Nuclear Power Is Our Best Hope to Ditch Fossil Fuels | Isabelle Boemeke | TED

[@thebigmugamba7986]

From a real-life "nuclear scientist" - thank you for the work you do!

[@dougewald243]

Who's the "real life nuclear scientist" you are referring to? You or the presenter?

[@SammaxMunich]

and why is it in quotes?

[@kubo407]

The person presenting this is an "online influencer" I don't know what her qualifications are since none are listed anywhere when I look her up. She seems to be a tiktoker?

[@blablup1214]

Wouldn't say the technologie is bad. But I just can't trust this money grubbing companies ! They try maximizing profit and reduce safty measures. How should I trust them ? There are some very old nuclear power plants in "not so well " condition. But yeah, the companies themselfes checked they are safe. Although one safty company Tüv( here in Germany ) stated this year that our nuclear power plants are in excellent condition and can continue to be used until 2026 they now found that Isar 2 needs to be shut down and needs repair urgend reapair to continue operating.... The second thing is, HOW do you want to cool these power plants ? With cooling waters taken from rivers ? Look at France. Many power plants needed to be shut down because the river water already gets too hot in the summer...

[@thebigmugamba7986]

@@kubo407 Yes. I don't really care. We within the nuclear industry have been historically terrible communicators. We need people like her who can reach new audiences. She is doing a great job.

[@Spektaaah]

".....instead of buying dirty fuels from dictators." That hit home.

[@squarz]

Well, Russia still holds something like half of the uranium market, so...

[@nikolayrayanov2895]

Some of the countries that hold gas, coal and oil, are also the main suppliers of uranium - Russia, China...

[@caesarsalad1170]

@@squarz At least modern reactors can use all the waste we have stored up as fuel again, reducing the half-life from thousands of years to hundreds.

[@codaalive5076]

It is not Russia. US oil barons and army in 60's decided they will rather use oil, it makes money for barons and nuclear materials for weapons army needs. This was at time when father of most known nuclear reactors, Alvin Weinberg, proposed and successfully tested thorium molten salt reactor. Government shut it down and told Alvin to find new job because he argued thorium is even safer. It makes no sense, they did it for money.

[@iche9373]

from damned dictators

[@thedominion6643]

Money spent on building NPP doesn't take away from the funding of renewables. There's a reason Japan is re-starting so many of them. There's a reason South Korea is building them. There's a reason China is building so many of them. Renewables just don't have the established infrastructure to completely replace fossil fuels. The nuclear industry is completely transparent with their de-risking and decommissioning plans before ANYTHING even starts. They are the first aid our planet needs until it can see a doctor (renewables). Fossil fuel industry has spent loads on the anti-nuclear rhetoric; people who consider themselves "green" should beware

[@EscapedTexan]

My daughter is in her 4th yr studying to become a Nuclear Engineer. When she chose Nuclear over so many other obviously promising, practically guaranteed disciplines available to her like Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineer, Etc I was worried for her. I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s and remember friends or acquaintances who went into nuclear and either never got jobs in Nuclear or had limited access to jobs, or lost their jobs due to cuts. Nuclear is our only hope if we really want to power the world cleanly and safely besides a slew of other problems we can solve with it like desalination, but I feared the MEME. I lived and grew up in a time when the MEME was created, cultivated and promoted by the Machine. The media. Establishments. Big Oil. I worried as a young person we were going to rue the decision to abandon Nuclear energy many decades into the future and we would be paying a high cost. What cost have we paid? A high one I’d say. I’m so glad this influencer is putting her talent, her time, her passion into something that I think is imperative. She’s changing the narrative around Nuclear. Changing the MEME. Bravo, we’ll done!

[@DriveCarToBar]

Brazil has some of the largest Thorium reserves on Earth, possibly larger than the USA or Australia. They have the potential to breed nearby limitless amounts of Uranium-233 and run reactors for centuries, to fuel their industry and population. It would be game changing for them.

[@danurkresnamurti3598]

also Indonesia is only region on SEA have thorium. o fuel their industry and population. It would be game changing for them. also good for geopoitic and geoeconomic

[@hrushikeshavachat900]

Breeding Thorium into U-233 is difficult, and that's the reason why countries like India, Brazil ate having issue with the same

[@evacody1249]

With Nuclear fusion it could be even better and safer to the point that all cars, plans, etc. could have fusion energies.

[@DriveCarToBar]

@@hrushikeshavachat900 It's no more difficult than running any other sort of refueling operation. Th-232's decay chain gives you U-233. The idea is that you would run the reactor with its initial fuel load of LEU or MOX fuel and have a blanket of Th-232 fertile fuel elements surrounding the active fuel rods. As neutrons are released, they hit the Th-232 and it captures a Neutron to become Th-233. From there, you simply wait the ~30 days for the Th-233 to become Protactinium-233 and finally, U-233 which is a fissile fuel. After enough U-233 has built up, you can progressively shuffle the Th-232 fertile fuel elements further into the core where their reactivity will further increase as more U-233 is produced. At the same time, you cycle out the old fuel rods and (hopefully) send them for reprocessing.

[@hrushikeshavachat900]

@@DriveCarToBar The cost is higher

[@lulumahu3152]

Bravo! The world needs more influencers like you!

[@drivebyquipper]

Baloney! Where do you put the waste? Nuclear power plants are a disaster waiting to happen. Do you think age won't take a toll?

[@hrushikeshavachat900]

​@@drivebyquipperNo it won't. The deaths from.nuclear are tiny compared to one's from coal or fossil fuels. That's true even if u add Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were intended to cause deaths. Also, with improved technology, we can reduce the risks of nuclear disaster Additionally, Thorium is less radioactive and decays faster when compared with Uranium. Additionally, scientists are trying to find ways of reusing the spent fuel as a push for Th powered reactors.

[@MarksShrimpTanks]

@@drivebyquipper You put the waste safly in the ground not in the air like we are currently doing with fossil fuels.

[@drivebyquipper]

@@MarksShrimpTanks Safely in the ground? Lol! There's no such thing.

[@razorrich]

This is so obvious to any fair-minded person. And instead of incessantly complaining about climate change, do something that actually works!

[@TheMrfrodough]

Yes like thorium, not nuclear.

[@razorrich]

@@TheMrfrodough Nuclear is the fission reaction. I think you mean, compared to Uranium and Plutonium.

[@TheMrfrodough]

@@razorrich I meant nuclear power, with all its negatives

[@Weeblicker]

@@TheMrfrodough thorium is nuclear

[@davidnewland2461]

At my house we generate alot of power with wind and solar I've worked nuclear since 1980. If word gets out about radiation hormesis attitudes might begin to change a little bit radiation is good for you look it up.

[@harbormelody4633]

Successful people don't become successful that way overnight. What most people see at a glance- wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life..

[@vincentschafer7970]

people are really making a lot of money from it... . .

[@isabellascholz7180]

I totally agree with you, the c r y p t o currency market is the most profitable venture I ever invested in

[@isabellascholz7180]

I reached my goal of $200k yearly trade earnings. Setting realistic goals is an essential part of trading

[@benneumann1197]

Speaking of in.vesting, I know I am blessed if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as Mrs Leo Abigail

[@mathildedelaunay3895]

I'm not here to converse for her but to testify just for what I'm sure of,

[@ganaspin]

Wow, Isabelle, as a fellow brazilian, I'm really inspired by what you have already achieved so far. Lots of respect! I gotta say, I feel really frustrated that, as a nuclear engineer, I'm constantly being portrayed as some kind of villain of internet discussions about clean power. It's almost like I don't have credibility to talk about the topic. And I'm not even a blind nuclear supporter. I realize that are technical issues that need to be tackled and I even criticize some industry practices, like the use of the open fuel cycle, instead of the closed one. Even then, it seems like people in general don't consider nuclear power relevant at all. And they often think I'm making up the facts I bring to the discussions. Really, really frustranting to have spend some much time of my life studying hard, and now have less recognition by the public than people who don't even read a scientific paper about the matter.

[@eduardoparra8091]

Sheeesh, after reading your comment It’s really helped broaden and deepen my understanding of the state of our global social and political hypocrisy. We pray for renewable energy, and then “incentivize” innovation and ingenuity but gasp and turn our backs at the sight of a well understood, highly researched, method of energy, one with even higher ROI’s for both investors and the planet alike. I admire the work you do @joão. And pray for people like you to continue pushing our society. Even if the work you do seems to be cast behind shadows and naysayers, I pray that one day our planet will catch its brilliance.

[@dougewald243]

Did you go into the field & "study hard" just to get public recognition? Lots of people work very hard and don't care about accolades. You seem to be more upset about personal issues than the state of nuclear power. Are you aware of your very elitist attitude? Do think your education & chosen field makes you better than everyone else? You are sure coming across that way. Maybe that's why you're not getting the recognition you crave from people online. How about just doing your job as best you can? Isn't that & good pay reward enough? Are you advancing the nuclear field? Are you aware of molten salt thorium reactors? They seem to be the best path to achieving energy independence from a proven & safe technology. What did you expect from the internet? Warm, fuzzy hugs? C'mon...

[@eduardoparra8091]

@@dougewald243 something’s wrong with your eyes, cause I don’t think anyone is seeing the narcissism that your seeing.

[@jackson-bw6cr]

@@dougewald243 What they’re saying is that people demonize nuclear power supporters with no valid criticisms other than pre made judgements. Also, why do you care so deeply? Moreover, why do you put so much effort into complaining on the internet when you should be doing your job? What did you expect from a comment like this? Praise for being an angry nutjob? C’mon

[@natabel7165]

Nothing new to me, despite I live 400km far from Chornobyl. But still interesting and very well put! Thank you.

[@ChristianHandy]

A few months ago i was listening to podcast of a start up (if i remember correctly, they are based in france) they are working on how to ease nuclear waste less than 50 years or just about 50 years, which much much better then what we can do today. And one of his point i can still remember was, he said "we've done too less research about nuclear that's why this thing is still not optimal" his statement was a biger eye opener for me

[@jhunt5578]

Yeah the hippy protectors screwed the pooch on Nuclear research funding.

[@asonei3531]

maybe we have also just done a lot too little research about renewable energy sources and storage options, because we believed in "shortcuts" like nuclear and fusion energy and were ignoring the negative consequences of fossil fuels...? It is actually a clear consensus among scientists, that the challenge is not to produce more electricity, but to produce it at the right time and for example store it from summer to winter. nuclear is definitely a tempting option (although for example many french nuclear power plants are out of order at the same time now...) but there are many options including sleeping/short-term gas power plants, hydrogen or power-to-X for long term storage and many more. and almost all of them could potentially be part of the solution if enough is invested in their research...

[@dougewald243]

Your point would be better made if this were written better.

[@dougewald243]

@@asonei3531, you think nuclear & fusion are "short cuts?" Who said we're "ignoring the negative consequences of fossil fuels?" What's a "sleeping/short term gas power plant?" What's "power-to-X for long term storage?" The very poorly written nature of your message leaves it confusing.

[@mightym]

@@dougewald243 I assume English isn't Aso's first language, so give him a break. In any case, power-to-x is any kind of energy storage not in battery form. You can store much higher densities of energy for longer. Short term power plants are those which are not running 100% of the time, only when there is a deficit. Problem is they won't be profitable and P2X technologies will mitigate the need for these. As for nuclear energy being a shortcut, given it is still just using steam turbines its not really that advanced. 1.15GW is about the max a single reactor can produce and highlights just how many reactors are needed if you want to go full nuclear

[@canalsentir]

hi from Mexico! Excellent ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ TED talk about the realities, misconceptions, and possibilies of nuclear energy today! We just added this to 3 playlists! ; planet earth, global warming, and environment! thank you Isabelle for this! 🙂👋✌🤟

[@nivron1606]

Great Talk! Agrees with every word! Keep up the good work!

[@celmarco74]

The Our World In Data chart about "safest and cleanest sources of energy" has been recently updated with the new evidence of fewer victims from Chernobyl and now nuclear energy is even more safe (0.03 deaths/TWh instead of previous 0.07). As well hydro-power safety was recalculated including Banqiao disaster and now has 1.3 deaths/TWh. Check it out.

[@BaSs4cE11]

This is one of those topics where there is only one objectively correct view, and it is that right now this second we need to go nuclear. Worry about improving renewable later while we are using proven methods. Nuclear is the only way we can buy time for our existence.

[@julianr.5631]

I'm a fan of nuclear power myself, but what wasn't told in this post is that the biggest problem isn't price or safety, it's the final disposal of the fuel rods, which can last for hundreds of thousands of years and has to be renewed over and over again. Storage is expensive and poses great risks for the environment and people, and must be constantly renewed, which in turn entails great risks. I firmly believe that nuclear power has a future, but only if there is a way to shorten disposal or make it safe enough to minimize the risks to the next generation.

[@saurovfayzulla]

Great entrance.Yeah, nuclear energy should be used more and more.This gives us a small amount of hope radioactive elements get more energy.

[@codaalive5076]

For now we can make 20% of energy from other quite clean sources. The rest has to be made from nuclear power if we are serious about global warming AND being self sufficient. As you see "green transition" is a lie. Every country in the world has thorium, those who don't have technology can use uranium without problems.

[@BillLeavens]

Fabulous! She makes the case for nuclear energy so much better than I have. Good work.

[@ThanasisZantrimas0310]

Fabulous. She's an influencer that promotes a positive view on nuclear energy with funny nails talking about ditching fossil fuels. Three years before we had Greta and before her Al Gore. Now, we watch influencers. Spread the meme boys and girls. You're sooo funny.

[@mightym]

She made no case. Nuclear power plants have a 20 - 40 year life span, so its not a one off cost And the economics of solar are now undeniable. 1GW capacity is about $USD1Bn and can theoretically be implemented in a year. 1GW nuclear is USD$8bn and 10 years to implement. Its funny how the push for nuclear energy is coming from fossil fuel players now they have control of majority of nuclear assets. All they want is to ensure they control energy production and energy prices, solar is the only means to put that power in the hands of the people

[@BillLeavens]

​Dear M, I think you may find that legacy nuclear plants have a much longer life span than 40 years. Many plants have been taken out of service well before their time because of community pressure (that may have been fomented by the fossil fuel folks). Solar takes up a huge amount of ground for the energy it produces. I would argue long and loudly that solar is very appropriate in many situations. No question. I question the long-term viability of solar for large3 scale community power generation. Those solar panels are subject to environmental degradation. They wear out, too and pose a significant waste problem of their own. When I see solar installed on good farmland as we have here in New Jersey, I cringe. Rooftops? Fine. Parking shelters? Great. Solar powered automobiles like Aptera? Even better!! I have my order in. ALL new nuclear installations should be small, modular reactors, distributed where power is needed. Need more power? Add more plants. Site them where coal and natural gas plants have been taken out of service. That's where the community power distribution systems start. As to fossil fuel companies 'controlling nuclear assets', all of the thorium we will need in our lifetimes has already been mined so the raw material for those reactors is already stocked along with the uranium 'waste' left behind from the legacy reactors. That unburned radioactive fuel serves to excite the thorium reaction. Most of that will be consumed in the reaction with thorium. In the end, the energy companies' job is to supply energy. That's what they do. If they are to earn the revenue their shareholders demand, they will figure out how to stay in business. After all, this isn't rocket science, it's nuclear engineering. It's difficult. But the potential dividends it can pay our society make it well worth study.

[@mightym]

@@BillLeavens no PWR nuclear plant has found a way to overcome irradiation and thermal embrittlement. Even new reactors such as vogtle 3 and 4 are only expected to last the maximum 40 years at best.

[@mightym]

@@BillLeavens and you just can't put a nuclear plant anywhere like an old coal or gas station, they need huge water supplies to function

[@joyyyy777]

I also agree with you. Nuclear power is still useful and it is much cleaner than the fossil fuel. Although there is risk that it can be dangerous but the matter is nothing when we prepare and manage consciously

[@A3DIII]

@@EpicSpaniard it's the only energy source that can extinct all life on this planet with one massive disaster or planned sabotage. By the way things have gone for the past few months, this is grossly underplayed.

[@HSstudio.Ytchnnl]

if it fails, it's certainly just human personnel error!

[@jackchen683]

风能、太阳能等清洁能源的最大问题在于： 1.相比于化石能源（煤炭、天然气）而言发电量太小 2.无法保证稳定供电，难以进行负荷调节，对维持电网功率频率的稳定带来不小的挑战 所以，攻克可控核聚变技术是终极解决方式

[@skydivekrazy76]

ABSOLUTELY. We need more people to open their eyes to the reality of modern nuclear.

[@jjames2162]

No we don’t - renewable energy is much easier, more affordable, safer, and less intrusive - it also has the largest employment growth and was rapidly expanding before DT took office …

[@TheMrfrodough]

Thorium

[@hello_world_0]

@@jjames2162 wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine. YOU NEED nuclear too.

[@jjames2162]

@@hello_world_0 lol unbelievable. The sun always shines and the wind always blow some place - that’s the point! The energy is transferable and free! The storage is placed in the homes - this is already happening, get with the program. You are stuck in a vision that no longer exists and for good reasons

[@hello_world_0]

@@jjames2162 Not all countries have daily sunshine lol. We currently dont have connected systems to transfer energy from Africa to Europe for example. Lots of work need to be done

[@roywagner5604]

One-eighth of Japan toxic from Fukashima , and Welsh mountains from Chornobyl sure were overacting to those few incidents like Germany did.

[@SIMAOMESQUITTA]

I'm also Brazilian, I'm trying to learn English on my own because I don't have the financial means to take a course. But I really want to learn English and I'm watching a lot of podcasts, movies and listening to songs in English to learn. I'm sure I'll be able to learn to speak this language that I love so much! ❤

[@JamesHussain82]

Watch BBC 24News. Not tv shows and songs.

[@SIMAOMESQUITTA]

@@JamesHussain82 OK. Thanks for the tip... But in your opinion, do you think listening to songs in English helps too?

[@JamesHussain82]

@@SIMAOMESQUITTA it will work. I just think there's too much slang in music. The BBC news on the other hand is just perfect, especially with subtitles on. However songs are easy to remember and sing along to, so definitely keep listening!

[@SIMAOMESQUITTA]

@@JamesHussain82 Ah yes, now I understand. I watch and listen to all content in English, to train my listening. I hope that one day I can speak English fluently, because I really love your language. People who speak English as their native language are very privileged not to have to learn it. For us who don't know it's very difficult, sometimes it even makes you want to give up. But I'm going to dedicate myself a lot to learn, because it's worth it!

[@nikolayrayanov2895]

Still not convinced. What troubles me most is, we have people who can't tie their shoes or drive a vehicle, but we expect people to operate nuclear plants, then these projects because of their huge investments, are almost always related to corruption, especially the ones related to Russia or China, also importing nuclear fuel is the same as importing coal... Sad to say, but a lot of people actually day in uranium mines as well. Last, but not least, the fact that you harness the power of the atom, to heat water, and run the steam through a turbine is ... the same as using a nuclear reactor in a car. It's dumb! Now, there are reactors like Thorium and others that are much better than current Uranium reactors. Even some of the uranium reactors are not too bad, like the Candu. Still... the fact that we use the power of the atom to heat water, and then run the steam through a turbine is not giving me chance to sleep. This is like the most stupid thing in the world.

[@anxiousearth680]

If it works, it works. What kind of complaint is that? Using nuclear like a car? Coal, gas, geothermal, they all heat water to turn turbines. Tidal, wind, hydro, without heat but still they use turbines. But for some reason, using the same process for nuclear is bad?

[@caesarsalad1170]

This comment gave me a stroke.

[@HSstudio.Ytchnnl]

renewables are clean energy and crude oil & coal have high energy density, but geothermal & nuclear power combines both benefits! 😙

[@sarahsiskin6780]

I’ve lived in a town w a nuclear plant for 25 years. It has its problems, don’t think for a second that it doesn’t. And there are dangers. I remember we had vitamin K pills at the ready and an evacuation plan. The schools also had an evacuation plan. Nuclear is great but not easy to live near.

[@pyrrho314]

the main problem is that the design has not been updated since the first plants, for a variety of reasons, including the desire to breed weapons materials and also the anti-nuke movement.

[@MrDoobysm]

See thorium. Meltdown proof.

[@jahnotdead]

At least you have a plan. With hydro, when a dam bursts, thousands die and the eco system is destroyed for quite some time.

[@YounesLayachi]

You gotta live in France for a couple days. They have no paranoia... your fear is unjustified

[@kwanlinus6999]

Germany disliked this video

[@AndreasDelleske]

Watch at least Sabine Hossenfelder's video about nuclear energy before you say anything.

[@Pand8a]

Isabelle is a national treasure

[@lol311]

My Gorilla too

[@rikabernar]

THANK YOU, ISODOPE 👏👏👏

[@JozeManuLOL]

I agree and it's unbelievable how much people struggle to understand our need for nuclear power

[@DanA-nl5uo]

What is unthinkable is people not understanding that offshore wind is half the cost of Hinkley point c and half the time to develop. With non of the spent fuel pools to become targets like we have in Ukraine at the moment.

[@stephenwilliams7799]

@@DanA-nl5uo Offshore wind has 1/3rd the lifetime of Hinkley and cannot provide baseload. Remember the 10-day wind drought? We need all low-carbon energy sources.

[@AndreasDelleske]

Why should we chose en energy form that is 3 to 4 times more expensive than PV and wind PLUS storage?

[@Nicholas-f5]

Nuclear is the most costly fuel for taxpayers

[@DanA-nl5uo]

@@stephenwilliams7799 so you want to pay more simply because it last longer even though it takes twice as long to bring on line??? Brilliant. With all the batteries being made for the EV market we have a solution to storage a home will run for a week on the stored charge of a single EV parked in the driveway

[@rikachiu]

Using plane crash analogy is perfection. I have been using other similar analogies, but nothing nails it better than that!

[@BenBeatsU]

2:41 as a german I really felt this point. Every headline in the news is about energy and inflation and then there isn't even space for nuclear power in any kind of talk shows

[@FreeQu3ncy]

as a German: We are selling fossil energy to France right now, because they don't have enough water for their nuclear plants because of the drought. Parliament has been discussing keeping nuclear plants running longer than planned in Germany against what has been decided after Fukushima.

[@SC-yy4sw]

@@FreeQu3ncy coal plants have the same drawbacks: germany has also been unable to ship coal to several of its coal fired PP due to low rhine levels.

[@MirorR3fl3ction]

I am all for green nuclear, and if the perception of nuclear can be changed by meme influencers then power to them :)

[@AndreasDelleske]

Yeah, let's just ignore 50 years of science.

[@luged]

@@AndreasDelleske what science? The science says that nuclear is less harmful overall than oil. Ideally we would find the perfectly clean power source that uses no rare of hard to obtain resources. The problem is even nuclear fusion isn't going to be perfectly clean and free of hard to mine materials. Even some has problems with metal mining. But nuclear fission, solar, and wind are better than coal or oil.

[@AndreasDelleske]

@@luged Nuclear at 3 to 4 times more expensive than renewables plus storage. Renewables' price goes constantly down, nuclear constantly up since 50 years.

[@thedominion6643]

@@AndreasDelleske only for old npps like they have in France. You're the one ignoring science (and math). Nuclear isn't a forever solution but it is an absolutely necessary buffer. Strides are being made everyday in thorium reactors as well. Renewables don't stop progressing just because nuclear is being used as a valuable life jacket. And the waste will be miniscule in the grander scale of things as nuclear reactors aren't going to be around in 100 years. They're just a stepping stone.

[@alphacause]

Its nice that, for all the pitfalls of the superficial world of Internet influencers, that someone is using it as a gateway to shape the minds of those who would rather squander their time looking at vapid idiocy. If a pretty face, and the pretext of giving advice about cosmetics, is a way to open the eyes of people, then so be it. Thank you Ms. Boemeke for using an unconventional tactic to raise awareness.

[@bravojr]

What she is doing is the very Definition of Conventional... What are you even talking about, sounding smart at the begining then you go "You know what, she is using her looks to sell a product how AvanteGardeeee"-Paraphrased you at " If a pretty face, and the pretext of giving advice about cosmetics, is a way to open the eyes of people--Thank you Ms. Boemeke for using an unconventional tactic to raise awareness.".

[@AndreasDelleske]

She's just not right. Please look up Sabine Hossenfelder's stand on this.

[@bertknops4101]

@@AndreasDelleske Sabine is not against nuclear. She says it's complicated and whether or not to use it depends on the local situation.

[@AndreasDelleske]

@@bertknops4101 She explains the price and other obstacles. I don't see her recommending it, not even in "special situations".

[@bertknops4101]

@@AndreasDelleske Her video "is nuclear power green" has a chapter summary where she lists 3 pros and 2 cons. It's unclear if the cons could be alleviated, but it could be. It's not a no or a yes.

[@mb106429]

The electic chair analogy: Nuclear power is bad IF it gets used in certain ways No Reactor contents come out by themselves into the environment; pollute and damage in ways we partially understand Electric chairs do not self assemble, come out and have the power to attract and strap people in by themselves Nuclear Reactor contents become problematic, polluting and dangerous all by themselves, PASSIVELY electic chair danger and implementation is an ACTIVE process needing sustained input, support and industrial drive

[@nicog6188]

She should at least include some time on when nuclear energy goes wrong. I don’t think that point is negligible given the aftermath of a nuclear accident. Sure, it’s not as far reaching as climate change, but more immediate in its effects to the micro environment in which it’s present.

[@thp8485]

Check this out mate

[@張羽兒-u8t]

What if ur country is an small island that has LOTS of earthquakes, typhoon, tsunami and active volcanoes? I mean, I personally prefer nuclear energy, but i cannot even say a word when debating if they say “r u sure we can afford ANY ONE accident?” - which might simply destroy 1/3 of my country. Airplanes are safer but it won’t cause continuous damage like a nuclear plant accident, this talk does not convince me with such analogy. I actually thought that I can learn some exciting scientific improvements/evidences that we can reduce the risk of having nuclear plants…However, it is still good that we can have an influencer that appeal to government/academics/ppl to discard procedures so that nuclear energy can have a better chance to be developed/improved.

[@caesarsalad1170]

Well, they can be built earthquake resistant, typhoon/tsunami proof, and why would you build one near a volcano? the accidents that have happened were caused by people, poor training, negligence, etc. Like the backup generators in Fukushima, an easy to reach place for a tsunami. Put it up higher? but itll cost 1 million more! >tfw your reactor melts down because you cut corners. >woops

[@itssanj8449]

Fantastic Ted Talk! Very insightful and will definitely be sharing our friend “Isodope”😁

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

I don't even need to watch this video to know that the video title is 100% correct. :) I've known this for many years, and I wish more people understood what "nuclear power" truly was all about (as opposed to what nuclear BOMBS and movies are all about).

[@A3DIII]

This year, The 1st week of war in a nuclear prolific region, there was an attack on the power plant that could have had devastating consequences. (Same area that had another major nuclear disaster) There is a coming war to deflate the US, so any new power plants might as well be shaped like this-> 🎯

[@alfonstabz9741]

fifth generation nuclear plant will fix a lot of problem. finding battery for solar panels that long last and new design for wind turbine.

[@atnstn]

Every energy specialist would suggest the same. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France - they all build up, expand and extend their Nuclear Power Plants to provide for their future needs. Renewables have their place too, however they CANNOT replace nuclear. Not unless we figure out how to store the energy. Even then (DEEP FUTURE) we cannot fully provide for our needs from renewables.

[@BadNessie]

France had to shut down ca. 50% of their nuclear power plants during summer because it was too risky to keep them running due to high temperatures, low river water levels (that would have been needed for cooling) and not up-to-date maintenance. They are now buying electricity from other countries. Just saying...

[@saranbhatia8809]

Great presentation!

[@Nekonaut_aka_Jebus]

how exactly is nuclear 'pollution free'?

[@DietPizza1]

Exactly, it isn’t. Produces extremely deadly waste they have to bury underground for 100,000 years or pray nothing hits the cooling ponds next to the reactors

[@justusw5843]

I believe it’s bc the use of it doesn’t pollute the air as fossil fuels do

[@hannajung7512]

simple: its not

[@YounesLayachi]

Pollution here means all the stuff that gets in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. Nuclear makes all the power without dumping anything in the atmosphere (aside from water vapour from secondary cooling but that's common with all powerplants that use heat)

[@TheMrfrodough]

@@YounesLayachi two words. Nuclear waste

[@sean.youtube]

Absolutely perfect 😍😍. Video is good, too

[@mattalley4330]

I think there should be much more nuclear power but I think she goes too far in glossing over its risks and problems. No source of energy is without its downside and nuclear is no exception. Her answer to the very valid concerns about spent nuclear fuel is to rather blithely assert that some smart folks are working on it. She also makes no attempt to address concerns over building nuclear plants in areas prone to large earthquakes to prevent more Fukushima-type disasters. Let me say again, I am in favor nuclear power playing an increased role to help solve the climate change crisis but we need to be smart in how we use it. People on one hand who are dead-set against it and people in the other camp who seem to be willing to over-exaggerate its merits and deny or cover up its flaws in order to get more nuclear plants made are both in the wrong, in my view.

[@AndreasDelleske]

Please discuss the "downsides" of PV and wind and even storage and don't forget to cite scientific sources.

[@mattalley4330]

@@AndreasDelleske Off-topic and irrelevant. My post has nothing to do with solar.

[@AndreasDelleske]

@@mattalley4330 Mine has, you were talking of "all sources" but I see why you try to ditch the topic.

[@mattalley4330]

@@AndreasDelleske Uhmm, no. I wasnt. I was only talking about nuclear power. My apologies for any confusion.

[@howardmoon1234]

@@AndreasDelleske hi Andreas, I’d encourage you to read Simon Micheaux’s paper on the materials burden of meeting todays energy needs with PV and wind. He quite convincingly demonstrates that it is impossible with the resources that are available on our planet

[@unbreakableldorado7723]

She's brilliant! This deserves far more attention

[@nilsp9426]

That is the nuclear lobby for you, you are welcome.

[@unbreakableldorado7723]

@@nilsp9426 it's common sense, here in Germany we're currently abandoning nuclear power while having to increase coal🤦

[@halilibrahim2]

It is very important that to be occupied in doing something which also presents a good solution for needs for long time

[@remyllebeau77]

Sharing a meme is lazy activism, but if it can get enough people on board and get more power plants built, it's hard to argue against it.

[@manikroy7768]

Wow! One tweet!!! No background info?

[@SeptaxisPrime-sp6rk]

You look radiant Isabelle

[@SeptaxisPrime-sp6rk]

I love you

[@Beatriz-tb5gk]

Gracias mí amor

[@kay2814]

NuScale, TerraPower and X-Energy would love this

[@musiconly7447]

spot on

[@eri0716]

As a Japanese, who experienced the huge earthquake on March 11, 2011, and who learned the history of two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I cannot follow her opinion. People should not possess the things which are not under control. Also, the nuclear energy plants are great targets for the imaginary enemies, which means it is easy for the politicians to make up their minds for a war. I would prefer to keep improving on the green energy more practicable, rather than unclear energy.

[@ForbiddTV]

Even with only nuclear power plants, peaker plants will still be needed. This would mean fossil fuels or enough hydroelectric or other storage method to fill the peak demands. Nuclear cannot throttle fast enough to fill this need.

[@christerry1773]

Thank you bringing rational thinking to the table!!

[@StarBoundFables]

Nuclear energy is cool! "The best time to build nuclear plants is ten years ago.. the next best time is today" Brilliant presentation IsoDope! 😃 Way-to-go, keep up the amazing work of spreading this knowledge ☮🗺🙏🏼

[@trollimusprime8521]

Geothermal is the best long term plan of action we have for sustainable electricity

[@Julianor55555]

Nuclear power has the same problems as fossil fuels. Limited material to work with & toxic waste. Plus a somewhat small chance of malfunction leading to a wasteland. I really don‘t understand why there are not more solar power plants and wind turbines

[@louKushh]

you're an 1d1ot if you think wind turbines don't malfunction, and solar has some of the worst renewable manufacturing known to man.

[@Venonix24]

ideology is a product of feelings. solutions are a product of logic and reason.

[@Sunkissedguy]

low to middle income countries still find it challenging to use nuclear because of the cost of managing spent fuel.

[@adamvongrej9463]

I totaly agree. This was my opinion whole time and I was thinking that I m the only one, thanks.

[@przejan]

Have you ever heard about reprocessing organic waste? Much cheaper than nuclear power plants production and also helpful in our waste utilisation. Regards

[@thp8485]

Anything gets cheaper at scale. The problem isn't building nuclear plants, it's the way we build them. Look up mini reactor start ups 👍🏽

[@theadunn3365]

I’d love to support but have some questions for scientists working with modern day nuclear energy. At one time it seemed that nuclear power plants has trouble with cracking pipes that could not withstand the high temperatures they were exposed to. Has this “design defect” been solved? And nuclear waste disposal also became a political issue in the US (probably due to oil lobbyists). Is this still true?

[@naberville3305]

I'm not a scientist but I am in the field. I believe your referring to neutron embrittlement. It's the process by which neutrons disturb the metal lattice in a material. Making it harder and stronger but less tough and more brittle. Which means it's more prone to brittle fracture failure vice ductile fracture failure. Where instead of warping and deforming as it fails. It fails immediately without warning and without much deformation. You can't prevent neutron embrittlement per say. But you can shield components from the neutron flux. And you can design the components to have to be able to withstand the pressures and forces it experiences with high levels of neutron embrittlement you'd expect at end of life. And of course you can change the operating pressures and temperatures to maintain a margin away from the point of failure. As for nuclear waste. The issue of nuclear waste is imo purely political. We have the ability to deal with it. Plenty of perfectly safe options. We have billions sitting in a government account to deal with it paid into by the Industry for decades. But we don't do anything about it because it is too politically toxic of a subject. Anti-nuclear advocates oppose solutions to nuclear waste just as heartily as they oppose the current inaction. This is because nuclear waste has become such a mystical Boogeyman of unparalleled danger and lethality that no solution could possibly contain it. They don't want solutions they just want talking points.

[@theadunn3365]

@@naberville3305 thanks very much. I appreciate your time and your expertise. I’m from Maine where there was a nuclear power plant being built in a coastal town but it was shut down due to nuclear waste disposal requirements (I think). It was called Maine Yankee. Right now Maine is getting ready for an ocean windmill project. We’ll see how it goes. I believe the technology is coming from Europe.

[@asonei3531]

@@naberville3305 we'll only know for sure whether we truly have the abilities to deal with nuclear waste in roughly 20000 years...

[@naberville3305]

@@asonei3531 understand that what we think of as nuclear waste is not something wholly separate from what was put into the reactor or what came from the ground in the first place. The only difference is in concentration and diversity of radionuclides. What "nuclear waste" we put into the ground had prior spent the last 4.5 billion years there. Because we understand how nuclides have existed within the earth for the whole of its existence there are very few unknowns when it comes to understanding how we can safely dispose of nuclear waste. Do not be so concerned with long half life's. The longer the half life. The less often decay occurs and the less radiation is released. Its the short lived fission products that are the most concern when it comes to radiation.

[@SN-vl9vw]

So she forgot to mention Fukushima nuclear disaster...or she just didnt want to talk about that?

[@LackofExistence]

One person died because of it. What did she miss?

[@SN-vl9vw]

@@LackofExistence hmmmm lets see... discrimination to japanese travelers when that happened, contaminated water that caused international conflict and still yet to be cleaned, and the worst part is that there are still some areas where ppl cant go in so that their hometown is lost for more than a decade. Not much missed ei?

[@hannajung7512]

@@LackofExistence one petson died immediatly... the deaths from longterm exposure are not even counted yet. Only because you do not see people drop dead at the site, does not mean people are not dying.

[@LackofExistence]

@@hannajung7512 so what are the numbers? Fear mongering without metrics is just that. There’s a slide in the presentation of utility vs death rates. The ratio is definitely in support of nuclear. Carbon is not your friend.

[@thebigmugamba7986]

@@hannajung7512 Studies by the World Health Organization and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.

[@Shikaradin66]

The recent Russian military action against Ukraine has shown up a glaring hole in nuclear 'safety' while the science is sound and safety systems robust, there is still a human element that is unpredictable, erratic and dangerous. Global conflict will always make nuclear power unsafe.

[@sleepyhorou]

Thinking the same way may lead to abandonment of the flour storages. Like you know… human factor may cause them to blow the f up

[@gurumage9555]

By your reasoning I guess we should stop using planes too because of the 9/11 terrorist attack.

[@BadNessie]

The current situation you mentioned, Chernobyl, Fukushima, it has always been human error. And we as humanity will continue making errors. So yeah, with you on this. And PS: everyone who throws in dangerous cars and airplanes should truly educate themselves on the consequences of a nuclear catastrophe. And bear in mind that it doesn't take a meterorite to crash into the reactor. All it takes is a simple failure in the cooling system. Just saying.

[@stuartbogle1722]

If I listen to people talk about climate change and I don't hear the term "petrodollar" then I know these people don't truly understand the problem. Because climate change is a not a science problem, or an engineering problem, or a policy problem, or even a finance problem... it is a currency problem. The worlds wealthy be it individuals, corporations, or governments have most of their assets in US dollars. The US dollar is backed by oil. It's referred to as the "petrodollar". Saudi Arabia will only accept US dollars for their oil. So if any country wants to buy Saudi oil they first have to go to a US bank and exchange their own currency for US dollars, inflating demand for dollars and thus it's value. This is how the US dollar is "backed" by oil. This started in 1971, it worked so well that the US dollar stayed the default global currency or global reserve currency even after we stopped backing the dollar with gold, i.e. the gold standard. So now the value of the dollar is determined by the worlds demand for oil because the rest of OPEC does the same. This was a good thing at the time because it made the dollar a stable currency. Using it meant planning a long term budget was much easier, think the Weimar Republic. This was long before climate change was well understood. Once climate change was better understood the worlds wealthy were not eager to do anything about it because if the world stopped needing oil, then the world would stop needing dollars and it's value would drop and they would find themselves with a ton of currency that nobody wanted (i.e. they would be poor). What makes things even worse is to keep the value of the dollar stable the US had to print more dollars as the global demand for oil grew. If the US didn't do this the dollars value would have become unstable. A large increase in value can be just as bad and a large decrease. So there are more dollars around then there were back in 1971. It's gotten to the point now that if the world stops needing oil the value of the US dollar drops not only from lack of demand but also from a glut of supply. Global warming will not truly be solved until the world, or rather the worlds elite, can agree on a common currency thats value is not determined by the worlds demand for oil, i.e. the petrodollar. You might say what is required is a "global financial reset", or a "second Bretton Woods". Just so happens that the worlds wealthy are talking about just such a thing. You might have heard it's about debt forgiveness. It is, but it is also about establishing a new default global currency. Is it because they care about funding technology for fighting climate change? Possibly, but I think it has more to do with the fact that the US has sanctions on over 30 countries. Countries they would like to do business with but they can't. The way the global banking system is set up currently (SWIFT) is if you want to buy something internationally in US dollars, those dollars have to go through a US bank. Thus the US can stop any purchase once those dollars hit a US bank. Thus all this talk about a financial reset means that it appears that the global elite (or non-US and Saudi elite that is) are ready to move on from the petrodollar. Once the worlds wealthy can decide on a new global reserve currency (and what it will be backed by like gold or block chain) they can start exchanging their dollars for it and that will allow them to invest in technology to fight climate change without destroying their wealth.

[@madmadflight]

WOW!!! Incredible educational program! Thank your for your longread, you collided and synchronised my knowledges)

[@normandoering1619]

Thanks for spreading this information. However, there is still another negative to nuclear power not known by most people -- the processes used to enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear power stations are also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons. One semi-solution is a molten salt thorium reactor instead of conventional reactors.

[@caesarsalad1170]

You have to have a particular type of reactor, breeder reactors to produce fissile material, other reactors can be made so they are unsuitable for weapons and purely energy production. Thorium can produce fissile material too.

[@normandoering1619]

@@caesarsalad1170 Interesting, because when I was reading up on this I learned that in the early days of nuclear reactors, developed during the Cold War, uranium beat out thorium because it could be used for both nuclear power AND weapons, with less effort and energy required to develop the systems for either. The focus was on weapons and "winning" the cold war, not safe power. Now our goals have shifted.

[@DanA-nl5uo]

The UK has bid out twice the capacity in off shore wind power at half the cost of Hinkley point c and half the development time. Nuclear power has lost in the free market. Renewable plus storage is faster and cheaper

[@Greguk444]

Totally agree. Well said

[@kokofan50]

There’s no grid level storage anywhere on the planet. Also, thise wind farms produce significantly less electricity.

[@DanA-nl5uo]

@@kokofan50 really? So we didn't start building pumped hydro grid level storage last century to support nuclear power plants inability to ramp up and down to match the load? Those Tesla grid scale batteries in Australia and the USA are what actually located in orbit? Clearly you are totally wrong

[@Greguk444]

@@kokofan50 the uk gets 50% of its electricity from wind and renewables and there are many more projects being built so it’s definitely a solution.

[@MrDoobysm]

Except when the wind doesn’t blow!? LOL. Renewables don’t win in the free market, they are subsidized often at 250x the rates over nuclear and natural gas. There is one fuel that is carbon free, scalable, affordable, and reliable. And It ain’t wind or solar. LOL.

[@LandAnchor]

I support the use of nuclear energy over fossil fuel reliance. We should not have cancelled so many plant expansions. However, (let's have a rational debate) nuclear energy does produce a waste product, depleted fuel rods - which have a half life. Yes, we can store these, yes we can keep them secure, yet waste is still waste. Is this correct? Does anyone have more information on this?

[@TheZGal45]

That's what all countries should do! Reuse what we have, if the building(s) work, and turn them into things we can use like nuclear power plants.

[@mb106429]

Carbon is now toxic? CO2? I thought CO2 is the major nutrient source for plants therefore all life on earth? All the fossil fuels were once in the air, and plants loved it, they now struggle to get enough CO2 at only 450 ppm

[@thp8485]

Water will kill you if you drink too much, what's your point?

[@mb106429]

@@thp8485 there have been periods where CO2 has been up to 3000 ppm or probably more, plants grew like mad, oxygen%, went up to high levels as well. The planet thrived, the insects and invertebrates grew massive, nature thrived. Since life on earth started we are presently at very low levels an plants are struggling to get enough. If we could dig up all the coal and oil and burn it all we'd only be returning to the atmosphere what was already once there at one time or another. Nature would probably thrive again if we could get the levs up again. Climate change does not 'damage the planet' it only inconveniences us because we build fixed position infrastructure and fence land off and try to 'own' it and build borders with armed guards beccause we hate people from other countries so much. The planet biosphere is a dynamic active system, climatically and geologically active and on the move constantly for billions of years. We didn't have electricity a few decades ago. Now we apparently 'need' it. We allow ourselves still today to build badly insulated low quality housing, 66% ish of the energy we now generate in colossal quantities (10's to 100's of times more than the 2500 calories were supposed to use per day) we waste 66% in generation n distribution, we then waste allmost all of the remaining 33% in our crap housing. The crap housing and the elec, gas, water are just there so that they push meter wheels around so that we SAPIENS can rip each other off, the fat cats and government farm us and just want things that push money in their direction, even if it involves total wastage of resources. They hate it that it is possible for people to live in good insulated housing, use power and water that comes fromnthe sky and compost their own sewage. The authorities want those pipes flowing! They don't want us to own our homes and cars so they apply insatiable bills to them to keep us on the go like a cattle prod All the other species just migrate and follow their favourite food and favourite weather around. We are the only species that does what we do, it is a psychological problem caused by fostering hatred, greed, selfishness, envy. We sit here and go along with it and consume. The CO2 does not bother this planet, it is mainly a ruse to bullshit us with so we are bamboozled into throwing away and buying all new stuff. The next generation will get the next story, the next installment of programming. Individual humans need to learn about the planet. Have you seen and HEARD what they put on TV for children to sit in front of every day?

[@thp8485]

@@mb106429 I'm not an insect so not really keen on an environment where they're thriving and we're not 😆😆

[@louKushh]

@@mb106429 brilliant, and kudos for being one of the few who actually have cognition.

[@ragingrevolver]

This is great, thank you! We should all support nuclear energy!

[@JMgmkh]

I grew up (in the 60s)with a small nuclear plant only several klms. from me on Lake Michigan. NEVER a problem. It eventually was decommissioned due to old age.

[@ForbiddTV]

There is plans to possibly bring Palisades back to life. If they do it would be a first for the US to revive a shuttered plant.

[@linja3060]

I wrote my environmental engineering master thesis on nuclear storage solutions and this video is just infuriating to me. There currently is no safe long term storage solution for radioactive waste and nobody knows if there will ever be one. To give you an idea of the time scale, Plutonium for example has a half-life of over 24 000 years. It is simply physically not possible to build storage that is indestructible for this long. It is just beyond irresponsible to keep producing this waste and just let future generations or civilisations deal with the aftermath. I agree that we need more clean energy sources but nuclear power is not the answer. Also: the majority of people who have an issue with nuclear energy do so because they educated themselves about the risks it comes with and not because "they don't know anything about it" or "are manipulated" like she is implying.

[@abcdef8915]

Must have got your engineering degree out of a cereal box

[@Mapplesproductions]

Bruh if the box of plutonium doesn't last that long you can just build another box and put the plutonium inside again. Just a couple of hours of radiation and a couple of weeks building another cage doesn't kill the environment. Also, if you build it strong enough, you would only need to maybe switch "boxes" every couple hundred years, Wich wouldn't be that hard

[@nmkone2207]

Love how nuclear is being simplified, while ignoring its past destruction. When proper care and caution is ignored, masses can be killed and not just talking about one species. Educate yourselves before you co-signing your kids futures away.

[@hendrikspies7141]

Thanks for this comment.

[@Eric-lr3zj]

Thanks for proof that degrees mean nothing and even a master's student can have a narrow minded and uneducated view of reality they claim to be an expert about. "simply physically not possible" is a phrase a truly educated person would never say especially about a problem where there are already many realistic solutions.

[@adolfputlerson]

The more we discuss over the nuclear the more we need reusable coffins.

[@caesarsalad1170]

What

[@mustachadon]

The transition is the tough part.

[@elizabethbradt9731]

Good and convincing argument.

[@christians.5579]

2:40 thumb up for that😆😆😆 Best greetings from crazy Germany

[@WillBC23]

Incredibly beautiful as always

[@WillBC23]

I can only imagine how many times she practiced this

[@WillBC23]

really well done, she earned every gram of applause

[@ctsswd2658]

I’m Japanese. When I was a elementary student, I was taught that nuclear power is clean and safe. But now I am a lot of knowledge about nuclear plant. People doesn’t have solutions about demerits of nuclear plant energy. Problems with Nuclear Power Problem 1: Danger of nuclear accidents ... Problem 2: No place to dispose of nuclear waste "radioactive waste" ... Problem 3: Radioactive materials are released even under normal conditions, and workers are exposed to radiation ... Problem 4: Negative impact on marine ecosystems ... Problem 5: Easier access to nuclear weapons increases the risk of "nuclear proliferation Problem 6: Most expensive power source ... Problem 7: Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. Does she have the solutions?

[@TyphorT38]

Problem 1: Not a problem. You can have 5 Chernobyl accidents per day and it's still safer than Coal. Problem 2: You just store it under ground, this has been known since the 70s. Problem 3: just a flat out lie. You get more radiation from eating a banana then working in a nuclear power plant. Problem 4: marine life is only affected close to the plants due to water being warmer, this is a minor issue that can be solved or ignored. Problem 5: "nuclear proliferation" is a BS argument. North Korea got the bomb without nuclear energy. any nation that wants the bomb can get the bomb. Problem 6: It's the cheapest power source over its lifetime. Problem 7: Yes, it literally is. just look at 5:38. Did you even watch the video?

[@juezna]

I think if you want to say you speak truth you need to talk about the drawbacks too. The main problem with nuclear power is not the risk of an explosion. The main problems are pretty much the same as with renewables like solar and wind, which are mining and waste disposal. And this to problems affect third world countries directly. Uranium mining in Argentina for example is extremely hazardous, it produces radioactive waste and pollutes soil and underground water. Mining also destroys rivers and ecosystems. These problems also arise with solar and wind power. We need to think about this and comunicate it responsibly. Of course, we need to stop emmiting CO2. But at what cost. Transition to greener economies needs to be done responsibly and safely, or otherwise we are risking terrible consequences. Theres another TED video about this released recently. Go check it out.

[@dementedgears4144]

Yo what? The reason why there was an antinuclear movement in the 1970s was because a reactor had a meltdown and it caused actual damage in the states

[@dementedgears4144]

I'm down for nuclear power BUT it can't be trusted to corporations OR be at the whim of human faultiness

[@pyrrho314]

we just need to modernize to safer designs... it's like if people stopped driving cars after the first accident instead of just address the problem. The "nuclear metldown" is not part of nuclear science, it's just a bad design. And actually there has not been a meltdown in the US, but there was a Fukushima.

[@stephenwilliams7799]

You mean Three Mile Island? The worst nuclear accident in U.S. history!? That killed no one and hurt no one? So people wanted to shut down nuclear which led to burning more fossil fuels which led to many millions of deaths, global warming, ocean acidification, and so on. Thanks antinuclear movement!!!!

[@dementedgears4144]

@@pyrrho314 There was a partial meltdown in Pennsylvania in 1979 which was caused by operator error and some faulty equipment and on top of that, it was politically backed and caused mass panic. And comparing a nuclear power plant to a car is comparing apples to oranges, if a car exploded it wouldn't hurt that many people but if a reactor had a meltdown, it could potentially make the surrounding land uninhabitable for years. However, I do agree that they should be designed in a safer manner but if it makes the rich get richer, I doubt it's going to be built with every bell and whistle necessary for meltdown prevention. There's a TON of promise with nuclear energy and I'm sure we'll get it right but one person's mistake can lead to massive consequences.

[@dementedgears4144]

@@stephenwilliams7799 dude, they lied to everyone about a partial meltdown happening at all. They even tried to cover it up. I'm not antinuclear, I'm anti mistake and that's exactly what happened there. Oil companies definitely took advantage of people's fears and they're wrong for that. There are consequences to people who mess up. We definitely have the technology to do better this time around and now we even have incentive to be pro nuclear. I just have the feeling it's going to be taken advantage of just like every other good thing we have in the US.

[@lawrenceheyman435]

I don't mind the idea of nuclear. But the description of small modular nuclear didn't make it clear that it currently isn't being done. My understanding is China built just one and said it was much more expensive than expected and they won't be continuing its development. Also renewables have only just really got started. 8% doesn't sound good. Nuclear is 9% and has been around since the 1970s. So the trajectory is favouring renewables

[@ForbiddTV]

Ruinables will never be able to take over, the Greenies lie about this. Also, small modular reactors have been built and used by many countries for many decades, built in two years or less, for millions not billions.

[@NeonVisual]

No, wind, hydro and solar with liquid metal battery storage is the safest, cleanest form of energy. Nuclear just exchanges one problem for another.

[@thepoliticalgardner]

Renewable energy is an absolute fraction of the cost. It is not a strategic war time target. Zero NUCLEAR waste to try and bury. No nuclear risks if there is a failure. Nuclear has far far far more issues than what is being glossed over here.

[@DeepBlue1882]

Any energy source is a strategic wartime target

[@nico12073695]

People don't want to replace renewables with nuclear, they want to replace coal, oil and gas. Of course renewables are the future, but the power grid also needs a reliable energy source to keep it running

[@AndreasDelleske]

@@DeepBlue1882 How do you do this if everyone has a PV panel and battery?

[@thepoliticalgardner]

@@DeepBlue1882 the difference is you hit a turbine you aren't killing a vast area, and their replacement can happen very quickly.

[@thepoliticalgardner]

@@nico12073695 personally a carbon capture and synthetic fuel would work best for a reliable source.

[@cleanerfree2346]

from a nuclear energy INFLUENCER ;D ... OK... LMAO

[@eduardochavira5976]

That's a great way to reach out to the public about the advantages of nuclear power. The average public don't read scientific papers, this kind of videos are an amazing way to change people's minds with regards to nuclear.

[@FrancescoDiMauro]

Nuclear energy in the wrong hands can be disastrous, that's what Chernobyl and Fukushima should teach us. And there are a lot of wrong hands on this planet. Solar got cheaper because it doesn't require the safety standards of nuclear which, if anything, will become more and more restrictive (as they should). I'm all for trying our best at making nuclear feasible, but this all-fun-and-games view of such a powerful technology scares me a little.

[@radiobiologist]

Atomic energy is clean energy!

[@LoueeD]

Great talk Isabelle 👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@swedishbob_7315]

Energy is the key .. Electricity is only 20% Globally ..... The other 80% Renewables cannot fix ... Products like Steel, Cement, Plastics and Fertilizers ... Best mix Nuclear, Natural Gas, Solar rooftop ... Hydro in the right Geo area ( and plenty of water )

[@Lecramo2012]

She claims, that nuclear energy is cool, but in her whole talk the only argument she gives over and over is "Nuclear power is better than fossile fuels". In my eyes she sweeps the problems of Nuclear power under the table

[@rezajamehbozorg515]

She didn't answer this question that is it accessible for every country to provide nuclear feul

[@svtismyhome6051]

brief but informative thank you for giving me a different perception for Nuclear Power

[@lawrencejorgensen2914]

I don't disagree that nuclear can fill a role in the future electric grid. However getting nuclear plants up and running takes decades, whereas we only have years to plan, begin, and finish the largest energy transformation in human history. Just look at Finland, a country with both high GDP/capita and good history/knowledge of nuclear. Their plant is still delayed, almost 20 years after preparations begun. Wind and Solar can be gotten off ground so much faster, and right now we need speed.

[@Beatriz-tb5gk]

Por favor se aliado mío y ayudame a denunciar a los drones que me acosan y me torturan con lesa humanidad y jamás Cristina Fernández de Kirchner hizo nada y me conoce perfectamente. Cómo en 12 años no fue capaz de preocuparse por el daño FÍSICO y PSICÓLOGICO que no tiene PRECEDENTES. Gracias

[@nathanngumi8467]

Wow! The use of avatars and memes for education is very innovative! Nuclear energy is the world's best hope yet for a clean future.

[@oluwaliblue8684]

Nuclear. Meltdowns. Pollution. Drought

[@sagesaner6818]

People were and are afraid of 3-mile Island and Chernobyl accidents happening but technology as advanced much since then. Nuclear is the future.

[@garrywallace1007]

The nuclear power plants, in the middle of a war zone in Ukraine look really safe.....

[@winosharon6987]

The shirt clips of messages are just diabolical

[@robfer5370]

One small thing, please stop referring to the by-product produced by nuclear power as "waste" when it is actually spent nuclear fuel and is still largely unused ( around 93% ) and is able to be made into new nuclear fuel for the reactor. Actual nuclear waste from a power plant once all the fuel has been used in a reactor, only makes up a very small amount from what was burned up inside and turned into energy. 👍