fukushima emergency diesel generators. They cheaped out on their housing. Literally. The building\s they were housed in were both TOO CLOSE to the water (as stressed by the designers) and TOO LOW compared to the water level. This meant they flooded almost immediately and were out of commission (and under water lmao) for most of the crisis.

[@DigGil3]

I can't wait for Masterworks to become the next grift sponsorship on youtube to be uncovered.

[@Metallijosh100]

Sadly they gotta pay bills and KZbin just ain't great for monetization. Just gotta all remember to never buy into any of the things advertised lmao.

[@TheMotU92]

@@Metallijosh100 they could also just do work that pays them better...

[@TheMotU92]

@@Metallijosh100 also, adam has a decent patreon following

[@oliverwilson11]

You KZbin commenters are such GD sheep, you can't decide if something is a waste of money on your own you have to have one of your favourite video makers tell you. Hint: if it's being advertised to you it's more likely to be a waste of money than not

[@2552legoboy]

I dont think the two services, selling art and Title certificates ...etc are the same

[@Samantha-vy2pt]

Hmmm yes I think I will now invest my life savings in the illiquid art market with %25 transactional costs, as I see no issues, none. Thanks for the tip, Adam!

[@DemPilafian]

I avoid the transaction fees by only investing in art that is highly radioactive.

[@cornelimoller8303]

@@DemPilafian it has also a better half life

[@wow-hs5by]

Brother, have you ever seen a leftie properly caring about others people money? Other people will pay for the bike lanes, who cares that thousands will lose their jobs. Who cares that co2 will simply only move with electronic cars, they will with theur enviroment, we chilling. Who cares about your time and the thing that gets propagated to you? He loses nothing, only gains.

[@sandran17]

@@wow-hs5by bike lanes make people unemployed?

[@acdeeiprrt]

@@wow-hs5by that's so stupid I don't know where to begin... bike lanes come from taxes that we all pay, same as roads, and it's because we care about people who don't have enough money for cars because capitalism and can't ride the bus or train because there's no transit funding because Republicans

[@XIIchiron78]

"Peculiar" is an awfully kind way to put it. Not to mention that it only got into such an unstable state in the first place because they were doing wildly unsafe "tests" with very little understanding or supervision... It was such a perfect confluence of events that it would be difficult to make worse if you tried on purpose.

[@zdeneknovak5276]

You could do it "accidentally" (read "deliberately"), see current situation in Ukraine.

[@TonkarzOfSolSystem]

Chernobyl may have wild animals living in it and native plants, but they die much sooner than animals in adjacent non contaminated areas, and in many cases are noticeably sickly compared to their non-contaminated bretherin. Sure it’s not the wasteland that people associate with a nuclear catastrophe, but that doesn’t mean it’s a perfect wonderful wildlife sanctuary. If a city had the same level of contamination it would be uninhabitable. EDIT: Also, the radiation from a trans-Atlantic flight is only acceptable because humans experience it for a very short amount of time. If you were exposed to that amount of radiation 24/7 it would over time have major deleterious effects on the human body. Look, I'm not trying to fear monger. Nuclear energy is relatively safe compared to fossil fuels like coal and oil. Partly because of all the safety features incorporated into nuclear reactors. But dishonesty about the conditions in the Chernobyl region is still dishonesty. A better point to make is to point out that modern reactor designs can't fail in the same way.

[@rorycummings4243]

Yeah, I thought the downplaying of Chernobyl radiation was really strange tbh

[@Lumberjack_king]

He did make that point he said modern reactors can't explode like chernobyl

[@TonkarzOfSolSystem]

@@Lumberjack_king Extremely briefly.

[@scoutgaming737]

They die faster compared to house animals, they from infighting, normal disease and predation, so just like wildlife

[@elpollo2805]

@@Lumberjack_king If he wanted to make that point better articulated, he would have talked about how they made the RBMK-1000 safer, which is namely the positive void coefficient was reduced from 4.7 to merely 0.7. One of the most well known reactors operated in the "west" that has a positive void coefficient would be the CANDU reactor, operated in Canada, and a quick google search didn't bring up any CANDU reactor accidents.

[@DerTypDa]

As an addendum, the German Energiewende wasn't just hindered by regular old bureaucracy, it was outright sabotaged by conservative state and federal governments. Regulations on where windmills could be placed were made so insanely restrictive that in certain states only a few acres even still qualified. E.g. Bavaria ended up building just 6 windmills in the entire year of 2022. We also used to have a healthy and rapidly growing solar sector as well that essentially had its throat cut around 2012 in favour of shoveling more subsidies into the coal sector.

[@_karla._]

yeah, all thanks to the conservative parties and especially altmeier.

[@Superboy-jx3zv]

Every time i think about the German Gov. Saying that the "Coal industry collapsing cost so many workers unemployed" while the solar sector loosing like 20 times more jobs

[@Kaynstein]

While I welcome windmills, I can confirm that living next to what I think to be the older models can really suck. Hope they fixed these flaws for the newer ones. Radio cuts in and out in time with the blades turning. At night, we can hear them howl. And looking at the floor around the new ones they built in the next village, dozens of dead birds and shit. Might be clean in terms of CO2 in the long run but if I look at the cut down forests there, the bird graveyards and the noise at night, dunno man. I think the people demanding restrictions have a good point.

[@dablob4491]

@@Kaynstein wind power plants are dangerous to the surrounding eco systems and pose actual mental health risks to people living nearby. Wind power plants are actually a hazard and most definitely cannot be placed anywhere, cause there is no way you can remove the sound just like that, on top of that you cannot have a safe for birds, fast spinning, bird cutting machine.

[@TheAmericanAmerican]

Well the good news is that the solar industry is roaring back! Sincerely, A Solar PV Technical Planner in Germany 😉

[@pocpic]

I'm pretty sure the Chernobyl mushroom picture was taken to illustrate how fungi bioaccumulate heavy metals, including radioactive isotopes, making them dangerous to eat.

[@sovietpotato2353]

but strawmen are nicer to deal with

[@brianmiles2842]

And it shouldn't be scoffed at either. Saying 5000mSv is a lethal dose and 0.02mSv is nowhere close is silly as you normally measure exposure over the entire year and you can get seriously ill before then. Also saying the mushroom has 0.02mSv radiation makes no sense. Is that hourly, yearly, from contact, from ingestion? Sieverts aren't an easy unit to deal with but very important to get right. Nuclear safety is important. Perfectly fine to walk around the site occasionally but wouldn't live on it. Nuclear is pretty dang safe but this annoyed me haha

[@wanderer2688]

@@brianmiles2842 This a thousand times, I just couldn't stop asking what the fuck he was talking about during that part of the video. I'm no expert either, but it already sounded off.

[@rat2316]

@@wanderer2688 grandpa is starting to get older

[@ricardoludwig4787]

Fun fact: depending or where you source your coal, it is very easy to get more radiation damage from coal generators than nuclear power plants, and problems related to radiation are just as common among coal plant workers as they are in nuclear. The place where they actually use radiation

[@ethankeller8965]

This video should also address the fact that nuclear "waste" isn't really waste at all. It can be reused and made into new fuel. The United States does not recycle but countries like France do. Nuclear "waste" can be used up to 5 times. The 96% of spent nuclear fuel can be reused and the 4 percent can be vitrified and then stored pending disposal. There is new waste treatment techniques being innovated as well, including china's breakthrough of mixing the waste with glass to effectively contain and stabilize the radioactive elements inside.

[@MelioraCogito]

03:30 _"Caesium in the environment isn't a great danger unless you eat it."_ -Thunderf00t ... or unless you disturb the Caesium contaminated ground cover, by digging foxholes/trenches or other excavations.

[@markolinir3945]

Also the ukrain farmers were very happy I guess, when they were told that only dozents km² of polluted land which used to be one of the most fertile in the world is now useless. What, they weren't?

[@Tatwinus]

@@markolinir3945 mollisol covers 7% of the earths arable landarea. The amount lost to chernobyl, which was mostly forest wasnt exactly earthshattering.

[@ozhmium]

I want to clarify Thunderfoot here. Cs-137 is dangerous should be taken seriously, as are fission products in general. That being said, consuming Cs-137 in a water soluble form like some kind of salt is generally not too harmful since cesium in general passes through the digestion system relatively quickly. It generally tends not to accumulate. What is dangerous is Cs-137 in the form of particles that can end up being breathed in. A consequence of nuclear disasters is that a lot of concrete, rock, shielding, etc gets made, and you have dangerous isotopes in the dust that gets carried by wind and can end up being breathed into the lungs. Cs-137 does not pass through the body if inhaled. Small dust particles and glass particles already normally cause silicosis, if you add Cs-137 to the mix it makes things much worse. - A radiochemistry student writing his thesis on recycling and reprocessing fission products from spent fuel.

[@goiterlanternbase]

@@ozhmium So the studies about accumulation through the digestive tract are all exaggerated?

[@ozhmium]

@@goiterlanternbase That's a good question! Firstly I need to warn you that I am not knowledgeable about the biological mechanisms that are relevant here, but since I'm studying something very close to the field of what you're asking I've managed to gather some information. I don't think they're exaggerated. From what I find, they report that cesium ions which are absorbed through the GI tract are done through the intestinal tract at a very high rate. The Cs ions spread out throughout the body fairly evenly and are expelled relatively quickly (50-100 days from what I could find, again, not very knowledgeable on the biological aspect.) The studies I could find are the effects mainly on rats. For adult humans, who are much larger and can have the Cs spread over a larger volume, the effects aren't as pronounced. Children are noted to be more affected by acute Cs exposure. Having it spread through the body evenly is less likely to cause issues compared to having it concentrated in an area like Sr-90 (which was also released in Chernobyl to a lesser extent but has a half-life of 30 years) in bones or I-131in the thyroid. Again, it's not that it's harmless, it's just better than isotopes that accumulate in your body and aren't expelled and are concentrated in an area. I intentionally say acute specifically because the biological half-life of, well, anything, doesn't matter when it is chronic exposure. If you are constantly exposed to Cs-137 via digestion, it doesn't matter that it is expelled relatively quickly, because you are still intaking cesium. Also I want to point out that if you digest something with Cs-137 that cannot be absorbed via normal digestion processes none of what I say is relevant. Cs-137 in tiny soil particles in your food that can't be digested could potentially be excreted immediately, or it can stay stuck to intestinal lining and never expelled. It's very well possible you have come across other studies that go against what I say, and that I just couldn't find. If you are able to provide them PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do because it's really important for people to be aware of the actual danger some fission products pose. It also helps with what I'm writing about in an indirect way. I really wanna state how in-favor of nuclear power I am. I am adamantly pro-nuclear. But Adam's video really understates how terrifying nuclear power can be if we do not respect it. And I'm not just saying this so that there remains demand for radiochemists and I have a stable job prospect haha...

[@BeatsByYari]

Hey Adam, I would really appreciate it if you left your sources in the description, given that this is a very controversial topic and I think people would like to read more based on what you said

[@yeetyeet7070]

he's full of shit. he has done ZERO research, his only source is google images. He missed all the actual problems of switching to nukes NOW (2022).

[@TheAnthraxBiology]

Adam sourcing stuff on topics he doesn't know about? Dream on buddy, this man just says whatever the hell he wants and pretends he knows what he's on about.

[@miraelgato392]

Google is free

[@TheKoekiemonster1234]

@@lor7780how do you know?

[@maximtcaciuc2904]

@@TheAnthraxBiology here's an idea, research the shit he talked about and if he really was wrong make a video about it, it's free content! Oh wait everything he talked about is factually correct... oh bummer!

[@davidpaprika5976]

You know, you tell me that the green argument of Chernobyl and Fukushima is fearmongering. At the same time, for the last 5 Months Russia kept Saporishnija as a hostage. Also: Art does not suffer from depressiation as much, because it is not priced at a daily basis. As long as it is not sold you have to take Masterworks word for the value.

[@cantinadudes]

Its not a non-issue if a nuclear power plant melts down, that was never the point, but its still a lot less catastrophic than many make it out to be. Also a large portion of this video was proving how safe they are if operated correctly. Really the only actual issue there is we dont have a place to store the waste forever, but we do have casings for the waste for 40,000 years and i'd say thats long enough

[@TheGrenadier97]

Chernobyl was caused by soviet negligence and Fukushima by natural causes. The soviets themselves can attest to the fact that with proper maintenance and no natural risk nuclear-powered things can be useful and safe. Any mega-dam like Itaipu or Three Gorges can suffer similar fates with disastrous results.

[@tippa7328]

@@cantinadudes Nuclear waste is also extremely misunderstood, as it can be stored in containers that are safe enough to literally hug, OR the waste materials can be further utilized as fuel (granted, not as efficient as traditional fuel cells and needs more research, but nuclear waste power plants do exist), OR nuclear waste can be turned inert and made into glass that is safe to handle. So the options are to either continue using it as fuel and squeeze every last bit of usefulness out of it, turn it into some pretty baller glassware, or store it in containers either above ground or underground where it is completely safe from harming anyone or anything and (unless tampered with) will not undergo any leakage because the waste is stored as solid metal. Compare that to fossil fuels which burn waste into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe and which warms the atmosphere and pollutes the environment, hydro which damages and oftentimes destroys entire river ecosystems (and the surrounding land), geothermal which is oftentimes inaccessible (and also pollutes the air), or wind and solar which are both too inefficient and unreliable to be used as a main source of energy. Do I sound biased? Yes. And it's because I am incredibly biased towards nuclear energy (and do not even get me started on fusion). I am being 100% honest and serious -- no hyperbole -- when I say that as long as a country can financially afford the albeit expensive costs to make nuclear power plants, there is literally zero reason I can think of as to why they'd prefer something else over nuclear. They're expensive. That's all I can think of.

[@MaximumCrash]

@@TheGrenadier97 But no damn has the potential to irradiate an entire continent.

[@MaximumCrash]

@@cantinadudes "if operated correctly". I can think of 100 reasons why people would not operate them correctly. This is just asking for accidents. BTW, Uranium-235 (used in power plants) has a half life of 700 million years. The entire field of nuclear semiotics is based on generating warning signs for people who live millenia in the future.

[@LastIcebear]

A very good video. However, I feel like you are ignoring some points: 1: Nuclear Power still has to use Radioactive Material, wich isn't really common to find atleast here in Europe (needs to be shipped from russia/USA/Brazil/africa) 2: If you want an efficient system, you got to refine your Materials, which also takes up a lot of energy 3: New Power plants need to be planned, built, etc. It takes ~20 years (atleast here in germany) from proposal to finished Power Plant. We don't have 20 years to lower our emissions, we have until 2026, when we reach the first Points of no return of the climate crisis 4: We still have no one willing to take High grade radioactive waste. Finland found a Final Storage Facility, but thats also just for low and medium grade Radioactive Waste (not for fuel rods)

[@kokofan50]

1) every country bigger then Monaco has a source for thorium 2) every source of energy requires refined materials 3) that’s a German problem. South Korea can build them in 4 years 4) burn it in fast reactors. Those actinides have a lot of potential energy you’re using without a fast reactor.

[@elpollo2805]

Fuel rods are normally stored on-site, in spent fuel rod pools, while the reactor is commissioned. And also, some reactors such as the CANDU reactor can run on natural uranium, with little fuel processing. As for the issue of fuel supply, it's considerably more energy dense, and cheaper, meaning that stocking up could be a possibility. The storage of this enriched uranium wouldn't be too difficult, just some security and a building.

[@habe1717]

"3: New Power plants need to be planned, built, etc. It takes ~20 years (atleast here in germany) from proposal to finished Power Plant. We don't have 20 years to lower our emissions, we have until 2026, when we reach the first Points of no return of the climate crisis" There's no more time left in the climate crisis....so that's why Germany closed down their already existing clean nuclear power plants and replaced them with _coal_ . Amazing.

[@fongangamassana6034]

It’s actually possible to RECYCLE nuclear fuel ( Japan does it) and use it in different reactors. And the more nuclear waste is recycled, the less radioactive it becomes and the faster it decays . And the whole 20 year problem I believe is a specific issue .

[@LastIcebear]

@@fongangamassana6034 "recycling" is basically refining again, only with more nuclear waste.

[@nicolasmateogarciaguzman7897]

I understand a lot that sustaining yourself is very important and sponsorships are a critical part of a youtuber's income, but holy shit this Masterworks sponsorships makes me so mad everytime. Just the idea of looking at art as an investment is such a shit tier concept. Other than that great content as usual!

[@Krakonospivo]

Yeah, especially if you count in possible recession, art seems like one of the worst possible ideas for an investment.

[@maybenat]

I see this just like the NFT grifts, minus the blockchain. And as he's someone who has generally lefty views, it's really odd to take such sponsorships, several times. Even if making a living from making online videos is difficult in the system we live in, there is a line tbh

[@bam1860]

And using bloomberg as a source when you label yourself as a leftist

[@vijfsnippervijf]

@@bam1860Someone else’s art is NOT an investment. Your own art, of any kind, however, really is an investment, but only one you make because you love it! These kind of art scams should not be fallen for!

[@Sundara229]

@@maybenat It's weird to base that line on principle alone. Nothing wrong as long as we don't approach a point of harm or injustice IMO. And even if you're (far) left, you still need like money to survive.

[@tobbs5003]

The Soviet example was the result of poor government management, and the Japanese example was the result of a private corporation without oversight.

[@Shifftee]

The Soviet example was the result of sabotage. The Chernobyl reactor was ordered to run at inadmissible modes which resulted in an explosion. The healthy forces of the government actually did a great job of minimizing the consequences by preventing the panic of the masses unlike in Japan where it was the main reason for numerous deaths. But shitty HBO painted it as “evil conspiring commies who wanted to hide the truth”.

[@SilhouetteLifter]

good thing no other nuclear power plants are run by countries with dysfunctional governments or greedy companies with profit incentives....errr right??

[@electric7487]

Everyone complains when I call for more government involvement but disasters like Fukushima are exactly what underregulation can lead to.

[@JL_Lux]

Exactly valid reasons not to do it

[@davisdf3064]

@@JL_Lux Those are actually good examples, the worst accident in history of nuclear power, Chernobyl, has made hundreds of victims, and destroyed the lifes of around 100 thousand people. Fossil fuels, through their pollution alone make millions of victims through lung cancer, respiratory problems and poor health quality, and a single fossil fuel power plant accident can kill hundreds of thousands of people. Fukushima took an outdated reactor, an earthquake and a tsunami, to barely make the reactor suffer a meltdown, barely any radiation escaped and the city is (as far as I know) doing pretty well today. Nuclear can be dangerous, but nuclear power also needs a very specific and engineered building to even work in the first place. And said building can be made so safe, that you are more likely safer inside a nuclear power plant than outside of it.

[@PhilippFehre]

Problem might not be the danger but arguably nuclear power doesn't work very well, in todays world. During the Summer with Europe lacking water, a large chunk of frances reactors couldn't operate as normal meaning importing electricity generated from gas, while the prices where insanely high, making the gas crisis worse. Also as nuclear reactors are outputting at a very stable rate, they are very slow to turn off and on making very bad candidates to work in conjunction with renewable sources which experience more volatile (even if predictable) output, think day night cycle for solar for example. Also lets please think about where the fuel comes from as well, much of the sources are again mined in less reliable parts of the world, replacing one bad dependency with another.

[@sovietmoose5624]

Also its important to note that the reason Fukushima isnt a wasteland is because we learned from Chernobyl, extensively, and the reactors were designed so the absolute worst would still fail relatively safe, instead of you know, blow the reactor top off.

[@pimcgd2657]

that's very cool, so ready for the next?

[@VitalVampyr]

It's also important to note that the Fukushima reactors are quite old, they were built in the 60's and 70's. Newer designs are even safer, like by not requiring active cooling during a shutdown.

[@ryuixyui]

Fukushima happened because the main architect believe the kamikaze like tsunami will only happen because of god's will. This archaic thinking lead to the disaster

[@axel6269]

@@pimcgd2657 If I had a choice between another nuclear accident and >2°C climate change, I'd pick the former every time.

[@jan-lukas]

Which is funny because Chernobyl blew the reactor top of with a big boom while Fukushima did with several small booms. In Fukushima Hydrogen Gas built up in the uncooled reactors, which then exploded over the course of a few days with one reactor top blowing up after each other

[@geneticTechnician]

8:05 it's also worth noting that coal power plants actually release MORE radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants do, because there's always going to be traces of radioactive elements in the coal which are released into the air when burned, with the resulting fallout spread over a wide area because thats just what burning coal does. In contrast, almost all the radiation released by a nuclear power plant is contained. Edit: When I say "almost" all the radiation is contained, I mean there is a 0.003% increase above natural background radiation within 50 miles of plants.

[@hendrafour7824]

never thought of this

[@coreyhipps7483]

@@hendrafour7824 Both coal and oil tend to bring a lot of radioactive contaminants up with them from the earth. There are radioactive super fund sites throughout the US because of this.

[@philbiker3]

Not "almost". There is no radiation released *at all* by any nuclear power plant. All the radiation and the waste is completely contained through its entire lifecycle. The "waste" is the *best* thing about nuclear power. It is infinitesimal in mass when compared to the amount of energy it yields, and is *completely* contained.

[@laurencefraser]

Only the most ignorant people care about radiation emitted into the surrounding area by a modern, or even modern-ish, nuclear plant that's actually opperating correctly. The concerns (the ones that have actually been thought about rather than just parroting propaganda, anyway) are more generally to do with what happens when it all goes wrong*, and how the waste is being disposed of. *And it is a when. Because if you let the people who need to answer that question paint it as an 'if' instead, they will inevitably avoid actually dealing with the possibility and just insist it can't and/or never will, which is the surest way to ensure that it Does.

[@0xCAFEF00D]

Good edit. That 'almost' is practically deceptive.

[@robinfalkner-wedge824]

I've heard that in the US, a lot of anti-nuclear stuff is a result of an incident at the three-mile-island reactor, which had some extraordinarily alarmist news coverage and anyone with the knowledge and reach to quell the panic did almost nothing.

[@bouteilledeau1463]

TMI happened immediately after the movie "China Syndrome", which happened almost the same way. So the timing couldn't be worse. Plus, the PR after this was horrible, making public trust sour even lower. Everyone was contradicting each other.

[@azalea9409]

The three-mile-island "accident" was mostly the public's response. Literally no one died in the decades following the accident because it was a minor issue. It was like forgetting to remove a anchor from a cargo ship before starting it. It did nothing and you can simply fix the issue. The media made it seemed like people was going to die and and it was an absolute clown show of a mess ruining nuclear energy in the eyes of the American public. It is the media's fault that we no longer have enough time to build enough nuclear reactors to stop the first stage of climate change.

[@eric2500]

*It was much more "quell the panic" than it was "explain the risk and how to fix that".* THAT is why no one believed what they did say. We put it all down to greed and a cover -up to save political and corporate embarrassment.

[@ThatOneBouncedGT]

I find it funny that Adam never mentioned where nuclear fuel comes from

[@LLCL2012]

Convenient, I would say...

[@JMiskovsky]

Well, you can take IT from seawater.

[@niteshade5783]

Canada?

[@martinhorvath4117]

Uranium could be mined in Africa, and Thoruium which is a safer alternative is abundant in the curst... soo?

[@elpollo2805]

Comes from the ground, similar to other mines.

[@12kenbutsuri]

I was in fukushima 6 months after the disaster. The radiation was same as background. (There were gauger counters publicly in the city, since people were scared. )

[@VitalVampyr]

Did the public Geiger counters actually alleviate people's fears or just make them scared of normal background radiation?

[@bugsygoo]

I was in Japan at the time of the Fukushima disaster. The Prime Minister at the time was close to evacuating Tokyo. It was really close. There was a real risk of a radioactive 'cloud' descending on Tokyo. It was simply good fortune that it didn't.

[@steemlenn8797]

@@bugsygoo That was bc of reactor 6. That's the one with the Polonium. If that one had exploded, depending on weather conditions (Japan was lucky that alsmost everything went down on the ocean) it would have split Japan in 2 with a death zone and rained on Tokyo (statistically 2/3 days), which would have meant the 35 million area would have needed to be avacuated.

[@patricklarm5462]

​@@steemlenn8797 Let´s continue using nuclear power because accidents are so rare but when they happen we are really likely to get fucked...

[@Amir-jn5mo]

@@AliothAncalagon should energy be a public service? Also I bet fossil fuels would also not be profitable if the environmental cost of burning earths resources was also factored. Burning oil is like burning money to get energy. There is so many materials that are made by refining oil and its hydrocarbons.

[@satoshikamiya4636]

You should make a video on why Masterworks isn't that good. They may sponsor a lot of your videos, but it would fit with the ethos of your channel to make a video on it at some point in the future

[@rohanb3402]

He needs money.

[@d.optional3381]

if this guy had spine he wouldnt make videos in favor of nuclear

[@laurencefraser]

@@d.optional3381 weird take. I mean, yeah, the video basically saying 'nuclear reactors only fail catastrophically when the humans in charge do dumb things, therefore they're absolutely fine*' does make one question his credibility, but that's a rather different matter from questitoning his bravery... *if you can't see the problem here, you've had extremely limited interaction with humans... and history.

[@UraniumChef]

Art means nothing when an AI can make it better than a human can

[@duane6386]

@@UraniumChef Which isn’t now. I think the word you’re looking for is faster

[@MonkeyPoida]

Modern reactors also have "walk away safety". Which means if the whole operating crew just walked away, the plant still cannot melt down. There are new engineering protections such as a melt plug. If the first 5 safety systems failed (incredibly unlikely), then the core just melts into safety tanks underneath with neutron absorbers. An explosion is impossible.

[@frangotino]

thank you for _eventually_ stating that the Masterworks thing was a sponsored segment. I was really confused for a bit

[@aeroflot9027]

I was hoping you would get into how to manage the waste a bit more as that's really the only issue. Would be interested in what solutions beside dumping it into a deep pit are

[@joshgaming44]

Kyle hill has a good video on the subject of nuclear waste

[@florianknebel7709]

One could "burn" the longest living waste in specialized reactors, then storage is less tricky because the waste stays radioactive much shorter

[@scottcarter6623]

the only real issue with managing waste is governments not putting the money into to do it properly. That is a real issue with the general corruption of governments.

[@Hepad_]

Thing is, putting it in glass then in containers then in geologically stable pit really is the best solution. It's not like dumping fluorescent goo in rivers, and more like turning it back into ore and putting it back underground.

[@talknight2]

Just get a wastepack atomizer

[@charlieputzel7735]

Using Thunderf00t as a source is probably a bad idea for unrelated reasons, but otherwise solid video. It frustrates me to see people I know take climate change seriously give in to the fear mongering around nuclear.

[@Winnetou17]

What's wrong with Thunderf00t ? If anything he needs more exposure to the world, so there's fewer people falling for scams.

[@charlieputzel7735]

@@Winnetou17 Yeah, his track record on that isn't great. Hbomerguy has a few older videos on him, he was a part of the anti-feminist hate mob a while back. Maybe he's turned over a new leaf, he's been quiet a while, but it's going to be a bit before he can earn my trust and the trust of a lot of other people.

[@Winnetou17]

@@charlieputzel7735 Well, the anti feminists and anti religious videos were a thing, he doesn't do that now. Those are much more subjective, so I can understand why people would be turned off. At one point, some teachers asked to move (at least for new videos) controversial stuff to another channel, so they can use his videos for teaching things in class, and he did so, Voice of Thunder or something like that. So nowadays it's either direct science or debunking scams and scammers - with a strong bias on Elon Musk & Hyperloop and their BS. On this regard, I've seen many videos, and while he might be annoying at times with his delivery / commentary or analysis / way of measuring, his record is still 100% correct of those that I've seen when boiled down to scam vs legit. The only one that I'd say was science-y and was very bad was when he did a video saying "Tesla batteries suck" or something. In which he showed the limits of batteries. The information wasn't wrong, but the title was 100% clickbait. Tesla's batteries have nothing wrong. Nor different for that matter, as compared to what everybody uses.

[@charlieputzel7735]

@@Winnetou17 Yeah, but a lot of people only remember his earlier, anti-feminist stuff, and they'll be immediately turned away by that. I just feel like an academic source would probably have been better.

[@Robstrap]

Whilst alot of Chernobyl has similar radiation to a flight, there are many areas (particularly the red forest) where the radiation levels are FAR higher than that, and are absolutely not inhabitable by humans without severe consequences. Just look at videos like Shieys exploration of the zone and he shows first hand with a dosimeter the levels of certain areas, some areas of rhe foresr are reported ro be as high as 10,000 usv

[@ViktorVector]

Would be nice to make a video that properly addresses pros and cons. Saying that they were warned but ignored the issues at Fukushima is not at all reassuring. Also as far as I know Germany helped out France this summer when their nuclear plants had to shut down/scale down cause of drought/warm water. Don't forget about the source of the fuel either and also how hard it is to build nuclear.

[@madshorn5826]

Not only is nuclear complicated and expensive, the carbon debt from construction takes longer to repay than for renewables. We need to scale back economic activity in order to solve the biodiversity crisis and the pollution crisis and we need solutions that can be rolled out in rural Africa and India. Solar and wind backed by storage solutions fits that bill. Nuclear does not. Add in nuclear proliferation, terror attacks, dirty bombs, failing hard in future pandemica and the unsolved waste problem and it becomes clear that nuclear is a scam.

[@1Cr0w]

@@madshorn5826 It is not a scam, it just also isn't the savior of humanity and bringer of paradise that it's proponents make it out to be. Also don't forget biogas/biofuels, which can directly be used with devices made for fossil fuels and can well be produced in a decentral agricultural context. If you consider Zaporizhzhya, even a nuclear power plant in an active warzone is strikingly safe. And worry not, brown people could also handle nuclear. Economic activity will definitely scale back once the population starts to decrease (due to industrialization and urbanization), but we should already focus on establishing a sustainable and cyclic economy nonetheless.

[@1Cr0w]

Also: Germany and France form a near comedic couple there, with France psychotically obsessed with nuclear, to the point of Le Pen fantasizing about demolishing wind turbines, and Germany having a paranoid hysteria about nuclear, trying to convince everyone in the world that you, like Germany, should first leave nuclear, then coal (if at all 😉), because if nuclear, then surely death.

[@CFilmer]

The segment about the costs and storage were kinda short. Was hoping for more there, since these are my biggest gripes with nuclear power.

[@Sundara229]

Kyle Hill has great videos on that. In short, storage has been technically solved like 5 decades ago iirc. The remaining problem is of political nature.

[@woahblackbetty7691]

You could store all of the nucleur waste in one airline hanger. There really isnt muxh. Its baffling to me how nucleur power isnt the main energy source. Makes me wonder if they engineered chernobyl to scare people off nucleur power

[@unknowngod8221]

@@woahblackbetty7691 the Soviet's engineering tactic just destroyed all hope on nuclear power

[@niklaswagner34]

@@Sundara229 Some authors call the waste problem a "wicked" one, because it's not solvable, in the sense of a optimal solution. A main problem is corrosion of the containers, wich is not solved, there is up to date no alloy which will not corrode over the very long term high level radioactive waste have to be stored. And also every kin of geological location has issues ans is not optimal. For example the Fins building their disposal side in granite. At first glance good because it is a good water barrier, but only if there are no cracks and it's unforeseeable how exactly a geological formation will evolve over thousands of years. I would be patient with the term "solved" in this context.

[@niklaswagner34]

@@woahblackbetty7691 Yes it's not much but highly radioactive. I think not the reactors are the safety problem agreeing with the video, but the massive surface storage of nuclear waste. In the reactor the fuel is encapsulate several times, after the use they are much less protected, against terror, natural desasters etc. . And after several years the burned of fuel rods have to be relocated due to corrosion of the containers

[@arseniix]

I was in Pripyat right before the invasion. In the inner circle (5km radius), the dosimeter steadily showed 2-3x of normal ambient radiation, and in Pripyat itself about 10x of the normal background. There also were spots scattered across the city where my dosimeter overflowed, which probably left untouched for tourism purposes. In the vicinity of the infamous Red Forest, the background was over 100x larger than normal, even tho we simply drove by in the bus. The soil is pretty highly polluted around the station itself too. However, most of the time there was no radiation whatsoever, I get why the inner circle is strictly forbidden, but I believe the outer zone (30 km radius) is quite an overkill right now. I wasn't able to find anything even remotely radioactive in that area. The air was even cleaner than in Kyiv, lol.

[@Glaswalker1001]

So you would eat a hand full of dirt from that area? Or some fauna and flora?

[@TchaikovskyFDR]

@@Glaswalker1001 Bro... Idk about you... but I wouldn't want to eat a hand full of dirt anywhere anyway...

[@Glaswalker1001]

@@TchaikovskyFDR true. I`ve outgrown that age as well. I`ll give you that.^^

[@alfonshasel1995]

So yeah, just never stir up the dirt and you are fine. Sounds...legit

[@copyplanter]

@@Glaswalker1001 who in their right mind would eat dirt?

[@Arkabol]

There is something wrong about what Thunderfoot said about Cesium-137. There is well known accident here in Brazil with Cesium-137, it was a small amount, but it ended up killing 4 people and several contamination issues. So I don't understand what he means by "it is not a great danger unless you eat it".

[@10wuebc]

The reason people were getting radiation sickness from that one was because people coming in contact with huge chunks of it instead of dust particles and residue.

[@marcomartins3563]

people literally ate it tho

[@Arkabol]

​@@marcomartins3563 I don't remember any record saying that anyone ate it. Also, if it was in chunk ou powdery, don't change what I'm trying to say.

[@Arkabol]

@@marcomartins3563 do you have any source on that? I 'm not finding anything about it.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

@@Arkabol Maybe he mean inhaling? Its a powder after all, and many people hold it in hands.

[@AhmetwithaT]

I don't see how a nuclear plant operator blatantly ignoring multiple safety warnings from their own teams, their government, foreign governments and international bodies and absolutly no one doing anything about this and thus a completly avoidable distaster striking is supposed to show off the safety of nuclear power. If anything it does the exact opposite by showing that even in one of the richest and most developed countries on earth rich people can just ignore rules even when it has disasterous consequences.

[@bokeronct]

Excellent video. Just one complaint: the dosimeter you showed at the beginning shows 21.88 uSv/h (not uSv), so you can't really compare that with doses in Sv for other things (like a transatlantic flight). That dose rate is actually rather high and would result in an annual dose of almost 200 mSv. But this was measured at a hotspot, so there's that.

[@ember3579]

Still, unless you plan on having a picnic in the middle of the nuclear exclusion zone, you're probably fine. And really the only reason it's this bad is because nobody feels like spending the money needed to clean that shit up properly.

[@c.g.silver8782]

yes but consuming radioactive stuff is very different from being exposed to radiation around you... isn't it?

[@o-o8052]

@@c.g.silver8782 It indeed is. Having something alpha-decaying in your body actively destroys the region around that decaying particle. You would not want that.

[@gromm93]

Yup. I noticed that too, right next to the graph that said nuclear power plant operators were only allowed to receive 50 millisieverts a year.

[@bobo2.2]

@@gromm93 it's 50 millisievert a year not micro. 50 micro a year is lower than background pretty much everywhere on earth

[@Jx_-]

I don't need a keen eye to know "Masterworks" is probably an awful thing and WILL become the next Established Titles. Not criticizing Adam, I can't hate a good creator chasing the bag, but I just know it'll go critical eventually

[@shroomer8294]

95% chance it’s a scam

[@Paincake0]

Yeah, it just seems like a glorified nft

[@Scala_A]

Yeah, its an awfull idea but probably the best sponsorship he got. Many things are worse

[@Beakerbite]

@@Paincake0 No, NFTs are literally nothing, they are a URL and nothing more. With Masterworks you own a percentage of a real physical object, a real art piece. In theory, it's as legitimate as having part ownership in anything such a houses, businesses, stocks, etc. In practice, yeah you'll probably end up holding a bag of pieces of shitty art that no one wants.

[@cornelimoller8303]

The market of art is fundamentally different to stocks, houses etc. Its more comparable to gambling for the normal investor. These sponsorships let it look like a solid investment which it isn't at all

[@TheRedCreeperTRC]

When I was in high-school we went on a science trip to Switzerland and visited a nuclear power plant. We got a tour of the place and the man giving us the tour, a technician working there, explained to us that the plant was to be shut down within the next 2 years. He went on to explain that the reason that the plant was being shut down was that the cost of properly maintaining the plant, and ensuring that it was always operating safely and wouldn't succumb to any number of problems that could cause malfunction, which required frequent replacement of worn-down components and safety drills to name just a few examples, meant that the government decided it was too expensive. They were getting less out of the plant than they were putting into it, essentially. And it wasn't a particularly old plant either, it had been in operation no longer than my lifetime, so less than 20 years at that point. I think there's a lot more to the debate than you've covered in this video. Food for thought. Great video regardless though! Big fan :D

[@antonimalachowski5262]

Glad someone has addressed this. Nuclear power is extremely expensive. Most politicians don't have the clout to justify the decision! I suspect the issues with nuclear fission will be the same - just too damn complex and expensive!

[@TheRedCreeperTRC]

@@antonimalachowski5262 Yeah, I worry you may be right about that. It's all marvellous technology in the hypothetical, but when taking very real limiting factors like cost into the equation, a lot of it seems far less feasible to put into practice, at least in the foreseeable.

[@greymonwar9906]

Adam Something's information is inaccurate. Fukushima is literally f***ed by this. It creates 30km of wasteland for some time and 187 billion dollars for the mess. The contaminants have no place to go, they will be poured into the sea and pollute everything, no one will dear buy seafood from that region.

[@denisborzov8406]

A factor to consider is the fact that Switzerland spends unfathomable amount of money _just_ to stay politically neutral, mainly on the military. Neutrality costs a lot.

[@TheRedCreeperTRC]

@@denisborzov8406 True, Switzerland is also filthy rich though. I doubt their expenses pertaining to neutrality have a baring on the discussion of their nuclear energy situation. At least I don't see the connection.

[@cielbie8251]

People act like its renewables vs nuclear which ends up spitting the conversation in half, but the truth is both are ideal. Nuclear takes a long time to stop and start, its highly consistent but cannot adapt to demand fluctuations without using batteries. Renewables are less consistent, but they can very easily be switched on and off to meet demands. The two used together are the best combination. Nuclear is a perfect consistent output, and renewables are adaptable and flexible. They are not in opposition to eachother. By trying to convince everyone how renewables/nuclear is really bad and how we should use the other, its the coal and oil companies that benefit from the distrust generated.

[@txtomasgodoy]

my only real problem with nuclear power is that when i was a kid i thought that it converted the radiation directly into energy, finding out it wasn't the case made me feel betrayed (?)

[@abeldelatorre1382]

Same, boiling water sounds kinda lame ngl... Still best power source tho

[@MajorMlgNoob]

@@abeldelatorre1382 people with electric stoves be boiling water from power generated by boiling water

[@rainbowkrampus]

Just imagine, we develop some sort of satellite that collects and beams energy from the sun directly to collectors on the planet... in order to boil some water to turn some turbines to generate electricity. Who says steampunk is dead?

[@Skylancer727]

I mean there is an alternative. We could use electrostatic direct energy conversion. Basically instead of heating water, we pull the charge ions and other radioactive bioproducts into a reverse particle accelerator which converts the energy directly into electricity. Though this technique is more ideal for fusion not fission, it theoretically could be used along side boiling water. With fusion it's a more popular idea as the technique is more efficient due to plasma based fusion making more raw electrons and charged ions. Plus this technique is ludicrously more expensive than normal boiling water so unless you have a project as big as many fusion projects, it's hard to justify the price.

[@EebstertheGreat]

There is a type of generator called a "betavoltaic device" that uses beta particles from radioactive decay to directly drive an electric current instead of just heating up a coolant and using it to spin a turbine. It's sort of what you imagined nuclear power was, albeit for beta decay rather than fission.

[@psychoticlime9940]

I mean, I agree with the point you're making, but I'm sure there are more reputable sources than "I asked thunderf00t and he said it's ok"

[@blackmesa232323]

I mean... Thunderfoot is a well-cited PhD scientist with experience in Nuclear physics.

[@barbarabrazao8100]

@@blackmesa232323 Thunderf00t has produced the least interesting or relevant content since he decided feminists are the world's number one problem

[@archermadsen7744]

Yeah Thunderf00t is a red pill dickead.

[@gaminggiraes8546]

@@blackmesa232323 being a prick doesn't make him less of a scientist

[@eragon78]

@@blackmesa232323 that is true, but its still better to source a paper rather than an individual. But yea, at least he's a qualified individual (in this field specifically) being sourced.

[@Tudsamfa]

Well, let me reiterate my points from the community tab then: - Nuclear waste needs to be stored safely, to this day Germany has only temporary storage facilities (and not because we stopped searching) - Germany's nuclear reactors were/are run with Uranium from Kazachstan and Russia, so no more reliant on russia than before (although I do wish they weren't in the first place) - You interpret it as "It takes negligence and a 9 scale earthquake" I as "even nuclear power will see corners cut until something breaks" "The Japanese government knew and didnt intervene? Why do you think the lethargic German would?" And if we are talking about other countries or building new generators in general: - Building new ones requires tons of cement, one of the bigger CO² pollutants - Building new ones takes 10-20 Years we don't exactly have Hindsight is 20/20 who could have known that the Phase-Out wouldn't see massive build up in renewables under Merkels CD-... Anyways, maybe do a video without real life NFT shilling to get some credibility back.

[@georgyekimov4577]

Uranium energy cost way less than nuclear energy so thy wouls have less money also there are other posible providers of nuclear fuel in enough quantities to fuel these powerplants

[@Tudsamfa]

@@georgyekimov4577 First of all, I am going to assume you meant Nuclear is cheaper than Oil and/or Coal. Well, I am going to need a source on that, one that includes Government subsidies and the fact that it is inefficient to heat with electricity. The price of energy sources is... quite frankly messier than it has any right to be, probably because any reputable source needs to factor in construction cost and expected runtime. I do concede that buying Uranium from Kazakhstan is probably going to result in less money for Russia if Supply/demand/a butthurt Russia dont meddle with import costs. As for the other part: that is just something you didn't spend a single thought on. By that logic we dont have to transition from Oil in the first place, since there are uncontroversial nations we can buy the oil from! Kazakhstan exports 45% of the whole worlds demand (2019), do not just brush that off with "there are other sources".

[@anwa3237]

Yeah, I'm seeing quite a few online progressives turn almost unquestionably pro-nuclear lately and none of them talk about where the fuel comes from, that's a big oversight. Uranium mining isn't exactly environmentally friendly either and I remember reading an article about the horrible conditions in African mines where France gets some of its. Speaking of France, there have been reports over the last decades about mismanagement and lack of proper maintenance at several power plants and they're being really slow to react too. I have grown more in favor of nuclear energy in the last couples years or so, but France building more nuclear plants doesn't make me happy, it makes me worried they'll outstretch their budget and keep cutting corners.

[@matlo7497]

- Nuclear Waste facilities are fast and cheap to build so i don't see where is the problem. - Uranium can be imported from many countries actually other than Russia, like Niger (France first uranium provider), US, Australia and some parts of South America. Also Uranium is very Cheap compared to other fuels. - Chernobyl safety standards have nothing to do with current safety standards in Europe. There is even an international nuclear energy commission. It is physically impossible for disasters to occur in a nuclear power plant today, they have a containment enclosure building (Unlike Chernobyl) and each reactor has an independent electricity generator to prevent power shortage and run the coolant. You compare Urss to Germany, it makes no sense. - Lol, obviously building a nuclear power plant requires cement, like the shit ton of windmills (2000 aprox) that we would need to replace ONE nuclear power plant. Even if the construction produces CO2, according to the Giec, nuclear energy produces 12g of Co2 per Kwh that's ridiculous compared to other energies, (820g/kwh -> coal, 490g/Kwh -> gas, 41 -> photovoltaic, 24 -> Hydroelectric and 11 -> Windmills). So no, nuclear actually produces less CO2 than the rest of energy technology. - You are right, it takes aprox 10-20 years to build a nuclear power plant, that's why we need to build NOW.

[@Tudsamfa]

@@matlo7497 I never onced compared anything to chernobyl, only fukushima. Who are you arguing with?

[@zaco-km3su]

Actually there were highly trained staff at Chernobyl. Problem was that a guy wanted to get promoted so he decided to NOT FOLLOW the standard procedure.

[@fallenshallrise]

After Fukushima I talked to someone who wouldn't go into the ocean or eat seafood for a while because of the radiation from the disaster, in Canada, over 7,500 km away. To be fair they scared the shit out of us in the '80s with nuclear war films on TV every other week.

[@PrekiFromPoland]

More like with the Chernobyl disaster. We were about to have a nuclear power plant but Chernobyl happened, 1990 happened, yadda yadda yadda and poof - all is left there are forlorn ruins of an unfinished construction. And the reactor from that unfinished power plant still works somewhere in Finland.

[@MrNeptunebob]

@@PrekiFromPoland But you will get nuclear power plants soon and you can be sure that they are Westinghouse!

[@RuthroAlt]

I think the main thing holding back nuclear power atm isn't public opinion, it's its very low profitability. I'm sure that if there were a lot of money to be made, policy and public opinion will gradually follow. (not saying the public cares about profitability, but the people making that money have significant influence over politics and the media)

[@user-cx9nc4pj8w]

Nuclear power can be profitable, but it requires investment in the long term. Corporations don't want to tell their investors they'll make back their money in 40 years, especially since governments have been known to go back and forth on the issue. The only solution really is to do what France did and have government initiated long term investment that doesn't get repealed in the next election. Ultimately, the externalities of fossil fuels are not being taken into the cost unlike with nuclear, but if they were it would be pretty obvious it's actually cheaper, but the hydrocarbon giants don't want the creative destruction that is necessary to take place.

[@samhamsord7942]

@@user-cx9nc4pj8w I watched a video with more specific numbers on the subject, so its ~7 years. While gas burning power plants is ~1.5 years.

[@nandi7772]

It still can't be worse than using coal.

[@kaliningradtoczechrepublic8162]

@@user-cx9nc4pj8w yeah, investors prefer cheap set up costs with higher maintenance costs, as compared to reversed

[@NoHateLikeChristianLove]

@@user-cx9nc4pj8w Yea that’s a good point.

[@justitia-politikundmeinung2092]

UF. I strongly disagree. The waste problem is THE main argument and so far not solved and actually miles away from being solved. Coal in Germany is not the natural result of the end of nuclear, but the result of bad and corrupt policymaking. AND as seen in France, where due to water shortage in the summer nuclear power plants had to stop, it is not even a reliable energy source, especially in climate change. Also, the nuclear power plants now pose one of the biggest security threads in Ukraine. In regard to Germany it would absolutely be bunkers to restart an industry which has been properly shut down, we don't even have the experts anymore.

[@retrosad]

Should I also mention that the guy who built the power station, was given very limited resources and money and was told to try work with it, so MANY corners got cut

[@matheuscenta]

I'd be wary of Masterworks as an sponsor. Other than that, good video.

[@xarvh]

Yup. Dodgy af.

[@ramr7051]

I can't wait to see an NFT version of masterworks that comes with a nobility title

[@djangofett4879]

yeah, seems blatantly shady.

[@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty]

So let's just clear up 1 thing before we shit on Masterworks. Nobody here ACTUALLY believes Adam uses or even likes Masterworks. He probably fucking hates them. The only reason he's actually taking their sponsor is to pay his bills, I guarantee that. He's probably cursing their name behind the microphone while editing. But yes, fuck Masterworks, really shady business.

[@thezipcreator]

imagine still seeing sponsors on youtube (SponsorBlock is a good plugin and you should get it)

[@CruorBlossom]

I got a bad vibe from the masterworks ad, but then that gets followed by using thunderfoot as a source. Did i walk into some alternate timeline, wtf is happening.

[@sonoda944]

This story hit me hard as a Japanese who lived through the Fukushima craze (not directly affected, but whole lot of mass media talking about the disaster) and seeing Japan's energy issue as "trying to stop burning fossil fuel but dont have enough balls to reconsider nuclear power as an option".

[@Crawver]

It's really weird, but positive to see that thunderfoot really has just returned to doing science stuff. He's a good engineer, but was absolutely abysmal at political analysis. I'm glad he chose to back off of it and return to his strengths. I still get an odd feeling seeing him be positively mentioned, after the whole "gamergate" fiasco. But he is good in this context.

[@MindaugasKet]

Great video as usual! I know it's not the point of this video, just one thing I want to point out. The main discussion when talking about nuclear power should be about the economics of it. New nuclear power plants cost A LOT to build, because they require to be built with oversight and higher security standards than before (the thing you mentioned should be done). One recent example I can think of is Olkiluoto-3 in Finland which was almost 4 times over-budget (11 billion euros instead of 3 billion), and 12 years delayed to open.

[@alphastratus6623]

Na, nuclear is fine, we did it since decades, it can't be that bad, and all problems for the final storage of the waste 'can be solved'. Just look this video, everything is fine!

[@unentschieden]

Yeah, Public Relations as a hurdle to Nuclear power is overrated. Politicians go for it because it´s cheap good publicity. It´s why I think the issue of Germany buying Russian gas instead of nuclear power is inverse - cheap russian gas was a better deal while also being more publicly palatable.

[@aradanat231]

Economics of nuclear isn't that good partly because we're building them in small quantities and can't get effects of scale.

[@neodym5809]

@@unentschieden Germany uses gas to heat and for industrial processes. Nuclear is for electricity.

[@ramr7051]

@@alphastratus6623 there's already permanent storage facilities available. If you're too lazy or brain dead to read about it, that's your problem.

[@TMKM]

Adam: "Germany had to resort to LIGNITE" Poland:

[@AlldaylongRock]

Poland: Guess imma call the Koreans to build some nuclear power plants.

[@costamcostam8961]

Poland can into nuclear

[@DOSFS]

Westinghouse : YES

[@mikek9297]

Poland: sad potato noises

[@TMKM]

@@mikek9297 probably happy potato noises; germany cant blame poland for burning stacks of lignite now that theyre burning it themselves

[@VisualJoey]

I’ve been sharing this opinion for a long time. When I saw the title I had to like and comment the video. Thanks for your effort for putting it out here as well!

[@phil-o-phobic8608]

Always wild how folks'll say nuclear is dangerous but won't keep that same energy (hehe) for oil like it hasn't literally destroyed most of our planet.

[@bluedragon2115]

I don't think many have issue with the technology itself. In my country however, nuclear is prohibitively expensive. It is estimated to cost 10-13 times as much as wind just to build. Not even to fuel and maintain. We simply cannot afford it.

[@XMysticHerox]

it is prohibitively expensive everywhere.

[@AndrewGray1987]

But does it run when the wind isn't blowing? That's a pretty huge advantage.

[@StollentrollAce]

@@AndrewGray1987 yeah but not when the Rivers for cooling run dry...

[@AlexanderOnFire]

you also don‘t need like 10 years to plan and build one.

[@finn3769]

@@AndrewGray1987 lol get ratioed

[@crystallxix1493]

Man I’m a huge fan but I have to say, this topic deserves a lot more than a 10 minute video. The issues with Nuclear Power plants are still many beyond the simple matter of incidents. For example the resources necessary to run them are not infinite either and need to be extracted from the earth itself. Not as bad as Lignite of course but definitely damaging. Also for a nuclear power plant to work you require a huge amount of water which can also cause environmental issues. Edit: as a note, I am fully on board with nuclear, I just think that the video made looked less like an informative view on Nuclear Power and more like some propaganda spree. If someone watched it without knowing anything beforehand they could be deceived in thinking that nuclear power is just this miraculous energy devoid of any disadvantages. As few and less damaging as they are, you cannot water them down to “easily solvable”

[@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648]

The points you make are interesting. In relation to the materials of the nuclear power plant being finite, this can be said to any kind of energy generation, including renewables, and even more if you take energy storage into account, which is mandatory for a grid with large amount of renewables. The point is that nuclear is so energy dense, that the energy available from the material present on Earth is more than enough for our actual needs. The part about water depends on whether the nuclear power plant is installed, if it is close to the Sea, than it is a non-issue. In mainland, if the power plant is close to a river, the bad effect is the warming of the water of the river, or the use of the said water in an evaporator. In this case, both solutions causing some environmental impact, but the impact of other power generation methods also need to be taken into account for a better comparison.

[@crystallxix1493]

@@arthurdefreitaseprecht2648 indeed. Tho I must say that a power plant being near water would not make it a non issue. Extracting water even if it’s close by is still a process with many consequences to be taken into consideration. At the very least wherever you extract will become devoid of any biodiversity

[@jayeshmahapatra7085]

As opposed to the naturally occurring coal power plants which are self sustaining and mine their own resources. Go green !

[@kittencorp.3295]

But the water is just coolant, the only effect will be that it goes back into the water cycle. It isn’t actually consumed by the process.

[@TheAverageTargaryen]

You also gotta understand that people attention spans are not very large nowadays, the people interested in the subject will watch hour long videos, however I believe he is looking for people who think nuclear power is dangerous therefore, he made an easier to digest video.

[@antonio_luis_]

Me: wants to see boom! Him: picasso is good for money!

[@crappozappo]

The WNISR report bluntly states: “Stabilising the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow. It meets no technical or operational need that these low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper, and faster.”

[@elpollo2805]

That report was written by Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt, two known anti-nuclear activists. If I wanted an unbiased report, I would get it from scientists, instead of from people who were already anti-nuclear. Although, nuclear power plants are still slow to implement as the report says, France has shown that building nuclear power plants can be quick.

[@crappozappo]

@@elpollo2805 can I tell you a something that shouldn't be a secret? Lots of antinuclear studies and articles and etc are written by antinuclear activists. Lots of pro nuclear studies and reports come from pro nuclear advocates. Having an opinion will motivate the things you do. (Hey did you know that lots of information about police brutality is published by people who already were anti police? Such bias, completely untrustable! /s See what I'm saying?) Pointing out why monetary conflicts of interest are bad is fine but are you interested in doing it for both sides of this nuclear debate? Because there are LOTS more people who become pro nuclear due to money, than people becoming anti nuclear because of money. Just straight up there is more money in being pro nuclear. I hope you're looking into the conflicts of interest of any pro nuclear material you may read, right? Right? Cough Michael Shellenberger example off the top of my head cough cough. Not that you support Shellenberger but lots of people cite people like him, then turn around and claim they care about bias. Nothing is without bias and this WNISR report is one paper. One paper didn't make me anti nuclear my guy. Edit: typo

[@elpollo2805]

@@crappozappo I actually mostly use the NRC's website if I am looking for data on nuclear reactors. Their entire job is regulating nuclear applications, I would think it's a more reliable source. Building reactors takes time, sure, but what's the alternative to reactors, exactly? Renewables can't change the weather, and batteries are expensive, and mining the metals to make the batteries produces emissions. Hydro batteries can't be built everywhere, either.

[@crappozappo]

@@elpollo2805 isn't the NRC great? Their website is very helpful. They might be the least biased source of all. Even if they have a pro nuclear slant, a)that makes sense that people who like nuclear would work at the NRC but b)they have basically no reason to lie about costs and stuff. They're not trying to sell me nuclear power. They've already bought it and are paying for it. IIRC most of their budget goes to managing waste. But I digress. Even the almost aggressively neutral information at the NRC'S website convinces me that nuclear isn't worth it, because of their cost figures. Nuclear is such an expensive endeavour......... Hey so regarding intermittent generation and the problems with renewables and etc. The solution isn't one thing. Batteries and water storage where applicable. Smart grids and grid storage are also needed. Building over-vapacity on renewables to extend coverage is also still WAY cheaper than nuclear and is applicable sometimes. Basically, multiple forms of generation, and storage, and a smart grid, overcapacity building where applicable, and all of this is still far cheaper than nuclear. It is true that we can't change the weather and that the sun shines only in the day. Consider this though: we can't use solar during the night, but we also use less energy at night regardless. Consider this also: the wind blows all the time, including at night.

[@paulschmidts5429]

@@elpollo2805 Take the report of the International Energy Agency then, „Net Zero by 2050“ prepared for the Climate summit in Glasgow, according to which the IEA states that to become net zero by 2050 we should aim to produce 70.000 TWh of electricity in 2050, with 70% coming from wind and solar, 20% from remaining renewables (mostly hydro) and 10% from nuclear. About 20% of electricity production should be dedicated towards hydrogen production, of which a quarter would be used in backup gas powerplants and the remaining hydrogen mostly for shipping, industrial heat, steel making and feed stock for the chemical industry.

[@Bot-ov2hs]

Hey, Im from Germany and I think a big reason why people here dont like nuclear energy is the waste storage. The thing is that the companys which operate the plants also have to pay for it, and no one really knows how much it will cost.

[@mikez2779]

Why? You can calculate the cost of reprocessing of the spent fuel one thing you need to understand this number, anti nukes keep saying, that waste would have to be stored for millions of years - is only if there is still plutonium in your waste. Take this plutonium out, put it back in the reactor (it's fissile, so it can be used as fuel) and instead of having to store this fuel for millions of years it would be around 300. And it's perfectly within our level of technology to build a safe confinement for this fuel, that is going to last 300 years. And should you separate caesium and strontium out of this spent fuel as well, and find industrial uses for them - it won't even be 300 years anymore. More like 10.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@mikez2779 You are talking about stuff that even after hundreds of billions in research funding is not commercially viable. Of course you can deal with a lot (not all) waste through breeder reactors. The problem is that they are not commercially viable. Nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. Any serious attempt to deal with waste makes it even less viable than it already is. So then why use nuclear?

[@ulbricht1999]

In Germany the companys only have to pay for packaging and first transport of nuclear waste. The rest (in between and final storage) is paid completly by the taxpayer. Which makes nuclear energy cheaper than it is.

[@mikez2779]

@@XMysticHerox because your renewables are utter shit in all countries that experience snowy winters - which is a good chunk of northern hemisphere, mind you. Because to cover 100% of energy demand with renewables alone would be insanely difficult, and utter failure of german energiewende is just the latest evidence of that. And because anyone who can logically think has to notice that if renewables would really be the cheapest, it wouldn't be so hard to convince countries all around the world to build them. And a cherry on top is because electricity production, is just a part of total energy production. Another huge chunk is heat needed for industry for example - for which renewables offer no solution.

[@fasc2298]

Yes and the youth is too busy gluing themselves on the autobahn instead of paying the nuclear garbage bill for 10k years 😮‍💨

[@i.t9390]

The ad is nearly 20% of this video

[@loicbernstein8405]

Exactly, and it comes without any warning >:(

[@mrkosmos9421]

A video on nuclear waste would be good as well. And Illuminaughty made a video on emissions by large companies, and how they pinned it on consumers

[@eduardoborges506]

That masterwork sponsor is a bit shady. What do you mean buying a art piece and dividing into shares? Then the shares would be finite? And good artwork is also finite, so i struggle to understand how so many can be on the same pie unless the shares arent connected to the pie at all.

[@TheSugarholicProject]

Is it just me, or does Adam's video editing skills suddenly improve for some videos

[@MrOtokka]

It's because he got an editor...

[@chillaxe9603]

Depends on how much he's paid

[@tarsierontherun]

Different editors maybe

[@ibma_DMmeTheGuyWhoTookMyName]

the flying car one was the first one. its slightly overmemed imo

[@Sioolol]

He has a 100+ sec sponsored segment, my dude. Of course it improved.

[@edide1627]

@AdamSomething I highly appreciate your youtube channel, I've been following you since you had less than 1000 subscribers, I also understand the need for channels like yours to have sponsors in your videos but on this particular video (and mostly because of the specific sponsor in this video but not only) I have to point out that you should be more careful and clear on when the sponsored part of the video starts and ends (which you did in the description of the video and timestamps) but I still think you need to be more careful and clear in the video itself as to when and how the integration of the sponsor and the sponsored content is being integrated into the content of the video (as to not make it look like the whole point and reason that you created the video was because of the specific sponsor). About the sponsor in the video. I have a very negative view towards the company that happens to be the sponsor in this video (and I accept that as of now without any tangible proof but It looks/operates in some areas that I've been able to notice as a scammy business/company). So the first and most important thing for you as to why you should be careful regarding the above is that if your followers invest in this business and for some reason they fail ((like for example if it turns out they were a scam all along or misappropriated users fonds and investments and lost them etc.(there are a lot of ways a business like that can lose everything in a very short amount of time even if the company is completely transparent, which Masterworks is not, at least not as much as they should)) and your followers lose their money (especially at this time and climate in youtube) you'll lose your followers and integrity within a split second. Therefore I suggest that you clearly state on video when you're going to start the ad/sponsor portion of the video/reading from the script that the sponsor provided for you and when it ends and your content of the video starts and clearly state that you're not giving financial advice etc...etc.

[@KaterynaM_UA]

I highly doubt anyone who chose to invest via this company would even remember what exact yt channel recommended it. I wanted to use Nord VPN once and was looking for promo codes from channels I watch, it's all just a much of audible/skillshare/etcetera. Everyone has same sponsors and 99% of audience just skip the ad.

[@hibachimk240]

@@KaterynaM_UA You can't easily skip those ads. I tend to have youtube as a background noise, it's not to have to jump chapters every five minutes. I know there's add ons to skip sponsors automatically, but it's not available on every platforms.

[@edide1627]

@@KaterynaM_UA We'll have to agree to disagree then. The problem I see in this video is that (assuming someone has never before seen/heard an ET ad/sponsored "script") to them it'll only be clear that he/she was watching an ad for the last 3 minutes only after the words "Now let's get back to the video" and they wouldn't even know when the "Adam Something's" own opinions/video stopped/paused and the ad started unless they look up the description or timestamps (which is no enough in my opinion). Something along the lines of "now let's hear some words from our sponsor" would be better, almost mandatory, before saying even a word from the "script" of the sponsor (whoever the sponsor might be). Any business in my opinion that can/has to spend more than 50% of its gross income on ads rarely can be a good business, VPN's right now are in that category and even though they provide some benefit for their consumers never rely on one of them completely (thinking that now that you bought/installed a VPN you're completely anonymous and safe on the internet), some might make things even worse for you and go as far as gathering data from their costumers and selling them to ad agencies etc (mostly because they mostly operate on this grey area of the law where the regulations and oversite are scarce to none).

[@Jakob-mf8us]

I think this video undermines the real deal with nuclear power. 1. price : assume → 30B USD cost and 5TWh/year production→ kWh price for amortization in 20 years is 0.31 USD without fuel costs, operation costs, repair costs etc. and no profit was made..... 2. actual products : used for nuclear weapons and fusion (heavy hydrogen) and 20 or so fission products 3. nuclear waste storage : extremely expensive 4. fuel : not every country has it, and it's expensive to mine In my opinion, people are very much emotionally attached to this topic, which they should not be. Numbers shall speak. It seems to me that the information given suggest that nuclear is not economy viable in contrast to renewable, coal and gas.

[@Crispr_CAS9]

"1. price : assume → 30B USD cost and 5TWh/year production" The Barakah reactors cost ~$4.5b/GWe, and most modern reactors run at ~95% (~8TWh/y) lifetime capacity. "2. actual products : used for nuclear weapons" Materials from commercial reactors are essentially useless for weapons production. "3. nuclear waste storage : extremely expensive" Dry cask on site, not expensive at all. "4. fuel :" It's less expensive to mine than the materials needed for literally any other form of power relative to the amount of energy provided. "Numbers shall speak." So try saying the right ones.

[@moritzschmidt9232]

One essential point you forgot to mention is, that the world will rather soon run out of uranium... Nuclear is a fossil fule, just with less direct GHG emissions, the indirect emissions (trough mining, refining, building, waste manage, etc.) should also be mentioned.

[@Tsalko6]

Thunderf00t used to be insane on issues such as social justice and feminism. Has something changed or is Adam unaware?

[@NielsBlok567]

Yea, skipped right past that one. I haven't checked on thunderf00t for literally years, maybe he's gotten off his bullshit. I'll get back to you on that.

[@mysticwizard1943]

Was wondering the same thing. From doing a little digging I really don't think he has changed so much as decided to just shut up about the gamergate/anti-SJW/anti-feminist crap he was peddling. He probably saw that the winds were changing on KZbin (especially with breadtube gaining popularity and getting dunked on repeatedly by people like hbomberguy) and decided to shift gears. That said, he apparently has traded out Anita Sarkeesian for Elizabeth Holmes as his target to mention in every video (who frankly deserves all the criticism she gets), likely because it won't immediately be met being called a misogynist. Its the same shtick, just less overt and aimed at a more "acceptable" target. So I wouldnt count on him being "reformed". As for whether Adam knows... good question. I'd find it pretty hard to believe that he was completely unaware, especially as someone who considers themselves formerly all-right. Thunderf00t considers himself a leftist somehow, but the ideas he was spreading were the gateway drug to the alt-right. Adam also claims to be a leftist, but platforming and aligning yourself with anti-progressive, anti-egalitarian content creators kind of disqualifies you from truly being on the left.

[@spaghettiisyummy.3623]

@@mysticwizard1943 All KZbinrs seem to be Friends.

[@NielsBlok567]

@@mysticwizard1943 Watching some of his newer content (not worth it tbh), yea, he's still got some of his sort of "weird libertarian" energy, but seems to have at least calmed down on the ad hominem, and generally staying out of politics. He's made at least one video dunking on Marjorie Taylor Greene and, allegedly, has no positive feelings towards Matt Gaetz. Still he felt the need to comment on age of consent and statutory rape without knowing what the fucking laws are or even clarifying the whole Gaettz traficking scandal, but ok. So yea, not quite reformed, but at least diverged from the evolutionary path most of the GG crowd went down.

[@Qba86]

@@NielsBlok567 That's good to know. Thunderf00t's early content is actually what got me into astrophotography, for which I'm eternally grateful, but around the time of "Elevatorgate" his anti-feminist rants became unbearable and plain disgusting.

[@jlachman381]

I’m skeptical about masterworks and even more so about talking to thunderf00t

[@Fnidner]

thank you!!

[@CommunistSubRex]

As much as i am physically unable to bring myself to compliment France, i can't help by admit they do energy right

[@rustcohle8228]

Isnt the problem here the waste it produces that we are stuck with kinda forever ?

[@eamonglavin2532]

I agree with everything here, the only drawbacks apart from the waste storage are, cost (very expensive to build and run) and time (nuclear power plants take min 10 years to build on average), in saying this they have alot of potential to cover a large portion of the 20% of baseload power unaddressed by renewables

[@aszechy]

While the construction costs are indeed very high, the operating costs of nuclear power plants are actually very low.

[@RawbeardX]

Masterworks is a fine candidate for the next Established Titles. "I own a few fibers of the Mona Lisa" yes, my lord.

[@hamham_6411]

as a hungarian, yeah, nuclear is pretty good: our one nuclear reactor reactor already supplies half of our energy needs, and we're planning to build new reactors there ...with rosatom (ie the russian nuclear energy company) bringing up that germany has to take up russian fossil fuels to phase out nuclear makes no sense in that context a lot of uranium to central/eastern europe has to come through either russia directly, or kazakhstan with russia as a supplier nuclear power ain't gonna change a thing about dependence on russia

[@Vo_Siri]

I often like to say that nuclear power is the future, but not the near future. You are correct that the radiation risk is wildly overblown, but the issue of financial viability is a much different question. People often like to say that nuclear is the cheapest form of energy, but this is only across the entire hypothetical lifespan of a plant. But unlike other forms of power, the cost of nuclear power is *massively* frontloaded, and on average that construction cost is getting more expensive each year. Hence why no nuclear power plant in history has ever actually broken even on costs. They also take an average of ten years to construct. They are not a viable solution to the energy crisis.

[@theoverpreparerlamenters3r436]

Thank you for this video. I'm tired of people being so unreasonably terrified. It's almost like the majority has a phobia of it.

[@jarlathquinn2628]

How is the mission going battle brother

[@theoverpreparerlamenters3r436]

@@jarlathquinn2628 Rebuilding is going, and the chapters that are helping us pick off the final bits of that starved hive fleet that tried to wipe us while we were on our penitence crusade are actually helping, unlike some chapters (not naming any names).

[@jarlathquinn2628]

@@theoverpreparerlamenters3r436 hope the chapter rebuilds well and how are the primsares marines doing

[@FeeshUnofficial]

@UCf78-2lhQD-5EQgroF3d2ng *watches video* *Focuses on a few points in the video and ignores everything else*

[@energeticstunts993]

@UCf78-2lhQD-5EQgroF3d2ng wrong. It's 1/4th of the dosis, it's even WEAKER than a flight, which btw is safe. Your body experiences such high radiation. The radiation there is EVEN less than the average background radiation of a Canadian city, which has a radiation of 2.4mSv

[@Shadowmask8]

I'm about as pro-nuclear as they come and even I think a lot of these arguments were super thin and easily dismissed

[@skeetsmcgrew3282]

It was a mistake to make a 9 minute video on one of the most important topics on earth. Many people have done much better on this very platform.

[@oscarcarter9981]

@@skeetsmcgrew3282 LOL, normally I'm a fan of Adam's but this wasn't even a 9 minute video, a quarter of it was taken up by him shilling this exit scam "investment scheme"

[@skeetsmcgrew3282]

@@oscarcarter9981 It's hard to take anything he says seriously when he himself is whoring himself out for one of the worst scams ever. All while he wags his finger judgementally at the rich folks who are sucking the world dry.

[@Cobalt985]

Honestly it's becoming a disturbing trend in Adam's videos. I've been following him for a pretty long time now, so honestly it's disappointing that this problem seems to have gotten _worse_ rather than better. He really needs to work on fully substantiating arguments using evidence rather than making a claim and then moving on without anything to back it up.

[@sandrorass890]

I think most of Adams content consists of easily dismissing arguments.

[@morganrenders3139]

good to see you as a pro nuclear energy

[@animarthur5297]

Y'know what else is really dangerous if not handled properly? An oven. But we still use it because cooking food is a basic human activity - and the advantages of being able to cook food in your own home far outweighs the fire hazard it represents. And if it does set your house on fire, then that's _your fault_ , because _you_ mishandled or misused the oven. Just like an oven, nuclear power is a dangerous thing we need to keep tabs on, but it's pretty much safe if we handle it with care and it's more than worth the risk.

[@KjeldSchmidt]

Safety is not the problem. Can you make a video about the economics and reliability of nuclear reactors? A lot of the coal burned by Germany this year was burned to be able to give enough power to France - where the nuclear reactors became widely unable to operate this summer.

[@buttersquids]

Nuclear reactors in general have an availability factor (proportion of time they are available to generate electricity) upwards of 90% if I remember correctly.

[@anon_9221]

@@buttersquids An aggregate number like this is useful for a quick comparison but with long timescale decisions like this, it doesn't tell you enough of the story. Those 90% (I'll accept that for the moment without checking) are not independently drawn samples. What were the issues with nuclear power in France this year? One was corrosion, particularly in plants that are close to or over their design EOL (but France extends it. They have no choice), and similar age-related maintenance issues. Whatever part that added to the 10% nonavailability, it will get bigger as these plants keep aging. A similar argument can be made for the plants that had to be shut down because their cooling rivers overheated. We will not see the same amount of this, rather we will see more of it as the world gets warmer.

[@Hepad_]

The causes are more political than anything else, really.

[@Aorrran]

@@anon_9221 Most of the nuclear plants in France are shut down in the summer every year because you need less electricity than in winter. This time is used for maintenance but because of COVID, most of them were postponed to this year. The corrosion issues are actually more present in the newer reactors and it's not necessarily a big issue, it just takes more time for the maintenance to make sure the safety requirements are met plus lack of manpower doesn't help. If anything it shows how in France the manpower for the nuclear industry was heavily impacted by purely political decisions (publicly speaking against nuclear energy for decades and not investing is not gonna attract new engineers to work in the industry) Rivers getting warmer doesn't mean the reactor shuts down but just that the production might be lowered. It is true though that climate change is already impacting electricity production (i.e. hydroelectricity). Looking at the current French issues right now is not necesseraly relevant as their mostly local if you compare it to nuclear energy worldwide

[@D3K43]

6:30 Minor spelling mistake, argument invalid 💀💀

[@co2_os]

🤓🤓🤓 I agree

[@redkraken6516]

Nuclear wastes are the problem. You sure can build facilities for short-medium term storage, but when it comes to long term, threre a lot of unsolved problems.

[@LimPu]

Literally any NPP operator in Germany is lacking staff and fundings for maintenance. Weirdly enough, you not only forgot to.mention that, but also that there is no safe way to store the waste

[@Crispr_CAS9]

On site dry cask storage is safe.