Debunking the biggest myth about nuclear energy | Jenifer Shafer | TEDxMileHigh

[@jadenspires1891]

This is one of the best speeches about nuclear energy I have ever heard, we need more people like this woman!!!!!!!

[@李华-l2x]

The speaker does a great job of explaining how nuclear waste can be recycled and reused, but it seems to be misleading to label it as not "waste". The remaining isotopes that are not recycled due to cost still contain low levels of contamination and will need to be disposed of properly. The public is afraid of contamination. Even if the waste has low levels of radiation be emitted from the material, the public will not be convinced.

[@harrisrubinroit2863]

Great discussion on the biggest myths about nuclear energy. MUST WATCH if you’re interested in learning more about the Energy Transition.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

It's an energy *_addition,_* not "transition". The world will continue *_adding:_* Fossil-fuels Hydro Uranium

[@marid1580]

Very informative talk about the miracles of nuclear energy. Even this non-scientific nerd was able to understand the process. Thanks

[@Peaceforall1892-x5z]

Solar wind and battery can be built for millions and take years to finish, Nuclear Power takes billions of dollars and requires decades. Then the nuclear plant will run around 30 years (which is typical) and you have a high level spent fuel problem that needs to be buried for 10,000 years. However, the DOE hasn't approved transport routes, transport casks, or a national repository after 60 years of trying. No one is willing to expend the political capital to get this done. The result is we have 92 nuclear power stations with high level spent fuel "temporarily" stored in their backyards. Nuclear safe? Let's see Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island these were not safe.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

"Along with [wind-and-solar], nuclear energy will play a crucial role in our sustainable energy future." No, wind-and-solar will never play *_any_* role. This is because wind-and-solar are *_infinitely-expensive,_* on a sustained basis.

[@zen1647]

So wrong.

[@andrewjoy7044]

If your premise were true, why is it that in 2023 the world added about 520 GW of renewables to electrical generation compared to 1 GW of nuclear (7 GW of new nuclear commissioned, 6 GW of old nuclear decommissioned). Nuclear is simply too expensive and takes too long to build. Even China has slowed doen ints nuclear construction program in favour of renewables.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@andrewjoy7044 The world is able to add wind-and-solar infrastructure, because it has the fossil, hydro, and uranium fuels needed to create and support wind-and-solar infrastructure. Regardless of how much wind-and-solar infrastructure is added, wind-and-solar will never contribute positively to meeting the world's power-service needs.

[@andrewjoy7044]

​@@aliendroneservices6621Right now 30% of worldwide electrical generation is from renewables and 9.1% from nuclear. In 2015 nuclear was at 10.6% Australia wide mining companies and large smelters are spending billions to electrify their operations to save many more billions they spend on fossil fuels. These are facts go look them up.