I wonder whatever happened to the idea of suspending giant mylar film mirrors in low earth orbit so that they reflect sunlight down onto cities during the night? The idea was to eliminate the need for electric street lights. In any event it's obvious that to replace fossil fuels we'll need to develop and exploit every technology we can dream up.
The trouble is, though, that you can never get something for nothing, so even RE has its environmental impacts.
I am OK with nuclear power except for one thing, the waste they produce. A while back I have learned that 90% of the spent fuel rods is potential energy that would go to waste. If they could find a way to use that 90% of wasted energy I would be more supportive.
Seems to me that one problem that you mention could be resolved simply by passing better regulations of uranium mining in western countries. Regarding another point you mention: insurance companies won't cover nuclear plants because of the *law*, not because of economics. Change the law, and the realities of insurance change with it. I don't know why the law is that way, though. Third, with more modern plants, nuclear fuel can be recycled to an extent and reused, reducing the storage problem.
Nuclear power is basically a perfect and wonderful idea... but its implementation is far less than perfect. When that is solved, the world will be better off
Also, those that say that wind turbines are too noisy, that's only the case bacuase of the insistance of the 3 blade design; more blades at a shallowever angle would mean less noise, it's how submarines go so quiet.
George Monbiot, who seems to do some propper thorough research, has said that coal going right kills more people all the time than nuclear has ever done going wrong. Also in regards to spent fuel rods, there's now enough (even factoring in the cost to do the reprocessing) to fuel other reactors of ages.
New Scientisthad a great article on this (issue no2805) where they explain the faults with most present reactors such as the fukushima reactor, which are based on military designs, as well as giving possible alternatives and also interestingly enough safety statistics relative to other power sources, per unit electricity produced (Nuclear power is firmly at the bottom of the table). I advice anyone interested in this topic to check it out.
<3 i love your mature way of leaving but you did leave us behind. now thats dodgy.
love the rest of the video. just a guess but the Japanese scientist are mainly working to protect Japan and that its the rest of the world that is sitting around coming up with some really crazy ideas.
western countries needs to learn how not to be so involved with every other countries' policy b/c its just bloody wrong to be sticking the nose into other people's business.
I am pro nuclear power but not Fission power it is stupid expensive and environmentally catastrophic, rather than spending more and more on nuclear power plants all that money should be funneled into fusion power the ultimate clean energy.Fusion not Fission Dummies!
I reckon that the fusion process recently announced by an Italian team of scientists could really change the way we get our power. Nickel's a lot cheaper than uranium, I'm guessing if it does get off the ground there'll be a shortage of small change.
I did a calculation the other day, the UK could potentially generate up to 26 TW-h of energy from tidal. Factoring in efficiency it could supply up to 40% of our nation with electricity. It's probably our most abundant renewable energy source in the UK. Countries like Iceland use theirs (Geothermal)
Expensive though to be sure. I guess energy has to be profitable too. France pours lots of money into the ITER tokamak. I think the future of energy lies here, they'll make their money back easily
@genericmember1 Actually typing that thought "I find it hard to believe that we aren't already investing in tidal given the figures". Did a quick Google, we're by far and away the world's largest investor in tidal energy.
I don't think nuclear itself is bad, just the greedy people in charge who don't care what happens to the public. we need to pressure the governments to hold the industry resonsible for their negligence and incompetence. sorry if someone has mentioned this already
I don't have much faith in the human ability to control nuclear power. To quote a character from a certain sci-fi comedy show: "Humans can't even invent a toupee that doesn't get big laughs."
any room on that fence Bob, you have it just right. one small point i'd like to put though. i'm from Ireland and we have no nuke power (I'm aware we do import power from the UK some of which has to have been produced from NP, different arguement) . there was a growing lobby of nuclear proponents here but the fukeshimma (i know it's not spelt right) disaster seems to have knocked the wind out of their sails, the disaster has proved that no power station is 100% safe. more R&D needed on NP
You made some valid points. I am hoping that some of the startup cost, come down on renewable sources of energy in the next few years. Money Makes My Mind MMMMM, here is an opportunity for someone. Not doing much on it in the US and we need to wake up and look at the electric bill.
Glad to hear you discriminate between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. They're very different things. This tendency to lump them together has certain effects we don't always anticipate. For example, NASA will shortly no longer be able to power spacecraft to the outer Solar System (where it's very cold and dark, so solar panels aren't effective) because they cannot obtain the extremely safe nuclear fuel to generate electricity.
@gyrrep How about Magnox reactors? The first nuclear power plants were designed to produce weapons grade plutonium, electricity was just a byproduct. Most of these stayed active well into the 1990s, some into the 2000s. If nuclear fuels are 'safe' how come you can't stop the reaction cleanly and quickly? They will fire off neutrons until they finally decay, which can be centuries or even millennia.
Additionally NASA are looking into the use of the infrared spectrum to generate electricity.
@geffel Oh hells yes. Thorium's cheaper, more plentiful, less dangerous, leaves behind less waste and doesn't leave behind anything you could possibly use to build a nuclear bomb. Why aren't we putting a lot of research effort into Thorium reactors?
Well said, Sir! I think you just about summed up my views on it, though I am more leaning against the fence on the pro-nuclear side. I especially agree with the sentiment that when you have so many massive corporations backing something, it's hard to stop a gut 'dislike' reaction...
This is more of a 'distant future' suggestion, but as I recall Britain already conducted a successful test of a Fusion Reactor. The scientist who conducted the test said it would take a lot of money to get the technology right (though possible not much more than building another Nuclear (Fission) Reactor by the sounds of it. More to the point, it's safe, can use seawater (extracting lithium) for fuel, and produces no waste. I'm a bit curious why this isn't something that is being invested in?
@greyareaRK1 - It IS being invested in, but possibly not as much as it should be. It is still a long way off to achieve sustained function, I believe.
This video has given me an idea. If power stations rely on the turning of large turbines, maybe another source of renewable energy could be Gyms. For example, a 24 hour gym with 5 - 10 treadmills, 5 - 10 exercise bikes, 4 or 5 rowing machines, etc. Couldn't the energy generated there be somehow used to power the turbines? Plus as an incentive to get people to go to these gyms they could offer energy discounts based on the amount of time that person spent in the gym.
@NeonChimpAustralia - :O I had this idea about 3 years ago! I've been meaning to make it happen ever since... You don't need to power the turbines, however, as the turbines just convert the energy from the steam into rotational energy to drive a big alternator. You can just stick the alternator straight onto the gym equipment. In theory, of course :P
~ 10min mark (on how nuclear is comparatively very expensive for a very long time), I would have liked to know about how the power output of nuclear plants compares to the output of renewable plants as this could offset or go some way to justify costs. I guess that also leads to reliability/availability (eg. nuclear being a constant source while wind turbines & solar fluctuate with the weather conditions).
Geothermal is making strides in a suburb of Syracuse. Dunno how "zoning" here would be, though. Yes, you own the land, but it's a "bitch" to get "mineral rights" !!!!
Gotta keep National Grid happy !!!
Ever been near the wind machines??? They are NOISY AS HELL !!!!There's a Windfarm near Canastoda, and you can hear it easily in town...:(
This goes out to everyone, just a thought I;ve had buzzing round my head, but it appears to me we have several ways of making renewable energy right on our door steps. Lamposts. My idea, which may not work in all areas, and certainly not at all times, but if we stuck at least small wind turbines on the top of them, and put solar panels in places that can catch both sunlight and reclaim some of the lamps light energy (if poss) to charge up the batteries for the lamposts.
Here's a thought about decomissioning Nuclear Power Stations, how about building them so that when it is time to decomission it, the site itself basically a sealed lead lined tomb that is filled up with concreate to prevent any further leaks? Simplestic I know, and not exactly informed in any way, but I'm assuming they have some way of safely storing used rods and containing radiation leaks.
I would definitely consider myself pro-nuclear (I think it comes with the physicists job description!) but thinking the entire world can be powered from nuclear, or that nuclear can replace all renewables is just ignorant, we definitely need a balance between the two. Ideally (albeit expensive) I'd like to see all old reactors such as the fukushima's boiling water reactors decommissioned and replaced with FAR safer modern designs. We need nuclear power, but we need it to be as safe as possible
Almost forgot, incidentally the by-product of the materials needed for the magnets in wind turbines and the materials needed for thin film solar panels is radioactive. Currently that radioactive sludge is being stored in giant, open artificial lakes in China.
If you're advocating wind/solar then you should really look into rare earths extraction, at least you'll get a new definition of "hellscape".
You mention the problem of digging up uranium, but what about the problem of digging up coal to make photovoltaics? What about the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel you'd need to dig up/melt to replace just a single nuclear power station with wind(and you'd still need natural gas for when the wind wasn't blowing)?
And no one in the nuclear community is saying that anything is safe, just that fission is demonstrably safer than spewing millions of tons of toxic sludge into the atmosphere
@barackorama69 the problem I see with that arguement is that whatever way you mine and transport whatever the fuel is, coal, oil, uranium, the mining and transport will all use petrol or diseal powered vechiles. AND you still have to manufacture something to use those fuels. Then theres mantaince which is ongoing. With a wind turbine you've got manufacturing costs and transporting it to a location, those are one off costs, with only maintaince as an ongoing as far as I can see.
I love science.Energy is the most important thing on the planet.I am very happy to take my place next to you on the fence.I admit that there is no way we could get all,even most,of our energy from nuclear fission (how we get our energy from nuclear power).Unless we do the next step which is nuclear fussion.Which scientists are working very hard on to try and do.But the energy required is so large,it takes the death of a star.Our star only fuses Hydrogen into helium.That is how hard their task is
Another point. Bionerd23 said that the anti nuclear people in Germany (she's German) are stupid because they don't realize a couple of things. A plant disaster in Germany 600 miles from their house could be just as dangerous to them as a disaster 600 miles away in Spain. Point 2 being that if they ban nuclear plants in Germany, they'll simply buy nuclear electricity from neighbouring countries in Europe... like Spain!
@drtyrell969 I don't know, probably clever to not get into geothermal while talking about a giant earthquake. You know, since geothermal can facilitate earthquakes.
There was that Welsh slag heap that collapsed and crushed a school... but nope - can't remember the name. Is there any reason apart from productivity why they can't build 50 tiny reactors instead of one big one? Then disasters would be small and easy to isolate.
@IAmNotKira much like when photovoltaics were discovered over 150 years ago and are about to become cost competitive with coal any day now. Same as with wind really, except wind is even more ancient tech. Some day the greens are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that we can't run a modern economy on wind/solar.
@barackorama69 I don't think anyone thinks a modern economy can be just run on wind and solar. There are other options like geothermal and tidal but i'm no energy expert.
Lot of sense talked there. Agree both pro & anti lobbies are telling untruths for own ends also we must expand solar, tidal & wave power now. Decommissioning nuclear will cost next generations billions
I personally believe that we should invest in Fusion research. The amount spent on this potenitally superb, clean source has been laughable and it has some serious potential, from what I can tell.
According to a 2005 Survey by the Department for Transport - over one-fifth of trips less than a mile are made by car. The same government department statistics also reveal that over half of all car journeys are under 2 miles. These are quite staggering examples of wasted fossil-fuel energy, and one wonders what would happen to the general price of fuel if these car journeys were eliminated altogether.
What I really like about you (apart from the fact you're Kryten, obv) is that you REALLY care. You're not like these people who talk about these things for the sake of it, or 'cos it's fashionable. You actually CARE. Hence much of your passion! I also love how you're properly open-minded and balanced. Consider things fairly and properly. I'm all for harnessing natural kinetic energy. Wind turbines, water, solar etc. All the clean, usable things we can.
@LittleNerd PS Meant to say, re. fox hunting that, as you say, it's probably not really about catching the fox etc, which is why fox-less drag hunts are a brilliant thing. The hunters & dogs can have just as much fun, without the risk of actually tearing a lovely, living, sentient being apart. An excellent compromise - everyone's a winner :O)
I missed these rants. I disagreed several times, before being convinced several times. One thing i would like to point out though. you cant run the entire country on renewable energy, you just cant. There are laws that govern how reliable the power supply to your home/industry is. Nuclear power plant may only be operational 50% of the time, but we choose when that 50% is. The grid has to be able to support the country without renewable in-case the sun goes in, even if the facility isn't used. :P
@qpoon I'm not talking about wind or solar only, I see the big areas for development being tidal turbine (24 hours a day, tides don't stop) and Geo-thermal. There are already massive tidal turbines installed in the Scottish Highlands, we have so much tidal force around the British Isles, the best in the world, hence being in a unique position. Plus we have the skill to stick big things in the sea set thanks to North Sea Oil installation experience
You asked about disasters in the coal industry? Yes - Aberfan, which killed 116 adults and 28 children. Or Senghennydd which killed 439. Anyone in Wales should know that name and it's a great shame if the rest of Britain is not taught about it.
Of course many hundreds more (and thousands worldwide) have died in coal-mining accidents, including some of my ancestors.
Lots of farmers in Wales were severely affected by Chernobyl too, but at least none of them died. Like you, I'm on the fence.
I like the two reasons why we have nuclear power in the first place, Magnox reactors were designed initially to produce weapons grade plutonium and then there was the 'waste' energy that could be used to generate electricity. And why did Britain go nuclear? Because we were dependant on coal and coal miners were heavily protected by unions so then... sod the miners the Government thought we'll produce our electricity by nuclear. So electricity for the people and stuff for going BOOM!!!
@Pukkatronic With a lot of effort and investment the whole world can live off sustainable and non greenhouse gas emitting energy with existing technology. If you're really interested I recommend the book "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" by David Mackay.
There was an interesting report produced by Peter D. Schwartzman & David W. Schwartzman of the Institute For Policy Research and Development recently, concerning the potential of a solar transition. I think it is rather optimistic, because a lot of Western energy-patterns are excessive, but I do think the report offers compelling arguments that solar can safeguard energy security for at least the essential sectors.
I like your video though, you have put some thought in this with regard to arguments from both sides. However, I do suggest that you have a look at the potential of deep-geothermal as a possible solution, as well as biomethane.
@PersianPaladin I was thinking deep geo-thermal as I was talking, maybe you were picking up on it. Incredibly important technology, as are tidal turbines. Hopefully going to see one this year, amazing things, massive, 10 times power output of wind and run 24/7 (with short break as tide turns)
@bobbyllew A friend of mine was involved in the wave power station project that, if you remember, sank as it was being towed out to sea. He wrote a large amount of the software running it. I had no idea it was possible to hate tug drivers as much as he did after that.
There is not enough uranium to sustain any increase in nuclear power in the world. I think that is more of an issue than the other arguments for, or against. Readers should google "A critical review of the Conservative Party "Low Carbon Economy", The piece is written by myself. It is rather long, but feel free to search for the word "nuclear". Regards, Hoz.
Also regarding the costs. While a single power plant is extremely expensive to build, it also produces extreme amounts of energy. It also produces electricity continously, which is why you can't simply replace it with solar or wind power which only produce power for a fraction of the time.
This does not mean, however, that solar and wind should not be used. You just can't use it as a base for your power supply.
@silverstream314 I can see I will have to do another fence show about renewable energy and the endless conviction that 'it simply doesn't work.' Wind and solar will only ever make up small %-age, deep geo-thermal and tidal turbines will run all the time, tides don't stop and if the core of the earth cools we're all stuffed anyway. There are many many different types of renewable, far more energy than we could ever realistically consume. We do not HAVE to burn stuff.
@bobbyllew Well, I certainly agree that renewable energy sources are not fundamentally incapable of producing the power we need, especially when a combination of them are used. Of course it works in the sense that it delivers power, and it has the capacity to produce large amounts of energy.
That being said, you need some form of base power in addition to certain renewable sources such as wind and solar. Nuclear power is very well suited for this, but renewable sources such as hydro also works.
@bobbyllew Also, I am not saying that because some renewable sources are unable to deliver power constantly it means that they are inherently bad or not worthwhile. Of course they should be developed and used as well. It seems tremendously daft to put all your money on one contender. A wide variety of sources will a) take advantage of local conditions and b) spread our dependencies on certain resources and thus our potential weaknesses as far apart as possible.
I think you kept the video quite ballanced, which is nice to see in this topic. Being an engineer specialized in subatomic physics myself, I am definitely on the pro side of the fence. Reactors from generation IV have the potential to greatly reduce the problems the current reactors have with long term storage of the waste, but they are still 20-30 years in the future.
However, I think that moving forward we should obviously move towards energy sources with sources less limited than uranium.
It seems in this age of group and anti-group, interest and anti-interest, with large amounts of money often flowing on both sides, the truth is getting lost. The truth doesn't seem to matter anymore - the only thing that seems to matter is getting people to side with one or the other, be it through advertising, propaganda, misinformation or scaremongering.
This being the case, I'd suggest the fence is probably the best place to be.
To be fare no the guys who are against nuclear power, it is a high risk that people who have been exposed to it may not have any effects till years later so it is possible that people have been harmed by it it just a case of its not been noticed yet. Also there not stupid Greene's just people who have an opinion and stand by what they think is right.
Well said! Although I want to make one main criticism of how you worded the "Safety" aspect of nuclear power. From what I understand, nuclear power is safe when all the correct safety measures of modern technology are in place. You are indeed correct in saying nothing can be 100% safe, but I think it should be noted that more often than not they are safe enough, save for very rare huge disasters. So for the short term, nuclear power seems like a good idea to me.
It will cost £2.25 billion and last for 55 years. So if spending the same amount of money for the same length of time on each, you could get 14 times more power from nuclear than wind. This does not account for maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear, but this is only a small fraction of the overall cost.
@ustickx Here's the problem. You state costs as if they are concrete facts, which we all know they are not. It might start at £2.25 billion, but that will rise, especially now in a post Fukushima world. Also all the reading I've done states lifespan 30 years, decommissioning cost around 50 million. That doesn't of course include cost of fuel waste storage costs. Nuclear power is very, very expensive with huge hidden costs. Not saying it's wrong, bad, evil or even stupid, but it's not 'Cheap.'
@bobbyllew Of course costs are not concrete, they never are with major engineering projects, and cost overruns with nuclear are likely to be far worse than wind, but if you factor this into my calculation then nuclear is still substantially cheaper than wind. I'm afraid the '30 year life' is quite majorly wrong for nuclear power, as 1st generation reactors are still working 40-44 years after startup, & we're now onto developments from 3rd generation reactors, specifically designed for long life.
@ustickx I'm not sure, but I think wind turbines are more easily recycled when their lifespan is up, ie. they still have value beyond their "useful" lifetime. I also wonder what is done with them after their declared lifespan is over, I would expect (if someone with sense is deciding) that any expired windmill would just get an overhaul, and have any kind of permission to operate renewed.
@ninjabob2456 I imagine to an extent they can be renewed, but it's not something that's really been done yet particularly as most turbines are still fairly young. From what I've heard they'll probably upgrade turbines for much bigger capacity rather than replacing the old models.
Correction: One nuclear plant does not cost “several hundred billion pounds” (not even by using the British billion rather than the American billion). Little nuclear vs. wind comparison: Thanet in Kent, the biggest offshore wind farm in the world has a maximum power of 300MW but only works 30% of the time. It costs £0.9 billion and will last for 25 years. The new European Pressurized Reactor (the one the UK will use) has a maximum power of 1600MW and works 90% of the time.
@ustickx I have to call you out on this. The 90% operation figure for new nuclear is very hotly disputed, as is the 30% for wind turbines. I believe neither figure. Very reliable sources for the nuclear industry, (I have in laws in the industry) say a realistic figure, when maintenance timetables are factored in is nearer 55%, and wind is in the mid 40's when aggregated annually. However, all these figures are as reliable as the ones you've given. i.e. not very.
@bobbyllew Fair enough, I'll reconsider the 90% figure. The nuclear capacity in the UK has varied between 70 and 80% for a while now, and the new reactors being built are anticipated to work at above 90% due to improvements. This is not unreasonable, as the current fleet of 10 reactors were designed on average 40-50 years ago and it's well known that capacity will decrease slightly with life. So if we're building a load of new plants, we can expect efficiency to jump quite a lot.
@bobbyllew With regards to wind, from figures I've seen for the UK between 1998 and 2006 a capacity of 28% seems to be right on the money. This may have increased slightly the last few years, but mid-40s seems an unlikely jump to me,especially as all the current wind turbines were built so recently. I like to try to keep my figures fairly accurate, what with being a final year engineering undergraduate hoping to get a job designing either wind turbines or nuclear power plants for a living.
Surely the pro-nuclear lobby have a lot of money to make from spreading their information, whereas the anti-nuclear lobby are speaking from a position of fear, if anything bad at all, or are just sceptical of the pro-nuclear propaganda? If you're going to actively distrust one of them, it should be the pro lobby.
I'm glad you have taken a reasoned approach to fox hunting, but i still think you need to take back some of the shockingly ignorant points you made about firearms. You actually made out that all firearms owners were sexually repressed killers.
Nuclear Power could be a lot safer if the use Thorium instead of Uranium. There's an article about it in this weeks new scientist. The article will be available online next week.
bob i just wondered if you are aware of the recent advancements in nano ink thin film solar technology? these new systems are as cheap as £1 per watt and don't suffer from low light issues and are even smaller than existing heavy silicon slab systems. this technology will hit mainstream some time next year and will totally change everything. house fitted systems will pay for themselves in a matter of a year or two vs the 20 years of existing systems. google nanosolar and read the iso testing. :)
Marvellous speech! I just recently had some discussions with friends of mine on Facebook about several of the same points you make here (in much better words too, damn you! ^^). Especially here in Germany (it seems to me) the media focussed on the nuclear accident from day one which seems quite tasteless to me given the destruction and death caused by the tsunami was still going on... :-/
Nothing wrong with the fence - it's a good place to be.
Something that should also be considered on the nuclear front is fusion technology which 'could' come about in the next few decades. Unfortunately it's got the "n" word attached.
Coming from the pro-side (physicist) I'm incredibly dismayed by the general ignorance surrounding all things radiation based - a lot of feaer. But I'm also heavily in support of renewables (because nuclear ain't). So I think I've got one leg over the fence atm.
@Widgetas I think you're doing that position a disservice by calling it 'on/over/under the fence'! Personally I think that a combination of both nuclear and renewable power is the most sustainable solution to UK energy needs. As for fusion, that's been promised since the 50s, and it'll be interesting to see how the ITER research goes, but I can't see it being used commercially for another 30 years.
@ustickx Keep the faith! It's not the only avenue being explored :)
Yay for the fence astride. I don't think it's a problem and I think that most people are doing it. I'd be interested to know who the people are with their heads buried on the pro-Nuc side are. It's not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination.
From the pro-nuclear side, so unsurprisingly don't agree with everything, but a welcome pragmatic viewpoint.
One thing, when talking about 'we' paying for treatment of legacy nuclear wastes, decommissioning etc. Whether it is those nuclear costs, renewable subsidies or the damage caused by centuries of emissions from fossil fuels ultimately 'we' will always pay, whether as tax payers or as consumers. Companies don't pay for things, their customers do.
The Chernobyl incident happened due to a poorly-planned experiment, some sort of safety setting was turned off for too long. Hopefully nowadays they have installed some automatic overrides for when the walls begin to melt =s
I studied physics at A-level last year and learned that the decommissioning of the nuclear plants is indeed an expensive and wasteful part of the process, it would be far more efficient to simply replace the core, I don't know why they don't at this point.
I must admit, given my great interest in science and physics in general, I am Pro. You do make alot of very reasonable points, but I'm going to keep my foot in the Pro camp. We need to get Fusion power licked. Then we can use hydrogen (freely avaliable in water) to power huge amounts of power without the radioactive leftovers in the same was that Fission power does.
However, I do agree renewable sources would make a good additional to a primarily nuclear (preferably Fusion based) infrastructure.
Great video, lots of good points. I too am sitting on the fence with regards to Nuclear. I'm no expert but it would seem to me that brand new Nuclear power stations are probably a lot safer than Fukushima. Sad and tragic as it is; we often learn a lot from such disasters.
If every single house in Australia had solar panels on their roof, 90% of the household power needs would be solved. It should be the default for all new homes. But it's not.
This is the land of sunshine, the easiest resource to find, and we're not taking advantage of it. I am disappointed indeed.
I lived within a five miles of two nuclear power stations for 20 years (Heysham 1 and 2). The climate of safety within the stations is very impressive. On the reactor itself they even have big yellow letters painted on the concrete saying "DO NOT DRILL IN THIS WALL". :D
I am actually hoping to visit a coal power plant in Ames, Iowa on Wednesday and it should be nice to compare the two. :)
Ah a stile is a means of passing over or through a fence, a wall, or a hedge - so by definition is not part of 'a fence' but part of a boundary.... - perhaps the teleporting dog used the time stile to jump in space.
Excellent video Bobby. I´ve been camping on the fence on this for years. The knee-jerk media and public reaction really annoys me because it is devoid of anything resembling a thoughtful analysis. There is no magic bullet for our energy needs; a patchwork of "okay" solutions is what we need and maybe nuclear has its place.
Thorium-based reactors deserve a much closer look. It´s safer, it´s more abundant, the fission products are less nasty and it´s been done successfully!
nuclear fusion would be the answer if / when they can do it without costing more power then it creates
trunksss5 6 months ago
Mysterious cat ghost alert.....bobbyllews editing can be hilarious!
favouritebrit1 7 months ago
I wonder whatever happened to the idea of suspending giant mylar film mirrors in low earth orbit so that they reflect sunlight down onto cities during the night? The idea was to eliminate the need for electric street lights. In any event it's obvious that to replace fossil fuels we'll need to develop and exploit every technology we can dream up.
The trouble is, though, that you can never get something for nothing, so even RE has its environmental impacts.
ArtemiaSalina 8 months ago
And Germany want to get rid of their nuclear power stations. Would be interesting to see you gloss over this populist idea next time. ;)
94070 9 months ago
0.45 bottom left corner.... A glitch in the matrix :s hehe
madhammy2000 10 months ago
I am OK with nuclear power except for one thing, the waste they produce. A while back I have learned that 90% of the spent fuel rods is potential energy that would go to waste. If they could find a way to use that 90% of wasted energy I would be more supportive.
jamesffxl 10 months ago
can i say how nice it is to hear a balanced opinion but can i just say i work in nuclear power and we get our fuel from Canada
GGSwilliejones 10 months ago
Have you noticed a disappearing dog in 00:47?
mho69 10 months ago
@mho69 The dog reappears to Robert's right hand side in the distance at 00:52 - obviously a wormhole in the fabric of time.
SueMoseley 10 months ago
It was a white hole.
Betalgeuse 10 months ago
@Betalgeuse So there are two dogs then! Nothing can go into a white hole, only out. I wonder if Robert noticed he went home with a different dog.
SueMoseley 10 months ago
@SueMoseley I've never seen one before, no-one has, but I'm guessing it's a white hole.
Betalgeuse 10 months ago
Seems to me that one problem that you mention could be resolved simply by passing better regulations of uranium mining in western countries. Regarding another point you mention: insurance companies won't cover nuclear plants because of the *law*, not because of economics. Change the law, and the realities of insurance change with it. I don't know why the law is that way, though. Third, with more modern plants, nuclear fuel can be recycled to an extent and reused, reducing the storage problem.
LordZentei 11 months ago
Wait a tick bobby, those giant companies pay far and away more in taxes than you and I ever will. So yes, they too are paying for decommissioning.
circutracer150 11 months ago
Nuclear power is basically a perfect and wonderful idea... but its implementation is far less than perfect. When that is solved, the world will be better off
circutracer150 11 months ago
Splendid watch.
zboy303 11 months ago
I know thare are about 150 very intelligent comments on here with balance and well thought out views, but... That fence looks really uncomfortable.
DIGIxPUNKx1996 11 months ago
Very good points there. I agree with you. Renewable energy should be used more along nuclear power and nuclear waste should be taken care more.
MrBrander 11 months ago
Also, those that say that wind turbines are too noisy, that's only the case bacuase of the insistance of the 3 blade design; more blades at a shallowever angle would mean less noise, it's how submarines go so quiet.
TheKlink 11 months ago
George Monbiot, who seems to do some propper thorough research, has said that coal going right kills more people all the time than nuclear has ever done going wrong. Also in regards to spent fuel rods, there's now enough (even factoring in the cost to do the reprocessing) to fuel other reactors of ages.
TheKlink 11 months ago
New Scientisthad a great article on this (issue no2805) where they explain the faults with most present reactors such as the fukushima reactor, which are based on military designs, as well as giving possible alternatives and also interestingly enough safety statistics relative to other power sources, per unit electricity produced (Nuclear power is firmly at the bottom of the table). I advice anyone interested in this topic to check it out.
adam15curly 11 months ago
Cheers, Bobby.
Volterator 11 months ago
Stolen from TBBT...
Sheldon: A neutron walks into a bar and asks, "How much for a drink?" The bartender says, "For you? No charge."
Just to lighten the mood...
IpcressAgent 11 months ago
<3 i love your mature way of leaving but you did leave us behind. now thats dodgy.
love the rest of the video. just a guess but the Japanese scientist are mainly working to protect Japan and that its the rest of the world that is sitting around coming up with some really crazy ideas.
western countries needs to learn how not to be so involved with every other countries' policy b/c its just bloody wrong to be sticking the nose into other people's business.
dragade101 11 months ago
I am pro nuclear power but not Fission power it is stupid expensive and environmentally catastrophic, rather than spending more and more on nuclear power plants all that money should be funneled into fusion power the ultimate clean energy.Fusion not Fission Dummies!
emerice 11 months ago
Funny and informative as always R.L..
Have you ever thought of teaching?
You are interesting, intelligent, charming, funny and seem to offend a very small number of people (if any).
Maybe you could try a renewable energy course at a local college/university on a part time basis.
BTW - I loved that you actually were sitting on a fence. Funny stuff.
McRocket 11 months ago
Nicely put... As usual.
I reckon that the fusion process recently announced by an Italian team of scientists could really change the way we get our power. Nickel's a lot cheaper than uranium, I'm guessing if it does get off the ground there'll be a shortage of small change.
TheSameDonkey 11 months ago
I did a calculation the other day, the UK could potentially generate up to 26 TW-h of energy from tidal. Factoring in efficiency it could supply up to 40% of our nation with electricity. It's probably our most abundant renewable energy source in the UK. Countries like Iceland use theirs (Geothermal)
Expensive though to be sure. I guess energy has to be profitable too. France pours lots of money into the ITER tokamak. I think the future of energy lies here, they'll make their money back easily
genericmember1 11 months ago
@genericmember1 Actually typing that thought "I find it hard to believe that we aren't already investing in tidal given the figures". Did a quick Google, we're by far and away the world's largest investor in tidal energy.
genericmember1 11 months ago
00:44 Oh my word! A ghost dog!
genericmember1 11 months ago
I don't think nuclear itself is bad, just the greedy people in charge who don't care what happens to the public. we need to pressure the governments to hold the industry resonsible for their negligence and incompetence. sorry if someone has mentioned this already
TBman256 11 months ago
@bobbyllew ahhh tushay good point.
qpoon 11 months ago
I don't have much faith in the human ability to control nuclear power. To quote a character from a certain sci-fi comedy show: "Humans can't even invent a toupee that doesn't get big laughs."
ElveeKaye 11 months ago
any room on that fence Bob, you have it just right. one small point i'd like to put though. i'm from Ireland and we have no nuke power (I'm aware we do import power from the UK some of which has to have been produced from NP, different arguement) . there was a growing lobby of nuclear proponents here but the fukeshimma (i know it's not spelt right) disaster seems to have knocked the wind out of their sails, the disaster has proved that no power station is 100% safe. more R&D needed on NP
byrdale 11 months ago
Or...we could just find a use for Nuclear Waste. Maybe with a drizzle of olive oil it could be make a rather hearty meal.
russellgreeno 11 months ago
You made some valid points. I am hoping that some of the startup cost, come down on renewable sources of energy in the next few years. Money Makes My Mind MMMMM, here is an opportunity for someone. Not doing much on it in the US and we need to wake up and look at the electric bill.
I watch Carpool on YouTube in the US – Love it.
dbritcom 11 months ago
Glad to hear you discriminate between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. They're very different things. This tendency to lump them together has certain effects we don't always anticipate. For example, NASA will shortly no longer be able to power spacecraft to the outer Solar System (where it's very cold and dark, so solar panels aren't effective) because they cannot obtain the extremely safe nuclear fuel to generate electricity.
gyrrep 11 months ago
@gyrrep How about Magnox reactors? The first nuclear power plants were designed to produce weapons grade plutonium, electricity was just a byproduct. Most of these stayed active well into the 1990s, some into the 2000s. If nuclear fuels are 'safe' how come you can't stop the reaction cleanly and quickly? They will fire off neutrons until they finally decay, which can be centuries or even millennia.
Additionally NASA are looking into the use of the infrared spectrum to generate electricity.
IpcressAgent 11 months ago
Thorium FTW!
geffel 11 months ago
@geffel Oh hells yes. Thorium's cheaper, more plentiful, less dangerous, leaves behind less waste and doesn't leave behind anything you could possibly use to build a nuclear bomb. Why aren't we putting a lot of research effort into Thorium reactors?
PassiveSmoking 6 months ago
@PassiveSmoking
I think the answer is in your question...
geffel 6 months ago
Great ending to a great video
nani1962 11 months ago
Get ending to a great video
nani1962 11 months ago
Good rant, as always, Sir :-)
BrianJ1962 11 months ago
Well said, Sir! I think you just about summed up my views on it, though I am more leaning against the fence on the pro-nuclear side. I especially agree with the sentiment that when you have so many massive corporations backing something, it's hard to stop a gut 'dislike' reaction...
RohanTheTeaLover 11 months ago
I "was" thinking about putting solar panels on my house it's just that i have 2 problems.
1.) It's always cloudy where i live so i can't have polar panels
2.) Giant Mutant Magpies keep bloody stealing them!!!
TequilaCT 11 months ago
@TequilaCT - You'd be surprised how much energy you can get out of solar panels, even on cloudy days!
The magpies, however, are a major problem. I can only suggest a roof-mounted-automatic-turret-gun for that!
RohanTheTeaLover 11 months ago
GOD i miss Red Dwarf :-(
fetusmanifest 11 months ago
Obama said we in the US would have an apollo project for renewable energy. I guess he considers Libyan oil renewable or something.
Ne0mega 11 months ago
This is more of a 'distant future' suggestion, but as I recall Britain already conducted a successful test of a Fusion Reactor. The scientist who conducted the test said it would take a lot of money to get the technology right (though possible not much more than building another Nuclear (Fission) Reactor by the sounds of it. More to the point, it's safe, can use seawater (extracting lithium) for fuel, and produces no waste. I'm a bit curious why this isn't something that is being invested in?
greyareaRK1 11 months ago
@greyareaRK1 - It IS being invested in, but possibly not as much as it should be. It is still a long way off to achieve sustained function, I believe.
RohanTheTeaLover 11 months ago
@greyareaRK1 I'd say 15 billion euros counts as investment (wiki/ITER)
jeales895 11 months ago
First of all all countries should upgrade their power lines. Today's losses from transporting electricity are huge.
skinnyjohnsen 11 months ago
This video has given me an idea. If power stations rely on the turning of large turbines, maybe another source of renewable energy could be Gyms. For example, a 24 hour gym with 5 - 10 treadmills, 5 - 10 exercise bikes, 4 or 5 rowing machines, etc. Couldn't the energy generated there be somehow used to power the turbines? Plus as an incentive to get people to go to these gyms they could offer energy discounts based on the amount of time that person spent in the gym.
NeonChimpAustralia 11 months ago
@NeonChimpAustralia - :O I had this idea about 3 years ago! I've been meaning to make it happen ever since... You don't need to power the turbines, however, as the turbines just convert the energy from the steam into rotational energy to drive a big alternator. You can just stick the alternator straight onto the gym equipment. In theory, of course :P
RohanTheTeaLover 11 months ago
My first Wet Liberal. Not bad at all B.L!
~ 10min mark (on how nuclear is comparatively very expensive for a very long time), I would have liked to know about how the power output of nuclear plants compares to the output of renewable plants as this could offset or go some way to justify costs. I guess that also leads to reliability/availability (eg. nuclear being a constant source while wind turbines & solar fluctuate with the weather conditions).
Ta!
burg0110 11 months ago
Three mile island's anniversary is today....:(
Geothermal is making strides in a suburb of Syracuse. Dunno how "zoning" here would be, though. Yes, you own the land, but it's a "bitch" to get "mineral rights" !!!!
Gotta keep National Grid happy !!!
Ever been near the wind machines??? They are NOISY AS HELL !!!!There's a Windfarm near Canastoda, and you can hear it easily in town...:(
*hugs*
LadyM
Ladyinnocentus 11 months ago
@Ladyinnocentus Maybe they're doing it wrong - the wind turbines. I've been to one in Ontario, and it didn't make any discernible noise.
greyareaRK1 11 months ago
This goes out to everyone, just a thought I;ve had buzzing round my head, but it appears to me we have several ways of making renewable energy right on our door steps. Lamposts. My idea, which may not work in all areas, and certainly not at all times, but if we stuck at least small wind turbines on the top of them, and put solar panels in places that can catch both sunlight and reclaim some of the lamps light energy (if poss) to charge up the batteries for the lamposts.
TheEverTwistedOne 11 months ago
Here's a thought about decomissioning Nuclear Power Stations, how about building them so that when it is time to decomission it, the site itself basically a sealed lead lined tomb that is filled up with concreate to prevent any further leaks? Simplestic I know, and not exactly informed in any way, but I'm assuming they have some way of safely storing used rods and containing radiation leaks.
TheEverTwistedOne 11 months ago
Where the hell did that dog disappear to at 0:45.
RonBurgundy161 11 months ago
I would definitely consider myself pro-nuclear (I think it comes with the physicists job description!) but thinking the entire world can be powered from nuclear, or that nuclear can replace all renewables is just ignorant, we definitely need a balance between the two. Ideally (albeit expensive) I'd like to see all old reactors such as the fukushima's boiling water reactors decommissioned and replaced with FAR safer modern designs. We need nuclear power, but we need it to be as safe as possible
petieng 11 months ago
Almost forgot, incidentally the by-product of the materials needed for the magnets in wind turbines and the materials needed for thin film solar panels is radioactive. Currently that radioactive sludge is being stored in giant, open artificial lakes in China.
If you're advocating wind/solar then you should really look into rare earths extraction, at least you'll get a new definition of "hellscape".
barackorama69 11 months ago
You mention the problem of digging up uranium, but what about the problem of digging up coal to make photovoltaics? What about the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel you'd need to dig up/melt to replace just a single nuclear power station with wind(and you'd still need natural gas for when the wind wasn't blowing)?
And no one in the nuclear community is saying that anything is safe, just that fission is demonstrably safer than spewing millions of tons of toxic sludge into the atmosphere
barackorama69 11 months ago
@barackorama69 the problem I see with that arguement is that whatever way you mine and transport whatever the fuel is, coal, oil, uranium, the mining and transport will all use petrol or diseal powered vechiles. AND you still have to manufacture something to use those fuels. Then theres mantaince which is ongoing. With a wind turbine you've got manufacturing costs and transporting it to a location, those are one off costs, with only maintaince as an ongoing as far as I can see.
TheEverTwistedOne 11 months ago
Good to see somebody with balance in mind, FENCEPOWER!!!
pencil20000 11 months ago
I love science.Energy is the most important thing on the planet.I am very happy to take my place next to you on the fence.I admit that there is no way we could get all,even most,of our energy from nuclear fission (how we get our energy from nuclear power).Unless we do the next step which is nuclear fussion.Which scientists are working very hard on to try and do.But the energy required is so large,it takes the death of a star.Our star only fuses Hydrogen into helium.That is how hard their task is
peppers515 11 months ago
Another point. Bionerd23 said that the anti nuclear people in Germany (she's German) are stupid because they don't realize a couple of things. A plant disaster in Germany 600 miles from their house could be just as dangerous to them as a disaster 600 miles away in Spain. Point 2 being that if they ban nuclear plants in Germany, they'll simply buy nuclear electricity from neighbouring countries in Europe... like Spain!
McPrfctday 11 months ago
Yet another rant without so much as a mention of GEOTHERMAL, the real future of energy.
drtyrell969 11 months ago
@drtyrell969 I don't know, probably clever to not get into geothermal while talking about a giant earthquake. You know, since geothermal can facilitate earthquakes.
barackorama69 11 months ago
There was that Welsh slag heap that collapsed and crushed a school... but nope - can't remember the name. Is there any reason apart from productivity why they can't build 50 tiny reactors instead of one big one? Then disasters would be small and easy to isolate.
McPrfctday 11 months ago
Great video Robert. Thanks very much for your level-headed and balanced contribution to the debate.
ceedeeuk 11 months ago
Fusion is the holy grail of energy. Unfortunately it's about 30 years away. And is always 30 years away. Being very pessimistic here.
IAmNotKira 11 months ago
@IAmNotKira much like when photovoltaics were discovered over 150 years ago and are about to become cost competitive with coal any day now. Same as with wind really, except wind is even more ancient tech. Some day the greens are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that we can't run a modern economy on wind/solar.
barackorama69 11 months ago
@barackorama69 I don't think anyone thinks a modern economy can be just run on wind and solar. There are other options like geothermal and tidal but i'm no energy expert.
IAmNotKira 11 months ago
Lot of sense talked there. Agree both pro & anti lobbies are telling untruths for own ends also we must expand solar, tidal & wave power now. Decommissioning nuclear will cost next generations billions
upclosevideo 11 months ago
I personally believe that we should invest in Fusion research. The amount spent on this potenitally superb, clean source has been laughable and it has some serious potential, from what I can tell.
mrgodbehere 11 months ago
You make some very valid points Robert! And I love the little flying dance at the end =D
abyssunderground 11 months ago
I also think we could do with cutting waste too.
According to a 2005 Survey by the Department for Transport - over one-fifth of trips less than a mile are made by car. The same government department statistics also reveal that over half of all car journeys are under 2 miles. These are quite staggering examples of wasted fossil-fuel energy, and one wonders what would happen to the general price of fuel if these car journeys were eliminated altogether.
PersianPaladin 11 months ago
CREEPY DISAPPEARING DOG AT 0:45!
theoriginalshaun 11 months ago
It's pronouced (Major) Fuckupshima
TheMiriamFox 11 months ago
*and solar. That should've said. Sorry. Enjoyed the doggy too :O)
LittleNerd 11 months ago
What I really like about you (apart from the fact you're Kryten, obv) is that you REALLY care. You're not like these people who talk about these things for the sake of it, or 'cos it's fashionable. You actually CARE. Hence much of your passion! I also love how you're properly open-minded and balanced. Consider things fairly and properly. I'm all for harnessing natural kinetic energy. Wind turbines, water, solar etc. All the clean, usable things we can.
LittleNerd 11 months ago
@LittleNerd PS Meant to say, re. fox hunting that, as you say, it's probably not really about catching the fox etc, which is why fox-less drag hunts are a brilliant thing. The hunters & dogs can have just as much fun, without the risk of actually tearing a lovely, living, sentient being apart. An excellent compromise - everyone's a winner :O)
LittleNerd 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that cat just disappeared! :O omg 00:45
thewirrow 11 months ago
spooky the dog disappeared
mettez 11 months ago
Comment removed
thewirrow 11 months ago
I missed these rants. I disagreed several times, before being convinced several times. One thing i would like to point out though. you cant run the entire country on renewable energy, you just cant. There are laws that govern how reliable the power supply to your home/industry is. Nuclear power plant may only be operational 50% of the time, but we choose when that 50% is. The grid has to be able to support the country without renewable in-case the sun goes in, even if the facility isn't used. :P
qpoon 11 months ago
@qpoon I'm not talking about wind or solar only, I see the big areas for development being tidal turbine (24 hours a day, tides don't stop) and Geo-thermal. There are already massive tidal turbines installed in the Scottish Highlands, we have so much tidal force around the British Isles, the best in the world, hence being in a unique position. Plus we have the skill to stick big things in the sea set thanks to North Sea Oil installation experience
bobbyllew 11 months ago
You asked about disasters in the coal industry? Yes - Aberfan, which killed 116 adults and 28 children. Or Senghennydd which killed 439. Anyone in Wales should know that name and it's a great shame if the rest of Britain is not taught about it.
Of course many hundreds more (and thousands worldwide) have died in coal-mining accidents, including some of my ancestors.
Lots of farmers in Wales were severely affected by Chernobyl too, but at least none of them died. Like you, I'm on the fence.
dafyddt 11 months ago
wow a dissapearing dog 00:45
krabbers 11 months ago 25
@krabbers Someone is modifying the Matrix.
Spoonfoon 11 months ago
I like the two reasons why we have nuclear power in the first place, Magnox reactors were designed initially to produce weapons grade plutonium and then there was the 'waste' energy that could be used to generate electricity. And why did Britain go nuclear? Because we were dependant on coal and coal miners were heavily protected by unions so then... sod the miners the Government thought we'll produce our electricity by nuclear. So electricity for the people and stuff for going BOOM!!!
IpcressAgent 11 months ago
These long comments have made me want to sit on the fence even more now!
cooljack1995 11 months ago
Bobby has the perfect voice and body language for a nature show host. :)
TomMSTie1138 11 months ago
@Pukkatronic With a lot of effort and investment the whole world can live off sustainable and non greenhouse gas emitting energy with existing technology. If you're really interested I recommend the book "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" by David Mackay.
ninjabob2456 11 months ago
Always a good watch and some brilliant food for thought, well done Robert
AidanMatthewable 11 months ago
There was an interesting report produced by Peter D. Schwartzman & David W. Schwartzman of the Institute For Policy Research and Development recently, concerning the potential of a solar transition. I think it is rather optimistic, because a lot of Western energy-patterns are excessive, but I do think the report offers compelling arguments that solar can safeguard energy security for at least the essential sectors.
PersianPaladin 11 months ago
I like your video though, you have put some thought in this with regard to arguments from both sides. However, I do suggest that you have a look at the potential of deep-geothermal as a possible solution, as well as biomethane.
PersianPaladin 11 months ago
@PersianPaladin I was thinking deep geo-thermal as I was talking, maybe you were picking up on it. Incredibly important technology, as are tidal turbines. Hopefully going to see one this year, amazing things, massive, 10 times power output of wind and run 24/7 (with short break as tide turns)
bobbyllew 11 months ago 8
@bobbyllew A friend of mine was involved in the wave power station project that, if you remember, sank as it was being towed out to sea. He wrote a large amount of the software running it. I had no idea it was possible to hate tug drivers as much as he did after that.
jack0305 11 months ago
There is not enough uranium to sustain any increase in nuclear power in the world. I think that is more of an issue than the other arguments for, or against. Readers should google "A critical review of the Conservative Party "Low Carbon Economy", The piece is written by myself. It is rather long, but feel free to search for the word "nuclear". Regards, Hoz.
PersianPaladin 11 months ago
i think that we should use a combination of renewable and nuclear enegy.
P.S. go germany.
digging555 11 months ago
Also regarding the costs. While a single power plant is extremely expensive to build, it also produces extreme amounts of energy. It also produces electricity continously, which is why you can't simply replace it with solar or wind power which only produce power for a fraction of the time.
This does not mean, however, that solar and wind should not be used. You just can't use it as a base for your power supply.
silverstream314 11 months ago
@silverstream314 I can see I will have to do another fence show about renewable energy and the endless conviction that 'it simply doesn't work.' Wind and solar will only ever make up small %-age, deep geo-thermal and tidal turbines will run all the time, tides don't stop and if the core of the earth cools we're all stuffed anyway. There are many many different types of renewable, far more energy than we could ever realistically consume. We do not HAVE to burn stuff.
bobbyllew 11 months ago 4
@bobbyllew Well, I certainly agree that renewable energy sources are not fundamentally incapable of producing the power we need, especially when a combination of them are used. Of course it works in the sense that it delivers power, and it has the capacity to produce large amounts of energy.
That being said, you need some form of base power in addition to certain renewable sources such as wind and solar. Nuclear power is very well suited for this, but renewable sources such as hydro also works.
silverstream314 11 months ago
@bobbyllew Also, I am not saying that because some renewable sources are unable to deliver power constantly it means that they are inherently bad or not worthwhile. Of course they should be developed and used as well. It seems tremendously daft to put all your money on one contender. A wide variety of sources will a) take advantage of local conditions and b) spread our dependencies on certain resources and thus our potential weaknesses as far apart as possible.
silverstream314 11 months ago
I think you kept the video quite ballanced, which is nice to see in this topic. Being an engineer specialized in subatomic physics myself, I am definitely on the pro side of the fence. Reactors from generation IV have the potential to greatly reduce the problems the current reactors have with long term storage of the waste, but they are still 20-30 years in the future.
However, I think that moving forward we should obviously move towards energy sources with sources less limited than uranium.
silverstream314 11 months ago 3
@silverstream314 Thanks for your comment, I really appreciate that, and yes, the source of fuel should be a very major concern.
bobbyllew 11 months ago
It seems in this age of group and anti-group, interest and anti-interest, with large amounts of money often flowing on both sides, the truth is getting lost. The truth doesn't seem to matter anymore - the only thing that seems to matter is getting people to side with one or the other, be it through advertising, propaganda, misinformation or scaremongering.
This being the case, I'd suggest the fence is probably the best place to be.
mush01 11 months ago
Robert, I can alway agree with everything you say. I think you really have the right morals here! Run for prime minister, I'd vote!!
HBdude13 11 months ago
To be fare no the guys who are against nuclear power, it is a high risk that people who have been exposed to it may not have any effects till years later so it is possible that people have been harmed by it it just a case of its not been noticed yet. Also there not stupid Greene's just people who have an opinion and stand by what they think is right.
itmedjweelee 11 months ago
I like being on the fence. It's comfortable
TheHenryWallace 11 months ago
put all the nuclear waste in some brent spar type container and sink it off the coast of some far away country.... is kazakhstan landlocked?
fleetwoodsucks 11 months ago
Teleporting dog! Teleporting dog everybody! at 0:45.
oneworldfamily 11 months ago
Well said! Although I want to make one main criticism of how you worded the "Safety" aspect of nuclear power. From what I understand, nuclear power is safe when all the correct safety measures of modern technology are in place. You are indeed correct in saying nothing can be 100% safe, but I think it should be noted that more often than not they are safe enough, save for very rare huge disasters. So for the short term, nuclear power seems like a good idea to me.
Nightmare060 11 months ago
Getting pleasure from killing something is indefensible.
retread01 11 months ago
Thing is, while Nuclear Power is not safe, it has statistically killed far less than most other types of energy.production.
Atalantius 11 months ago
It will cost £2.25 billion and last for 55 years. So if spending the same amount of money for the same length of time on each, you could get 14 times more power from nuclear than wind. This does not account for maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear, but this is only a small fraction of the overall cost.
ustickx 11 months ago
@ustickx Here's the problem. You state costs as if they are concrete facts, which we all know they are not. It might start at £2.25 billion, but that will rise, especially now in a post Fukushima world. Also all the reading I've done states lifespan 30 years, decommissioning cost around 50 million. That doesn't of course include cost of fuel waste storage costs. Nuclear power is very, very expensive with huge hidden costs. Not saying it's wrong, bad, evil or even stupid, but it's not 'Cheap.'
bobbyllew 11 months ago 4
@bobbyllew Of course costs are not concrete, they never are with major engineering projects, and cost overruns with nuclear are likely to be far worse than wind, but if you factor this into my calculation then nuclear is still substantially cheaper than wind. I'm afraid the '30 year life' is quite majorly wrong for nuclear power, as 1st generation reactors are still working 40-44 years after startup, & we're now onto developments from 3rd generation reactors, specifically designed for long life.
ustickx 11 months ago
@ustickx I'm not sure, but I think wind turbines are more easily recycled when their lifespan is up, ie. they still have value beyond their "useful" lifetime. I also wonder what is done with them after their declared lifespan is over, I would expect (if someone with sense is deciding) that any expired windmill would just get an overhaul, and have any kind of permission to operate renewed.
ninjabob2456 11 months ago
@ninjabob2456 I imagine to an extent they can be renewed, but it's not something that's really been done yet particularly as most turbines are still fairly young. From what I've heard they'll probably upgrade turbines for much bigger capacity rather than replacing the old models.
ustickx 9 months ago
Correction: One nuclear plant does not cost “several hundred billion pounds” (not even by using the British billion rather than the American billion). Little nuclear vs. wind comparison: Thanet in Kent, the biggest offshore wind farm in the world has a maximum power of 300MW but only works 30% of the time. It costs £0.9 billion and will last for 25 years. The new European Pressurized Reactor (the one the UK will use) has a maximum power of 1600MW and works 90% of the time.
ustickx 11 months ago
@ustickx I have to call you out on this. The 90% operation figure for new nuclear is very hotly disputed, as is the 30% for wind turbines. I believe neither figure. Very reliable sources for the nuclear industry, (I have in laws in the industry) say a realistic figure, when maintenance timetables are factored in is nearer 55%, and wind is in the mid 40's when aggregated annually. However, all these figures are as reliable as the ones you've given. i.e. not very.
bobbyllew 11 months ago
@bobbyllew Fair enough, I'll reconsider the 90% figure. The nuclear capacity in the UK has varied between 70 and 80% for a while now, and the new reactors being built are anticipated to work at above 90% due to improvements. This is not unreasonable, as the current fleet of 10 reactors were designed on average 40-50 years ago and it's well known that capacity will decrease slightly with life. So if we're building a load of new plants, we can expect efficiency to jump quite a lot.
ustickx 11 months ago
@bobbyllew With regards to wind, from figures I've seen for the UK between 1998 and 2006 a capacity of 28% seems to be right on the money. This may have increased slightly the last few years, but mid-40s seems an unlikely jump to me,especially as all the current wind turbines were built so recently. I like to try to keep my figures fairly accurate, what with being a final year engineering undergraduate hoping to get a job designing either wind turbines or nuclear power plants for a living.
ustickx 11 months ago
Surprisingly balanced for a wet liberal...
TGOW11 11 months ago
Surely the pro-nuclear lobby have a lot of money to make from spreading their information, whereas the anti-nuclear lobby are speaking from a position of fear, if anything bad at all, or are just sceptical of the pro-nuclear propaganda? If you're going to actively distrust one of them, it should be the pro lobby.
feckingbillgates 11 months ago
Good argument btw
MrPipkelly 11 months ago
0:45 - 0:47 AHHH GHOST DOG
MrPipkelly 11 months ago 2
Ahh yes the mature fashion of the bird flap. I never knew Bobby was so cultured. :P
carnifexalpha 11 months ago 2
Fuck-a-she-ma!! ha ha
interghost 11 months ago
@interghost What's a "she-ma"?
feckingbillgates 11 months ago
I'm glad you have taken a reasoned approach to fox hunting, but i still think you need to take back some of the shockingly ignorant points you made about firearms. You actually made out that all firearms owners were sexually repressed killers.
tarfun5959 11 months ago
Great vid, Rob. I'm pretty ignorant on this subject so I'm glad you research it and give me your opinion on the whole thing. It's very interesting.
ScooperGetHype 11 months ago
Glad i subcibed to you Bobby. You're a Legend!
GTAIVFan17 11 months ago
Very literate bit of commentary, much appreciated :)
P00P0STER0US 11 months ago
Nuclear Power could be a lot safer if the use Thorium instead of Uranium. There's an article about it in this weeks new scientist. The article will be available online next week.
kennydaluz 11 months ago 2
A very good speech from a very good person. Thank you ;)
creativityfilms 11 months ago
bob i just wondered if you are aware of the recent advancements in nano ink thin film solar technology? these new systems are as cheap as £1 per watt and don't suffer from low light issues and are even smaller than existing heavy silicon slab systems. this technology will hit mainstream some time next year and will totally change everything. house fitted systems will pay for themselves in a matter of a year or two vs the 20 years of existing systems. google nanosolar and read the iso testing. :)
prankmypants 11 months ago
Haha I wonder if any other walkers saw you skipping away like that oblivious to what you were doing!
davidhealey1 11 months ago
Excellent speech Robert ! , thanks for giving me something creative to listen to whilst i do a nit treatment than sky fucking news !
emmab2006 11 months ago
Ninja Dog!
Sairin13 11 months ago
Marvellous speech! I just recently had some discussions with friends of mine on Facebook about several of the same points you make here (in much better words too, damn you! ^^). Especially here in Germany (it seems to me) the media focussed on the nuclear accident from day one which seems quite tasteless to me given the destruction and death caused by the tsunami was still going on... :-/
commanderkruge 11 months ago
I worked selling energy a mix of fossil and nuclear i am exactl where you are to be honest
supervillan 11 months ago
Interesting stuff. Always love your videos old bean.
barryperrins 11 months ago
Nothing wrong with the fence - it's a good place to be.
Something that should also be considered on the nuclear front is fusion technology which 'could' come about in the next few decades. Unfortunately it's got the "n" word attached.
Coming from the pro-side (physicist) I'm incredibly dismayed by the general ignorance surrounding all things radiation based - a lot of feaer. But I'm also heavily in support of renewables (because nuclear ain't). So I think I've got one leg over the fence atm.
Widgetas 11 months ago
@Widgetas Keep that leg over the fence, it's the best place for it! :-)
bobbyllew 11 months ago
@Widgetas I think you're doing that position a disservice by calling it 'on/over/under the fence'! Personally I think that a combination of both nuclear and renewable power is the most sustainable solution to UK energy needs. As for fusion, that's been promised since the 50s, and it'll be interesting to see how the ITER research goes, but I can't see it being used commercially for another 30 years.
ustickx 11 months ago
@ustickx Keep the faith! It's not the only avenue being explored :)
Yay for the fence astride. I don't think it's a problem and I think that most people are doing it. I'd be interested to know who the people are with their heads buried on the pro-Nuc side are. It's not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination.
Widgetas 11 months ago
From the pro-nuclear side, so unsurprisingly don't agree with everything, but a welcome pragmatic viewpoint.
One thing, when talking about 'we' paying for treatment of legacy nuclear wastes, decommissioning etc. Whether it is those nuclear costs, renewable subsidies or the damage caused by centuries of emissions from fossil fuels ultimately 'we' will always pay, whether as tax payers or as consumers. Companies don't pay for things, their customers do.
j0nc0bb 11 months ago
@j0nc0bb Good point, well made.
bobbyllew 11 months ago
The Chernobyl incident happened due to a poorly-planned experiment, some sort of safety setting was turned off for too long. Hopefully nowadays they have installed some automatic overrides for when the walls begin to melt =s
I studied physics at A-level last year and learned that the decommissioning of the nuclear plants is indeed an expensive and wasteful part of the process, it would be far more efficient to simply replace the core, I don't know why they don't at this point.
ChrisHaldor 11 months ago
I must admit, given my great interest in science and physics in general, I am Pro. You do make alot of very reasonable points, but I'm going to keep my foot in the Pro camp. We need to get Fusion power licked. Then we can use hydrogen (freely avaliable in water) to power huge amounts of power without the radioactive leftovers in the same was that Fission power does.
However, I do agree renewable sources would make a good additional to a primarily nuclear (preferably Fusion based) infrastructure.
suprememasterj2 11 months ago
0:46 ze doggen gonnen. hahahaha
bertiebasset123 11 months ago
Great video, lots of good points. I too am sitting on the fence with regards to Nuclear. I'm no expert but it would seem to me that brand new Nuclear power stations are probably a lot safer than Fukushima. Sad and tragic as it is; we often learn a lot from such disasters.
pfwill13 11 months ago
If every single house in Australia had solar panels on their roof, 90% of the household power needs would be solved. It should be the default for all new homes. But it's not.
This is the land of sunshine, the easiest resource to find, and we're not taking advantage of it. I am disappointed indeed.
GuanoLad 11 months ago
You made that cat dissapear! :-(
:D
1walkgirl 11 months ago
@1walkgirl It's actually a small dog called Daisy and she would be most offended you thought she was a cat :-)
bobbyllew 11 months ago
I am in the pro-nuclear camp. :)
I lived within a five miles of two nuclear power stations for 20 years (Heysham 1 and 2). The climate of safety within the stations is very impressive. On the reactor itself they even have big yellow letters painted on the concrete saying "DO NOT DRILL IN THIS WALL". :D
I am actually hoping to visit a coal power plant in Ames, Iowa on Wednesday and it should be nice to compare the two. :)
Symphonicia 11 months ago
Bobby is absolutely right, we need to stop searching for a single source of fuel to replace oil.
batmanofni 11 months ago
Thorium reactors should be the way forward, utterly superior to the uranium version and the small scale reactors are also a better way forward.
imr22 11 months ago
The people in the Nuclear Industry are rather clever...
They've evaded all responsibility...
DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE BP DISASTER.
DackIsBack 11 months ago
Ah a stile is a means of passing over or through a fence, a wall, or a hedge - so by definition is not part of 'a fence' but part of a boundary.... - perhaps the teleporting dog used the time stile to jump in space.
bellamysvideos 11 months ago
Excellent video Bobby. I´ve been camping on the fence on this for years. The knee-jerk media and public reaction really annoys me because it is devoid of anything resembling a thoughtful analysis. There is no magic bullet for our energy needs; a patchwork of "okay" solutions is what we need and maybe nuclear has its place.
Thorium-based reactors deserve a much closer look. It´s safer, it´s more abundant, the fission products are less nasty and it´s been done successfully!
leptonsoup337 11 months ago