On top of what I just said people wont rely on wind and solar farms for power. People will have their own solar panels and wind generators on sight in their yard and on their homes. This is the future of power not nuclear. Today people with solar panels can make their electric meters run backwards, having the energy companies pay you for your contribution of energy into the grid. If everyone did this there would be no need for power plants of any kind.
No matter how safe you may think it is it's not as safe as wind or solar. I know this video covers wind and solar energy sources and dismisses them as viable in their current state. However, every new technology starts as expensive, and less efficient. But if we do not invest in solar or wind these technologies will not improve beyond their current state. What if people didn't think the internet was worth investing in? Would we still be using dial up? Technology can only get better if we invest.
Ow btw. again thanks for the video. but in my personal opinion, the Nuclear Flasks, which are the transport devices you speak of in this video, are thick walled for a good reason. The overly thick walls ensure that, all be it unlikely, if something disastrous were top happen, they would not leak. Basically the thicker they are the safer I, and many people feel. :3
Great video man. Have you done one on fusion yet? id love to see it. also im doing a speech about this tomorrow. I'm making it last minute, but this video gave me a few good tips to quickly research. Again thank you.
People still think that all the NPP's are built like chernobyl and can 'explode' at any moment, but they forget the fact that chernobyl was made by the ussr AND built in the time when no1 really cared about safety. Power plants that were built in the 21st century dont even have slightest chance of going boom because of the safety systems. I wonder when will people get that..
@OculiUbique Common sense is a very unreliable way to discern truth. Common sense tells us the earth is flat and fixed. Common sense tells us that sticking with your original guess in the Monty Hall problem results is just as good as changing your guess. Common sense tells us that there must exist an aether through which light must move through space. If common sense is proven wrong, dismiss it.
@OculiUbique It is economical. The only reason they aren't doing it is because mining U is currently half as expensive as extracting it from the ocean. But the cost of U is an insignificant factor in nuclear economics. You need to understand the difference between price and value. One kg of U costs about $130 but can generate $438,000 worth of electricity (even at today's lowest energy prices). If the supply of U from mines ever dwindled, the industry would begin extracting it from the ocean.
Without even considering how much undiscovered uranium is out there below the crust, there is an effectively limitless supply of uranium dissolved in the ocean. Each ton of seawater contains 3mg of uranium. And there's over 10^18 tons of seawater out there. That's over 3 trillion tons of uranium. In that uranium is enough energy to meet the current energy consumption of the ENTIRE WORLD for 5 MILLION years.
@OculiUbique You certainly haven't bothered doing any math on the subject of uranium supply. Current reactors get the majority of their power from the fission of U-235, with some augmentation resulting from plutonium fission that is generated in situ from U-238. However fast breeder reactors exist that can effectively consume even depleted uranium. These will invariably be employed when uranium enrichment becomes uneconomical, decreasing Uranium demand 100 fold. continued
@OculiUbique Coal is used about twice as much as nuclear power, but causes hundreds of times as much death. So even kWh per kWh, nuclear is many times safer.
@Libertarianist, That is a non-statement. The oil based Reagan administration and all subsequent administrations including the idiotic Barack O'Franken-Bushes, have nearly killed solar and wind power, which Carter tried to implement. It took determined rugged individualist capitalists to make solar and wind power work despite the idiots in the White Nut House. Wind power, is becoming cheaper and more available in New York state. Americans are smart enough to make solar and wind power work.
Really enjoyed the video, two suggestions though, it'd be good to look up the deaths per terawatt hour per power source, which actually shows that nuclear kills less people per TWh than hydro-power and even solar. Secondly, it should be mentioned that there are liberals like myself who support nuclear power. We call these liberals who have done the research.
The most dangerous enemies of nuclear energy are not left-wing environmentalists, but the megacorporations which make hundreds of billions of dollars from feeding our addiction to fossil fuels.
The German government has announced that it will close all 17 nuclear plants in the country by 2022. On the back of this annoucement the UK are now reviewing their decision to expand their nuclear energy programme.
@22ness0hayden Yep and they will increase coal consumption and need to import more energy from Russia and France which is powered in large part by nuclear thus not really getting off nuclear just raising the cost of living in Germany. I bet in the coming year a lot of this anti nuke fear mongering will die down a bit after all Chernobyl didn't stop nuclear so why would so many people expect a different outcome
@22ness0hayden There only assumptions if Germany gets rid of its nuclear fleet or the Germans stop using electricity even if they go green they will be importing most of their power from other country's and France is one of the biggest exporters of clean energy with its vast use of nuclear technology.
hahaha I love these biased video's, if you want to be taken seriously you need to look at the pros and cons of everything not just talk about the stuff that makes your own point of view seem like its the only possible way forward. Just why are you so dead set against green energy? why do you need to harness all of your energy from one source? why didn't you include geo-thermal? surely if people fitted a couple of PV's, a small turbine and a heat exchange unit to their house it would be better?
Science got pretty far with stubborness. Nuclear is viable, complete conversion to green is just too unlikely in a short time frame. I think he's suggesting nuclear would be a better replacement short term to medium term, leaving economic and environmental stability, perhaps while we generate these green means of energy.
Fossil<Nuclear<Green<Fission. Nuclear is the compromise.
The reason for bias is that it's mainly a rebuttal.
Oh harsh, posted 4 months ago, haven't been in this debate in a while. I don't quite understand what part of my comment tour responding to. I think i misspelt Fission for Fusion. I'm about 97% sure that 4 months ago i also knew that current nuclear power was/is from fission. Yet again, what exactly are you referring to?
It doesn't matter whether its fusion or fission as both are nuclear reactions and the energy produced from said reactions is still considered nuclear energy.
Your statement :
"Fossil<Nuclear<Green<Fission. Nuclear is the compromise."
Writing "Nuclear" and "Fission" in different positions while arranging different power generation methods in an ascending order does seem pretty retarded especially when you yourself admit that they are essentially the same thing.
Oh i see. Can't believe i missed that, thanks for pointing it out, still no need to be pull out the 'retard' straw. I make mistakes. Do you have an argument that isn't ad hominem or are we done here?
@blarginatorisback Nuclear power plants already use fission. Your ending power source, or at least what i think you ment, is fusion. A.k.a. the same power the sun uses :3
I wonder if "Libertarianist" knows that the Japanese Prime Minister announced that he is studying the possibility of setting up and “alternative capital” to Tokyo on May 1st.
Wow this guy has made MANY MANY assumptions in this video.
But what amazes me the most is the end shot!!! Comparing people that support a Non-Nuclear power grid to the same mindless sheepish attitude of the people that followed the Nazi regime!!! Is that what he means???? T/F
have you seen the article of Greenpeace - Nuclear power a dangerous waste of time? It's really confusing watching your video and reading it at the same time.
@OrionWong1 Simple answer. Greenpeace is fucking retarded. They don't conduct quantitative analysis. Liberals have only mastered half of the equation. empathy, which has its merits, but without quantitative reasoning their good intentions are often misapplied.
@Libertarianist Thank you for responding my comment. I agree that they're lacking of some calculations about the extreme efficiency of nuclear power. There is one more statement which is about it's energy use cannot meet our transportations and heating energy needs so nuclear energy cannot be part of the solution coz it delivers too little and too late. What do you think?
@BeondaPale You haven't even attempted any quantitative approach to this issue. YOU CAN NOT MAKE A RELEVANT JUDGEMENT WITHOUT DOING SO! Conduct a quantitative analysis or GTFO.
Wait, are you actually claiming that THIS VIDEO is a quantitative approach??
That's hilarious.
Is that why you were forced to place a disclaimer at the beginning?
Current quantitative analysis of Fukushima radiation output = 2 Sieverts per hour - Tepco admits full on meltdown in #1 (Something you and the NRC claimed was IMPOSSIBLE)
How far into the the future do you quantify - until the next quarterly statement, right?
"God, you don't even know what quantitative reasoning entails."
Is that right? Well, then it should be a simple matter for you to demolish any objection I have to nuclear power through the use of mathematics. After all, quantitative reasoning is merely the application of mathematics, right?
Question#1
Yes or no: Did the NRC come to the conclusion that there was "zero probability" of a breach of containment in a G.E. Mark 1 through the use of quantitative analysis?
@BeondaPale Of course the probability is never absolutely zero. But quantitative reasoning means you assess what that probability is what would be the damage, effects on ecology, human life, etc. and then compare the expected value (a mathematical term you should look up) to alternatives. I once walked you through a quantitative analysis of the effects of HLRW on world ecology. And you rejected the figures for no reason, even though they were supported by citations in the description.
"Of course the probability is never absolutely zero."
- LOL, Three seperate containments failed. Would you say that's anywhere even close to zero probability?
"what would be the damage, effects on ecology, human life, etc. and then compare the expected value (a mathematical term you should look up) to alternatives."
- so for that you'd need quanitative biology, right? (a field of study you should look up)
"I once walked you through a quantitative analysis of the effects of HLRW on world ecology. And you rejected the figures for no reason, even though they were supported by citations in the description."
-- Strange, I've searched this comment board and can not find your "walkthrough" or my rejection of your numbers - maybe you are thinking of someone else. Please don't be afraid to post those numbers again.
@BeondaPale When it comes to the risk of nuclear meltdowns I refer to the probabilistic risk assessments (cited in the description) that have been conducted by teams of highly paid engineers. And yes, they DO account for human error, natural disasters, terrorism, etc. They're not stupid. Thus far, their findings have been pretty much consistent with what we've seen. We've been over this before, but you're willfully ignorant.
"Thus far, their findings have been pretty much consistent with what we've seen. "
WRONG!! The "probabilistic risk assessments that have been conducted by teams of highly paid engineers." (as if highly paid means something) WERE WRONG OR LIED. They told congress that there was a ZERO PROBABILITY of containment failure in a GE's Mark 1.
US LAW is now based on the probabilistic risk assessment of ZERO by highly paid BSers, but THREE GE's Mark 1 containment units have failed
BTW, One of the "probabilistic risk assessments (cited in the description)" is a dead link. The other two NOT AT ALL comprehensive probabilistic risk assessments that you cite were written by the same guy and claim that the risk of containment failure in a mark 1 type unit as being one chance in 380 million
AGAIN - WRONG!!! - 3 have just failed.
Bernard L. Cohen is FRICKEN OBVIOUSLY a little off in his assessment
@Libertarianist I was just wondering if you could site were you got your statistics from. I have a school project and it would really help. If you could that would be great thanks!
Cyber-warfare via "Stuxnet" and other such viruses designed SPECIFICALLY for some of the industrial equipment in nuclear power facilities is yet one more reason to abandon nuclear power in favor of viable, clean EVERPRESENT and cheaper than nuclear
I like the part where you talk about Liberals. I can't stand liberals. Fuckin liberals. xD Anyhow, I prefer wind and solar, but yeah it's not practical, which is too bad. But Nuclear is also just awesome and clean. But wait, I thought steam hurt the environment????!?!?!?!....... I'm doing a persuasive speech on this in a liberal/hippie college.
BTW, 95% of nuclear waste is Uranium 238, which is mostly harmless. But the rest is Uranium 235 and Plutonium plus fission fragments. That stuff is mostly Strontium 90 and Cesium 137. The only reason we are accumulating this stuff in such large quantities is because President Gerald Ford ordered suspension of reprocessing. You could burn the Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 in a Thorium reactor, and only end up with a small quantity of fission fragments that will be inert in a few centuries.
@captinseperoth its called the un...communication is the key which is why we havent seen any major wars between countries in the last 30 years or so. obviousy theres not a huge chance of nukes ever being used by the major powers but by countries like north korea and iran....you cant be too careful
I agree. Too many people don't know the truths. Nuclear is the way to go. If you say otherwise i want to know something? When engines for veicles first came into this world were you promised it wouldn't explode? But here we are still using more improved ones. motorera.com/history/hist03.htm . Fear of new unexplored or unknow things scare people and the media doesn't mind egging on a arguement that is pointless.
"most landmass has 62 miles of crust separating the surface from the magma"
You don't NEED to get to magma. You need to get to constant 100c (60 to 3000 feet) - that's NO WHERE CLOSE to the magma which burns at 700 °C to 1300 °C
RIGHT NOW In the US, the extractable deep geothermal energy reserve is estimated at 2,000 TIMES the current total annual domestic electricity demand
Please Google (MIT, The Future of Geothermal Energy, 2006) and read for yourself
Suck my stats. I can statistically say you are an angry little boy. I can statistically say you have the voice of an angry closet gay person. Come out of the closet. You will be much happier. Thumbs up if you think this is true.
If you are against Nuclear Power it is because you dont know anything about it! You idiots have no idea of how or what safety measures we now have or how effective our shielding is! The accidents that have happened were ridiculous situations! And, those plants lacked many safety features. Ive been a Nuclear Engineer for 6 years now. How long have you been an expert on it? Go on, just keep bitching about things you know nothing about. Im pretty sure there is a word for that!
The accidents that have happened were ridiculous situations! "
As as we can clearly , ridiculous situations never happen!! THAT is the simple flaw in your logic - Nuclear power REQUIRES that you PREPARE for ridiculous situations!!!
Because if you don't and something ridiculous happens - like say an 8.9 in Southern California - which the 4 nukes IN southern California ARE NOT prepared for, An enormous portion of the US mainland would be rendered UNINHABITABLE.
Haha, ok! Lets talk about some other ridiculous situations we have no defense for...like ...maybe... A GIANT METEOR!!! Or a nuclear missile launch, or an alien invasion, or global warming, I could go on and on. You need to understand that you must weigh all the pros and cons. And when it takes a RIDICULOUS situation to make a con, I dont think thats a bad thing. Especially when the ridiculous situation is going to claim lives by itself.
See that really IS ridiculous because the last time THAT happened was a few hundred million years ago WHEREAS my ridiculous event - an 8.9 earthquake - happened less than a month ago
"or global warming"
LOL!!
"you must weigh all the pros and cons."
OK - NUKES - Pro: Lots and lots of power!! Con: Things like Fukushima
GEOTHERMAL - Pro: Lots of power!! Con: Go ahead, give me the cons
True, Ill give you that. My ridiculous situations were pretty ridiculous. But you still, what I'm trying to say is that horrible events do happen, but they are rare. And just becaus a rare event happened recently doesntmake it common! And you keep talking about this earthquake and Fukushima. They had a horribley designed facility with very few safety measures and low structural integrity. And its location was horrible. You cant assume that every US Nuclear Reactor is the same.
@BeondaPale No you are wrong about that in the 70s and 80s engineers foresaw flaws in American containment after Three Mile Island dealing with hydrogen production and how to vent it we restructured our plants with a "harden" vent that won't allow hydrogen gas to accumulate in the containment structure as what happen in Fukushima if their containment didn't blow open this event would have been just an expensive clean up with little radiation release
No you are wrong. According to an article in The Economist - google - "Piecing together Fukushima" Harden vents WERE installed but they exploded anyway
so my point stands 20 something nukes CURRENTLY operating in the US have EXACTLY the same design as the ones that blew in Japan.
Geothermal characteristics change with the area, so exploration is not easy.
Geothermal turbine efficiency is comparatively low due to the low temperature and pressure of steam input.
Overall plant efficiency is estimated to be about 15 percent less than that of a fossil-fueled plant. And a fossil-fueled plant is way less efficient than a Nuclear Reactor!
@usnavyet3 "There is uncertainty about how long each geothermal well will last." Why? "Release of noxious gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and boron into the atmosphere" Such that they can't be filtered out? "and large amounts of water vapor will occur." lol, which turns the turbines - yes "The use of geothermal heat must occur near the source" Which is directly underneath ALL of our feet "The geothermal energy supply is of low quality -- diffuse like solar" No it's not
Barring the "impossibility" of a nuclear failure in the united states.
Gas explosion? Depending on where and how big, maybe 400-1000 people killed/injured, but no long-lasting environmental damage.
Air pollution? By your figures, about 10000 deaths a year and atmospheric damage. Pretty bad.
Nuclear? Unless it's catastrophic, probably very few immediate deaths, but you're also looking at dangerously contaminated earth, water, air, and life for decades, making an area completely unlivable.
Just thought all you fraudulent free marketeers might be interested that the New World Order just TAXED ALL OF US $780 Million for a new shell around Chernobyl - 4/11
This is on top of the 300 billion we're gonna shell out for fukushima
That Nuclear power in free market ANYTHING is a bad joke
Nuclear power is born socialist, it dies socialists and it ENSURES socialism for tens of thousands of years into the future
Oh, and as you can clearly see - it's no where CLOSE to cheap either
@emaildoctor oh...and those articles you are reading that say this is as bad as Chernobyl, "...had to do with the overall release of radiation and was not directly linked to health dangers...most of the radiation was released early in the crisis and that the reactors still have mostly intact containment vessels surrounding their nuclear cores." If you don't understand that, it means that the amount Fukushima has released is NOT linked to PUBLIC HEALTH RISK.
@emaildoctor I have a bachelors in nuclear engineering, I have been studying this for YEARS. When you attack nuclear power without knowing what you are talking about, you are just being ignorant. It's people like you who speak without understanding the facts that hurt an industry which could have an incredibly positive impact on the world we live in. So come at me bro - TEACH ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER AND THE ACCIDENT THAT I CANT COMPLETELY PROVE WRONG
@BeondaPale I have read your arguments and I believe you are quite miss informed and should look into using non-biased sources for if you did you would understand the actual efficiency of nuclear energy and how it is safe and easy in its implementation and use.
Nuclear energy is incredibly efficient - I've never questioned this
If human nature, incompetence & greed, were not involved in the equation, I would wholeheartedly agree with nuclear as a power source. But humans and their inherent stupidity ARE involved and this makes nuclear a bad choice when compared to an inherently harmless energy solution like geothermal
@BeondaPale Greed is the sole driving force of the economy! Who would ever start an business if it wasn't for their greed to make money? I thought you were a capitalist but obviously I am mistaken, and all of your responses to RTH and DWR have been wrong and thoroughly subjective in their mannerisms. Geothermal power can weaken the ground around the plant, have high initiation costs, and without proper management can deplete the heat sources they drain power from.
No, not greed - Please read John Nash's addendum to Adam Smith. Ethical self interest is the sole diving force, else you get Bernie Madoff
Greed does exist however and when it mixes with a technology as POTENTIALLY dangerous as nuclear power, the risk of a catastrophic event occurring with that technology failing catastrophically rises accordingly. EG FUKUSHIMA
Browns Ferry - the second-biggest nuclear power plant in the United States - may be down for weeks after killer thunderstorms and tornadoes in Alabama knocked out power and automatically shut down the plant, avoiding a nuclear disaster, officials said on Thursday.
@emaildoctor You can't be serious...pro-nuclear propoganda? Wanna know the difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima? Chernobyl EXPLODED spewing MILLIONS of Curies of radioactive material in the air..killing THOUSANDS of people - these were LONG LIVED and dangerous fission products. Fukushima had an explosion (OUTSIDE of containment), RELEASING NOTHING. The radioactive material being released into the ocean is SHORT LIVED IODINE, and will have ZERO impact on the public.
@emaildoctor You can't be serious...pro-nuclear propoganda? Wanna know the difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima? Chernobyl EXPLODED spewing MILLIONS of Curies of radioactive material in the air..killing THOUSANDS of people - these were LONG LIVED and dangerous fission products. Fukushima had an explosion (OUTSIDE of containment), RELEASING NOTHING. The radioactive material being released into the ocean is SHORT LIVED IODINE, and will have ZERO impact on the public.
I live in New York, our dumbass governor wants to close down the Indian Point Power Plant. I don't think he knows that the same nuclear power plant powers 30% of the energy of New York City. Fuck Democrats.
The US Navy has been using Nuclear power ships for over 50 yrs. Why? Because its the best. Japan has three major fault lines. Putting a Nuclear plant near major fault lines is a very bad idea. France uses nuclear power and it works for them. And if the French can get it right theirs no reason any other country can't.
I deleted my comment because, in light of Japan, people seem to think I've been "pwned". When you compare the history of the impact of nuclear plants to the history of the impact of oil drilling, nuclear energy clearly wins. I think the reactors in Japan could have been designed better. But as noted, an 8.9 earthquake (plus tsunami) is a very unique event!!! To the Japanese, the plants aren't the "big issue" right now. FOOD and SHELTER are!!
Radiation levels in the shaft have been measured at more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour, which is more than 330 times the dose an average resident of an industrialized country naturally receives in a year. Radioactivity above the shaft was measured at 250 millisieverts per hour, said Tokyo Electric, the plant's owner.
LOL! You gotta love how these neo-liberals are just turning a blind eye to the facts and continue to fester in the propaganda that they believe in. And what will be the result? More environmental hazards and inefficiency will occur than they really want to simply because they're being such ignorant morons. Nuclear power FTW!
@BeondaPale Man youtube dose not give alot of space to type I have quite a bit to say about that maybe I should make a video but to the truth is modern reactors in the west eg Gen 2 and 3,4 don't have Chernobyl's and this was a gen 1 before they fixed the hydrogen problem that engineers in the 70's fixed in our plants the Japanese didn't bother so the containment exploded. Also Fukishima even though the government claims its a 7 it has released around 1% radiative substances of Chernobyl
"I sent you some of the links to my "silly claim"
As reliable as Tepco, no doubt.
Your claim is silly because Fukushima is NOT OVER - hell, Chernobyl is not over, but it's WAY more over than Fukushima.
Tell ya what, why don't you hold all your pronouncements of "fact" until the 6 to 9 month period that Tepco CONSERVATIVELY estimates it will take to get these reactors under complete control has passed
Because until AT LEAST then these nukes are going to continue to leak.
Radioactive iodine detected in seawater at raised levels in Glasgow and other parts of the UK/Europe. Waters 300m off the shore of the Fukushima 3,335 times the usual amount of radioactive iodine. Engineers frantically trying to trace the leak. Plant operator TEPCO admitted there was no end in sight to the world's worse nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. - BBC/WPO
To further elaborate on my comment: alot of means to harness various energies keep developing, getting cheaper & more efficient, wind is one of those. But let's say for arguments sake: the whole world & it's ca 2,4 million cities are run by nuclear plants & that there's a rough 1 million plants to run these cities with, that means that every three years they completely throw out tons of these metal rods, shut inside canisters that would mean tons of non reusable metal garbage canisters. Ideas?
Even in my city, people are recycling metal for money, so with that in mind I absolutely doubt we'd be able to produce caskets of that quanitity, in contrast to producing windmills that may only need repairing & not these excess safety methods & waste handling, not to speak of mining costs & the intense process of actually getting the uranium ready for the plant as you know. It's more a question of efficiency to me, I'm open for any argument though :)
@vidarmoose The whole mining milling and enriching takes about 4% of the energy the plant produces this does not take into account that there are better methods of enrichment coming on to the market and further methods in research. Not to mention with fast reactors and reprocessing we can handle the waste problem fairly easily
@Darkwizzrobe Ok but still the mining puts radioactive waste on land which contains about 80& of the total radioactive waste that the process for nuclear energy creates. 0.1% of the stuff they dig up is actually used then you melt the stuff with acid, shape it into a cake, turn it into gas & pick up the uranium in filters, just consider wind: there is NO pre process to harness the energy. & A windmill brings in the energy it took to build it in 7 months compared to nuclear which takes 3 years.
@Darkwizzrobe What it comes down to for me basically is the efficiency. A windmills machinery doesn't become radioactive & in the end Uranium is such a unique power source that can be used for better things than boiling water haha :)
@vidarmoose One of those things may well be powering 2nd stage rockets I would say though I have to say uranium and thorium have limited application outside energy not many industrious uses I know thorium is used in certain glass but as we see with DU its either stocked pile for use later as a waste or used as a weapon in war which I see as the most wasteful part of using that resource
You really are helping destroy lives by this ill thought out crap you are spewing. Look at youtube.com/user/dutchsinse and study his links to verifiable, sties. Look at seismic maps. Look at the 4 $ITES in Japan, that have gone to MELTDOWN. In New York, there are TWO power plants, OF THE $AME DE$IGN AS FUKU$HIMA, that are built on FAULTLINES! What the F*CK is wrong with you? Coal burning plants should be done away with, but, THEY DON'T MELTDOWN INTO NUCLEAR FISSION, YOU IDIOT! No nuclear power!
You are misinformed. Have you considered that power sources do NOT have to be centralized in massive power plants? The Swedes have a system to heat homes with human waste. Have you told people about the Bloombox, the micro turbine? Non-dam hydro-electric? There are so many alternatives, wind and solar would work even better if DECENTRALIZED, and dispersed, building by building, town by town, city by city. The ultra-rich could pay for this transfer of power (pun intended).
Fact #1 : If you have enough nuclear power plants operating there will be nuclear meltdowns and core breaches. The Nuclear industry denied this fact from day one just like you, But the proof is in, "impossible" melt downs and nuclear core breaches do occur and cause major health hazards. If we accept nuclear power we must also accept the real risk that a New York City with 14 million people may someday have to be evacuated and contaminated with deadly radioisotopes for a very long time.
@emaildoctor Let's see the in depth probabilistic risk assessments by the engineers who are familiar with plant design specs and compare those to practical alternatives. Wait, you don't have those? Then you're not by any stretch of the imagination qualified to comment on the risks. Stats or GTFO.
@Libertarianist GTFO? Not qualified to make comments? Like you are? The Union of Concerned Scientists website presents informed, scientific, independent, and realistic risk assessments of N-power. You continue to naively insist we can get valid safety analysis from the engineers who work for the n-power industry? Fact: meltdowns, widespread contamination, mass evacuations, and many human cancers and deaths have occurred. Continued NP development means we will have more of the same.
@Libertarianist, Once again, IDIOT, it's in the f*cking newspapers, you dipsh*t! The NRC has stated that Indian Point Nuclear power plant is at extremely high risk of earthquake damage. It's built on a faultline, you ASS! This is common knowledge! The stats are easily obtainable. Everyone, just Google, Governor Cuomo Indian point nuclear power plant or go to Dutchsinse YouTube channel with verifiable scientific site links not like this Libertarianist who is spouting nuclear indu$try $hit.
@Libertarianist Although your argument seems well supported and credulous, I still strongly believe that nuclear power plants should not--under any circumstances--be used as a source of energy. The risk of a nuclear meltdown could cause entire populations to evacuate cities and towns. Moreover, radiation contamination would leave large cities uninhabited for years. This means thousands of dollars down the drain. Furthermore, regardless of how efficiently (continued in next comment)...
@redmicrowave125 energy is provided by nuclear power plants, people should not compromise their safety over sufficient electrical energy. It is much better to have insufficient energy via solar power or wind power than to have the potential of a total nuclear fallout.
@Libertarianist I may not be qualified independently to comment on the risks but the Union of Concerned is and I can read their opinion and note it. I suggest you search for it and read a realistic view of the risks and stats on N-power. They, unlike you, do know shit about nuclear power. Your statement that unless I have alternatives I am not qualified to comment on N-power is not based in logic and is ridiculous on its face. Anything can legitimately be criticized in its own right.
@emaildoctor Ever heard of LFTR? It stands for Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. It's a type of nuclear reactor which, because it uses thorium, operates in a kind of semi-liquid form. This gives it unique properties, that namely being that it is self-regulating, as the process causes the material to expand as it heats, slowing the reaction, where it then condenses. Plus, it produces much less waste as the by-products produced are also used as nuclear fuel.
@halo07guy2 If we must use NP we must use technologies that do not require active intervention to contain an accident. If the LFTR truly operates with passive automatic shut down in the event of an accident and it's a practical alternative to today's melt down prone and vulnerable reactors I'm all for it but I want objective scientists to lay out the facts and not nuclear industry engineers who make their typical false and unrealistic claims of dependability and near absolute safety.
@emaildoctor It isgiven the right design. Most designs incoporate this passive regulation system, where because the fuel regulates itself, there is no danger of out of control temperatures. You can find videos about it here. Also important is that Thorium by itself cannot fission. It requires a kind of spark to start the reaction, as it can't initiate it itself. Basically you'll never get a nuclear reaction with Thorium unless you use something else to initiate it.
thankyou for this, Im still unsure to whether i agree with it or not (I may just be subconsciously afraid that i will be wrong and am sitting on the fence) you made some very compelling arguments, and many of the facts i did know before which has lead me defending nuclear power in the past its just the storing that makes me queasy Im a country girl and i know its safe but putting things underground or under water makes me nervous but besides that thankyou or video was very helpful and insightful
Nuclear energy is statistically the safest method of energy generation, by a long way.
It doesn't matter how many sensationalist media stories you bring up, how many hypothetical scenarios you put out, how many times you can fit Chernobyl into a sentence. Nuclear power is safest. The end. It's really that simple.
@AnnoyingingeXD, You are completely out of your mind. As problematic as other energy sources are, especially brown coal burning plants, THEY DON'T HAVE NUCLEAR CORE MELTDOWNS WITH PLUMES OF RADIOACTIVITY THAT CIRCULATE AROUND THE PLANET, you moron! LOOK, go to Dutchsinse's YouTube channel. He's a scientist, a geologist and an excellent researcher with links to scientific sites. World seismic activity is up. Gerrmany shut down ALL of their GE Mark II (same as Fukushima) we have more here in NY!
And? I never said nuclear is completely safe, only the safest. And it is. Any other feasible method of energy generation kills far more people and does far more damage to the environment (read the foreword on the video), and the backward steps society would take if it stopped generating energy using any of these methods would cause huge numbers of deaths from previously preventable diseases and halt our advancement.
@AnnoyingingeXD, Again, you are misinformed. READ the other comments. There's the Bloombox, magnetic power, non-dam hydro-electric, DECENTRALIZED solar( local, on each specific site— NOT in massive, stupid, corporate controlled power plants), bird-guarded wind, human, animal and food waste heating, Temperature differentials, simple mechanical device engineering for human physio-kinetic energy, etc. Go To YouTube channel Dutchsinse. He's a scientist and geologist with links to scientific sites.
Haha, you think I'm gonna form my opinion from random Youtube comments and users? Mate, I did a half-year project on energy sources. I've looked at scientific papers on every generation method you could think of, and some you couldn't. All those other small-scale ones simply don't work for any sizable population, not least beacuse they are horrendously inefficient and expensive compared to centralised power generation. Nuclear is the future for 30-60 years, then solar power.
@AnnoyingingeXD, Okay, I'm going to try this again. DUTCHSINSE IS A SCIENTIST! He is a GEOLOGIST. Dutchsinse, is referring to SCIENTIFIC WEBSITES, from AROUND THE GLOBE, including, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, etc. etc. etc. Go educate yourself and stop spewing disinformation.
He's a geologist? Rofl, he did geography. I'll go to him if I want to see how an earthquake works, but nuclear power is outside his domain.
Also, the fact remains that nuclear power causes less deaths than any other method. It doesn't matter how bad it is, right now we have no alternatives that aren't even worse.
In "With These Eyes" a young woman embarks on a journey that holds the pieces to the puzzle that will reveal the secret behind Quantum Energy.
Buddh ist wisdom and the goodness of her heart are the only weapons Isabelle de Fleur possesses in her battle against evil.
PeaceWithTheseEyes 4 hours ago
On top of what I just said people wont rely on wind and solar farms for power. People will have their own solar panels and wind generators on sight in their yard and on their homes. This is the future of power not nuclear. Today people with solar panels can make their electric meters run backwards, having the energy companies pay you for your contribution of energy into the grid. If everyone did this there would be no need for power plants of any kind.
1SmartMofo 1 month ago
No matter how safe you may think it is it's not as safe as wind or solar. I know this video covers wind and solar energy sources and dismisses them as viable in their current state. However, every new technology starts as expensive, and less efficient. But if we do not invest in solar or wind these technologies will not improve beyond their current state. What if people didn't think the internet was worth investing in? Would we still be using dial up? Technology can only get better if we invest.
1SmartMofo 1 month ago
Ow btw. again thanks for the video. but in my personal opinion, the Nuclear Flasks, which are the transport devices you speak of in this video, are thick walled for a good reason. The overly thick walls ensure that, all be it unlikely, if something disastrous were top happen, they would not leak. Basically the thicker they are the safer I, and many people feel. :3
porchiges 2 months ago
Great video man. Have you done one on fusion yet? id love to see it. also im doing a speech about this tomorrow. I'm making it last minute, but this video gave me a few good tips to quickly research. Again thank you.
porchiges 2 months ago
@porchiges
Also; good luck on your speech :P
blarginatorisback 2 months ago
People still think that all the NPP's are built like chernobyl and can 'explode' at any moment, but they forget the fact that chernobyl was made by the ussr AND built in the time when no1 really cared about safety. Power plants that were built in the 21st century dont even have slightest chance of going boom because of the safety systems. I wonder when will people get that..
SuperLaugh20 4 months ago
its unsafe only in the wrong hands.
not sure if its true but i heard that fukushima was actually weaker than the nuclear powerplants here in finland... here where wind barely blows.
and chernobyl was just a total mess with shitty safety systems.
PanORotta 5 months ago
@OculiUbique Common sense is a very unreliable way to discern truth. Common sense tells us the earth is flat and fixed. Common sense tells us that sticking with your original guess in the Monty Hall problem results is just as good as changing your guess. Common sense tells us that there must exist an aether through which light must move through space. If common sense is proven wrong, dismiss it.
Libertarianist 5 months ago 2
@OculiUbique Clearly you haven't bothered to do the leg work to back up any of your claims. You're not even trying to do the math. Why?
Libertarianist 5 months ago
@OculiUbique It is economical. The only reason they aren't doing it is because mining U is currently half as expensive as extracting it from the ocean. But the cost of U is an insignificant factor in nuclear economics. You need to understand the difference between price and value. One kg of U costs about $130 but can generate $438,000 worth of electricity (even at today's lowest energy prices). If the supply of U from mines ever dwindled, the industry would begin extracting it from the ocean.
Libertarianist 5 months ago
Without even considering how much undiscovered uranium is out there below the crust, there is an effectively limitless supply of uranium dissolved in the ocean. Each ton of seawater contains 3mg of uranium. And there's over 10^18 tons of seawater out there. That's over 3 trillion tons of uranium. In that uranium is enough energy to meet the current energy consumption of the ENTIRE WORLD for 5 MILLION years.
Libertarianist 5 months ago
@OculiUbique You certainly haven't bothered doing any math on the subject of uranium supply. Current reactors get the majority of their power from the fission of U-235, with some augmentation resulting from plutonium fission that is generated in situ from U-238. However fast breeder reactors exist that can effectively consume even depleted uranium. These will invariably be employed when uranium enrichment becomes uneconomical, decreasing Uranium demand 100 fold. continued
Libertarianist 5 months ago
@OculiUbique Coal is used about twice as much as nuclear power, but causes hundreds of times as much death. So even kWh per kWh, nuclear is many times safer.
Libertarianist 5 months ago
@Libertarianist For every death nuclear causes about 4000 are killed by coal
Darkwizzrobe 4 months ago
Yes this is very true, but possibly insulting less people would help you convince more people? Just possibly
MightyBif 6 months ago
Solar will be cheaper than coal in 10 years - game over
BeondaPale 6 months ago
@BeondaPale That's what they were saying ten years ago. In ten years I will concede or declare victory.
Libertarianist 6 months ago
Specifically now, who is "they"?
Remember, be specific. I'll be waiting.
Meanwhile, China is aiming for 50 GW of solar by 2020 and even THAT will not cover demand
Oh btw, look up Daniel Nocera - major breakthrough in artificial photosynthesis
BeondaPale 6 months ago
@Libertarianist, That is a non-statement. The oil based Reagan administration and all subsequent administrations including the idiotic Barack O'Franken-Bushes, have nearly killed solar and wind power, which Carter tried to implement. It took determined rugged individualist capitalists to make solar and wind power work despite the idiots in the White Nut House. Wind power, is becoming cheaper and more available in New York state. Americans are smart enough to make solar and wind power work.
VictoriaEatingCake 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Libertarianist
I know you hate SPECIFICS bozo, but who SPECIFICALLY said that "Solar will be cheaper than coal in 10 years"
Your response = duhhhhh
I've proven you to be full of crap YET AGAIN!!
BeondaPale 3 months ago
I'm a liberal, and I think nuclear power is great.
UnchainTheNight1 6 months ago
lol good troll
TheIdeasMatrix 7 months ago
Really enjoyed the video, two suggestions though, it'd be good to look up the deaths per terawatt hour per power source, which actually shows that nuclear kills less people per TWh than hydro-power and even solar. Secondly, it should be mentioned that there are liberals like myself who support nuclear power. We call these liberals who have done the research.
CobaltX07 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
h t t p : / / w w w . popsci . c o m / science / gallery / 2010 - 02 / secret - lives - particle - accelerators ? image = 7
[Remove Spaces]
RazaTheHacker 7 months ago
The most dangerous enemies of nuclear energy are not left-wing environmentalists, but the megacorporations which make hundreds of billions of dollars from feeding our addiction to fossil fuels.
GCarty80 7 months ago
/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM
[Remove spaces]
RazaTheHacker 8 months ago
@RazaTheHacker Thanks for the link. Penn and Teller are the experts for sure
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
@22ness0hayden You are welcome.
RazaTheHacker 7 months ago
The German government has announced that it will close all 17 nuclear plants in the country by 2022. On the back of this annoucement the UK are now reviewing their decision to expand their nuclear energy programme.
22ness0hayden 8 months ago
@22ness0hayden Yep and they will increase coal consumption and need to import more energy from Russia and France which is powered in large part by nuclear thus not really getting off nuclear just raising the cost of living in Germany. I bet in the coming year a lot of this anti nuke fear mongering will die down a bit after all Chernobyl didn't stop nuclear so why would so many people expect a different outcome
Darkwizzrobe 8 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe Thanks for all you arsesumptions
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
@22ness0hayden There only assumptions if Germany gets rid of its nuclear fleet or the Germans stop using electricity even if they go green they will be importing most of their power from other country's and France is one of the biggest exporters of clean energy with its vast use of nuclear technology.
Darkwizzrobe 7 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe They said they're going to concerntrate on producing greener energy. Good for them. No one in Germany is objecting.
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
@22ness0hayden good for them, i hope one melts down next to London, repayment for their concentration camps in South Africa.
Kokoda144 7 months ago
@Kokoda144 WTF?
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
tnx a lot for this video ... =) this will help for my project :D
Lorac134 8 months ago 4
Please don't confuse liberals with luddites, we aren't all petrified of nuclear power, many of us have actually done research.
o0DaftPunk0o 8 months ago 7
hahaha I love these biased video's, if you want to be taken seriously you need to look at the pros and cons of everything not just talk about the stuff that makes your own point of view seem like its the only possible way forward. Just why are you so dead set against green energy? why do you need to harness all of your energy from one source? why didn't you include geo-thermal? surely if people fitted a couple of PV's, a small turbine and a heat exchange unit to their house it would be better?
akaAlexthekid 8 months ago
@akaAlexthekid
Science got pretty far with stubborness. Nuclear is viable, complete conversion to green is just too unlikely in a short time frame. I think he's suggesting nuclear would be a better replacement short term to medium term, leaving economic and environmental stability, perhaps while we generate these green means of energy.
Fossil<Nuclear<Green<Fission. Nuclear is the compromise.
The reason for bias is that it's mainly a rebuttal.
blarginatorisback 8 months ago 8
@blarginatorisback
I hope that you are not as retarded as you trying to show . Because current nuclear power is COMPLETELY BASED ON FISSION.
mynameszz 4 months ago
@mynameszz
Oh harsh, posted 4 months ago, haven't been in this debate in a while. I don't quite understand what part of my comment tour responding to. I think i misspelt Fission for Fusion. I'm about 97% sure that 4 months ago i also knew that current nuclear power was/is from fission. Yet again, what exactly are you referring to?
blarginatorisback 4 months ago
@blarginatorisback
It doesn't matter whether its fusion or fission as both are nuclear reactions and the energy produced from said reactions is still considered nuclear energy.
Your statement :
"Fossil<Nuclear<Green<Fission. Nuclear is the compromise."
Writing "Nuclear" and "Fission" in different positions while arranging different power generation methods in an ascending order does seem pretty retarded especially when you yourself admit that they are essentially the same thing.
mynameszz 4 months ago
@mynameszz
Oh i see. Can't believe i missed that, thanks for pointing it out, still no need to be pull out the 'retard' straw. I make mistakes. Do you have an argument that isn't ad hominem or are we done here?
blarginatorisback 4 months ago
@blarginatorisback
Sorry for the "retard" part.
mynameszz 4 months ago
@mynameszz
Everyone gets caught up in the argument sometimes ;)
blarginatorisback 4 months ago
@blarginatorisback Nuclear power plants already use fission. Your ending power source, or at least what i think you ment, is fusion. A.k.a. the same power the sun uses :3
porchiges 2 months ago
@porchiges
Yeh, people keep on replying to this comment, i think it was a spelling mistake when i rushed the comment. Good thing you noticed at least >.<
blarginatorisback 2 months ago
I wonder if "Libertarianist" knows that the Japanese Prime Minister announced that he is studying the possibility of setting up and “alternative capital” to Tokyo on May 1st.
BeondaPale 8 months ago
bbc.co.uk / news / world-asia-pacific-13408055 (remove the spaces)
22ness0hayden 8 months ago
Wow this guy has made MANY MANY assumptions in this video.
But what amazes me the most is the end shot!!! Comparing people that support a Non-Nuclear power grid to the same mindless sheepish attitude of the people that followed the Nazi regime!!! Is that what he means???? T/F
ModernMorals 8 months ago
@ModernMorals
LOL - that's the angry little boy's version of quantitative reasoning - get with the program!!
BeondaPale 8 months ago
have you seen the article of Greenpeace - Nuclear power a dangerous waste of time? It's really confusing watching your video and reading it at the same time.
OrionWong1 8 months ago
@OrionWong1 Simple answer. Greenpeace is fucking retarded. They don't conduct quantitative analysis. Liberals have only mastered half of the equation. empathy, which has its merits, but without quantitative reasoning their good intentions are often misapplied.
Libertarianist 8 months ago
@Libertarianist Thank you for responding my comment. I agree that they're lacking of some calculations about the extreme efficiency of nuclear power. There is one more statement which is about it's energy use cannot meet our transportations and heating energy needs so nuclear energy cannot be part of the solution coz it delivers too little and too late. What do you think?
OrionWong1 8 months ago
@Libertarianist
Apperently Libertarianist believes that he has mastered quantitative reasoning.
This just after a "simple answer" in which he uses "f***king retarded"
Yes, truly astounding reasoning skills
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@BeondaPale You haven't even attempted any quantitative approach to this issue. YOU CAN NOT MAKE A RELEVANT JUDGEMENT WITHOUT DOING SO! Conduct a quantitative analysis or GTFO.
Libertarianist 8 months ago
@Libertarianist
Wait, are you actually claiming that THIS VIDEO is a quantitative approach??
That's hilarious.
Is that why you were forced to place a disclaimer at the beginning?
Current quantitative analysis of Fukushima radiation output = 2 Sieverts per hour - Tepco admits full on meltdown in #1 (Something you and the NRC claimed was IMPOSSIBLE)
How far into the the future do you quantify - until the next quarterly statement, right?
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@BeondaPale God, you don't even know what quantitative reasoning entails.
Libertarianist 8 months ago
@Libertarianist
"God, you don't even know what quantitative reasoning entails."
Is that right? Well, then it should be a simple matter for you to demolish any objection I have to nuclear power through the use of mathematics. After all, quantitative reasoning is merely the application of mathematics, right?
Question#1
Yes or no: Did the NRC come to the conclusion that there was "zero probability" of a breach of containment in a G.E. Mark 1 through the use of quantitative analysis?
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@BeondaPale Of course the probability is never absolutely zero. But quantitative reasoning means you assess what that probability is what would be the damage, effects on ecology, human life, etc. and then compare the expected value (a mathematical term you should look up) to alternatives. I once walked you through a quantitative analysis of the effects of HLRW on world ecology. And you rejected the figures for no reason, even though they were supported by citations in the description.
Libertarianist 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Libertarianist
"Of course the probability is never absolutely zero."
- LOL, Three seperate containments failed. Would you say that's anywhere even close to zero probability?
"what would be the damage, effects on ecology, human life, etc. and then compare the expected value (a mathematical term you should look up) to alternatives."
- so for that you'd need quanitative biology, right? (a field of study you should look up)
BeondaPale 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Libertarianist
"I once walked you through a quantitative analysis of the effects of HLRW on world ecology. And you rejected the figures for no reason, even though they were supported by citations in the description."
-- Strange, I've searched this comment board and can not find your "walkthrough" or my rejection of your numbers - maybe you are thinking of someone else. Please don't be afraid to post those numbers again.
BeondaPale 8 months ago
By the way, did your quantitative analysis walk-through include the following:
- The possibility of unsafe reactor designs or build quality (as we have recently seen with the GE Mark1)?
- The possibility of human error?
- The possibility of unforeseen acts of nature?
- The possibility of corruption or greed?
- The possibility of warfare or terrorism?
Also what is the TIME FRAME for your quantitative analysis?
- 10 years? 100? 1000?
Why would such a time frame be imporatant?
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@BeondaPale When it comes to the risk of nuclear meltdowns I refer to the probabilistic risk assessments (cited in the description) that have been conducted by teams of highly paid engineers. And yes, they DO account for human error, natural disasters, terrorism, etc. They're not stupid. Thus far, their findings have been pretty much consistent with what we've seen. We've been over this before, but you're willfully ignorant.
Libertarianist 8 months ago 2
@Libertarianist
"Thus far, their findings have been pretty much consistent with what we've seen. "
WRONG!! The "probabilistic risk assessments that have been conducted by teams of highly paid engineers." (as if highly paid means something) WERE WRONG OR LIED. They told congress that there was a ZERO PROBABILITY of containment failure in a GE's Mark 1.
US LAW is now based on the probabilistic risk assessment of ZERO by highly paid BSers, but THREE GE's Mark 1 containment units have failed
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@Libertarianist
BTW, One of the "probabilistic risk assessments (cited in the description)" is a dead link. The other two NOT AT ALL comprehensive probabilistic risk assessments that you cite were written by the same guy and claim that the risk of containment failure in a mark 1 type unit as being one chance in 380 million
AGAIN - WRONG!!! - 3 have just failed.
Bernard L. Cohen is FRICKEN OBVIOUSLY a little off in his assessment
Lick that industry butt, Boy
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@Libertarianist after seeing some other opposite opinions. I'm not convinced by this video.
That would be either one of you is lying or some information given is false. And it is really ridiculous to argue about nuclear is safe or not.
OrionWong1 8 months ago
Comparring this video and Amory Louis who is more trustable?
OrionWong1 8 months ago
@Libertarianist I was just wondering if you could site were you got your statistics from. I have a school project and it would really help. If you could that would be great thanks!
IdontDOperfect 8 months ago
Cyber-warfare via "Stuxnet" and other such viruses designed SPECIFICALLY for some of the industrial equipment in nuclear power facilities is yet one more reason to abandon nuclear power in favor of viable, clean EVERPRESENT and cheaper than nuclear
GEOTHERMAL
BeondaPale 8 months ago
Your 24 years old and talking shit Libertarianist
22ness0hayden 8 months ago
I like the part where you talk about Liberals. I can't stand liberals. Fuckin liberals. xD Anyhow, I prefer wind and solar, but yeah it's not practical, which is too bad. But Nuclear is also just awesome and clean. But wait, I thought steam hurt the environment????!?!?!?!....... I'm doing a persuasive speech on this in a liberal/hippie college.
NicaneCreedX 8 months ago
@NicaneCreedX
"But wait, I thought steam hurt the environment ????!?!?!?!"
But wait, that's stupid. You thought WRONG!!
if you listened in class at college you might have learned that.
BeondaPale 8 months ago
Any fool that has to use the word "shit" in his speech, has nothing worth offering.
ynnebbenny 8 months ago
@ynnebbenny The world is round as shit. Oops, I guess that means the world is flat. You're retarded.
Libertarianist 8 months ago
@Libertarianist yep.....Zero credibility.......a self appointed loser.
ynnebbenny 8 months ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Aw!!!! He almost went the whole video without comparing democrats to Nazis! So close.
migduh 9 months ago
BTW, 95% of nuclear waste is Uranium 238, which is mostly harmless. But the rest is Uranium 235 and Plutonium plus fission fragments. That stuff is mostly Strontium 90 and Cesium 137. The only reason we are accumulating this stuff in such large quantities is because President Gerald Ford ordered suspension of reprocessing. You could burn the Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 in a Thorium reactor, and only end up with a small quantity of fission fragments that will be inert in a few centuries.
DeathToPsuedoScience 9 months ago
@DeathToPsuedoScience
I wonder why President Ford ordered that, he must have had his reasons, huh?
BeondaPale 9 months ago
watch?v=xszFb
BeondaPale 9 months ago
watch?v=gahxvBbg-lA
DeathToPsuedoScience 9 months ago
@captinseperoth its called the un...communication is the key which is why we havent seen any major wars between countries in the last 30 years or so. obviousy theres not a huge chance of nukes ever being used by the major powers but by countries like north korea and iran....you cant be too careful
jimmyreed112 9 months ago
I agree. Too many people don't know the truths. Nuclear is the way to go. If you say otherwise i want to know something? When engines for veicles first came into this world were you promised it wouldn't explode? But here we are still using more improved ones. motorera.com/history/hist03.htm . Fear of new unexplored or unknow things scare people and the media doesn't mind egging on a arguement that is pointless.
untamedmuffin 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RazaTheHacker
"most landmass has 62 miles of crust separating the surface from the magma"
You don't NEED to get to magma. You need to get to constant 100c (60 to 3000 feet) - that's NO WHERE CLOSE to the magma which burns at 700 °C to 1300 °C
RIGHT NOW In the US, the extractable deep geothermal energy reserve is estimated at 2,000 TIMES the current total annual domestic electricity demand
Please Google (MIT, The Future of Geothermal Energy, 2006) and read for yourself
YOU are uninformed
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Suck my stats. I can statistically say you are an angry little boy. I can statistically say you have the voice of an angry closet gay person. Come out of the closet. You will be much happier. Thumbs up if you think this is true.
derman077 9 months ago
If you are against Nuclear Power it is because you dont know anything about it! You idiots have no idea of how or what safety measures we now have or how effective our shielding is! The accidents that have happened were ridiculous situations! And, those plants lacked many safety features. Ive been a Nuclear Engineer for 6 years now. How long have you been an expert on it? Go on, just keep bitching about things you know nothing about. Im pretty sure there is a word for that!
usnavyet3 9 months ago
@usnavyet3
The accidents that have happened were ridiculous situations! "
As as we can clearly , ridiculous situations never happen!! THAT is the simple flaw in your logic - Nuclear power REQUIRES that you PREPARE for ridiculous situations!!!
Because if you don't and something ridiculous happens - like say an 8.9 in Southern California - which the 4 nukes IN southern California ARE NOT prepared for, An enormous portion of the US mainland would be rendered UNINHABITABLE.
GEOTHERMAL!!
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale
Haha, ok! Lets talk about some other ridiculous situations we have no defense for...like ...maybe... A GIANT METEOR!!! Or a nuclear missile launch, or an alien invasion, or global warming, I could go on and on. You need to understand that you must weigh all the pros and cons. And when it takes a RIDICULOUS situation to make a con, I dont think thats a bad thing. Especially when the ridiculous situation is going to claim lives by itself.
usnavyet3 9 months ago
@usnavyet3
"like ...maybe... A GIANT METEOR!!"
See that really IS ridiculous because the last time THAT happened was a few hundred million years ago WHEREAS my ridiculous event - an 8.9 earthquake - happened less than a month ago
"or global warming"
LOL!!
"you must weigh all the pros and cons."
OK - NUKES - Pro: Lots and lots of power!! Con: Things like Fukushima
GEOTHERMAL - Pro: Lots of power!! Con: Go ahead, give me the cons
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale
True, Ill give you that. My ridiculous situations were pretty ridiculous. But you still, what I'm trying to say is that horrible events do happen, but they are rare. And just becaus a rare event happened recently doesntmake it common! And you keep talking about this earthquake and Fukushima. They had a horribley designed facility with very few safety measures and low structural integrity. And its location was horrible. You cant assume that every US Nuclear Reactor is the same.
usnavyet3 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@usnavyet3
"And just becaus a rare event happened recently doesnt make it common!"
No it's not common - IT'S RARE
nuclear power is like buying a lottery ticket - IN REVERSE
"You cant assume that every US Nuclear Reactor is the same."
I don't - just some of them
"They had a horribley designed facility "
20 something nukes CURRENTLY operating in the US have EXACTLY the same design as the ones that blew in Japan.
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale No you are wrong about that in the 70s and 80s engineers foresaw flaws in American containment after Three Mile Island dealing with hydrogen production and how to vent it we restructured our plants with a "harden" vent that won't allow hydrogen gas to accumulate in the containment structure as what happen in Fukushima if their containment didn't blow open this event would have been just an expensive clean up with little radiation release
Darkwizzrobe 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Darkwizzrobe
No you are wrong. According to an article in The Economist - google - "Piecing together Fukushima" Harden vents WERE installed but they exploded anyway
so my point stands 20 something nukes CURRENTLY operating in the US have EXACTLY the same design as the ones that blew in Japan.
BeondaPale 8 months ago
@BeondaPale
As, for your cons for geothermal:
Geothermal characteristics change with the area, so exploration is not easy.
Geothermal turbine efficiency is comparatively low due to the low temperature and pressure of steam input.
Overall plant efficiency is estimated to be about 15 percent less than that of a fossil-fueled plant. And a fossil-fueled plant is way less efficient than a Nuclear Reactor!
usnavyet3 9 months ago
@usnavyet3
"Geothermal characteristics change with the area, so exploration is not easy."
Give me an form of energy where this is not the case
"Geothermal turbine efficiency is comparatively low"
Granted, nuclear is the most efficient. but again, geothermal doesn't come with the INHERENT long term risks of nuclear OR oil OR coal
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale
...
There is uncertainty about how long each geothermal well will last.
Release of noxious gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and boron into the atmosphere, and large amounts of water vapor will occur.
The amount of land taken up and noise produced are substantial.
The use of geothermal heat must occur near the source; it isn't possible to transport it very far.
The geothermal energy supply is of low quality -- diffuse like solar rather than concentrated like coal
usnavyet3 9 months ago
BeondaPale 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@usnavyet3
And when it takes a RIDICULOUS situation to make a con, I dont think thats a bad thing.
HUH?? What the hell does this even mean??
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Barring the "impossibility" of a nuclear failure in the united states.
Gas explosion? Depending on where and how big, maybe 400-1000 people killed/injured, but no long-lasting environmental damage.
Air pollution? By your figures, about 10000 deaths a year and atmospheric damage. Pretty bad.
Nuclear? Unless it's catastrophic, probably very few immediate deaths, but you're also looking at dangerously contaminated earth, water, air, and life for decades, making an area completely unlivable.
kamao22 9 months ago
I this it's hilarious how the arrogant first word "OBVIOUSLY..." in this video now must come with a disclaimer
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Just thought all you fraudulent free marketeers might be interested that the New World Order just TAXED ALL OF US $780 Million for a new shell around Chernobyl - 4/11
This is on top of the 300 billion we're gonna shell out for fukushima
That Nuclear power in free market ANYTHING is a bad joke
Nuclear power is born socialist, it dies socialists and it ENSURES socialism for tens of thousands of years into the future
Oh, and as you can clearly see - it's no where CLOSE to cheap either
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@emaildoctor oh...and those articles you are reading that say this is as bad as Chernobyl, "...had to do with the overall release of radiation and was not directly linked to health dangers...most of the radiation was released early in the crisis and that the reactors still have mostly intact containment vessels surrounding their nuclear cores." If you don't understand that, it means that the amount Fukushima has released is NOT linked to PUBLIC HEALTH RISK.
THeindl5122 9 months ago
@emaildoctor I have a bachelors in nuclear engineering, I have been studying this for YEARS. When you attack nuclear power without knowing what you are talking about, you are just being ignorant. It's people like you who speak without understanding the facts that hurt an industry which could have an incredibly positive impact on the world we live in. So come at me bro - TEACH ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER AND THE ACCIDENT THAT I CANT COMPLETELY PROVE WRONG
THeindl5122 9 months ago
@THeindl5122
True or false:
It is a necessity to store and protect some waste from nuclear power generation for 1000's of years
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale False we can reprocess it and burn it in a fast reactor
Darkwizzrobe 9 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe
"we can reprocess it and burn it in a fast reactor"
All of it?
-- Reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste
-- A geologic repository would still be required.
-- Plutonium constitutes only about one percent of the spent fuel from U.S. reactors.
-- Reprocessing also increases the risk of nuclear terrorism
-- Reprocessing is very expensive.
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale I have read your arguments and I believe you are quite miss informed and should look into using non-biased sources for if you did you would understand the actual efficiency of nuclear energy and how it is safe and easy in its implementation and use.
DeathToPsuedoScience 9 months ago
@DeathToPsuedoScience Thank you for agreeing!
RazaTheHacker 9 months ago
@DeathToPsuedoScience
Nuclear energy is incredibly efficient - I've never questioned this
If human nature, incompetence & greed, were not involved in the equation, I would wholeheartedly agree with nuclear as a power source. But humans and their inherent stupidity ARE involved and this makes nuclear a bad choice when compared to an inherently harmless energy solution like geothermal
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale Greed is the sole driving force of the economy! Who would ever start an business if it wasn't for their greed to make money? I thought you were a capitalist but obviously I am mistaken, and all of your responses to RTH and DWR have been wrong and thoroughly subjective in their mannerisms. Geothermal power can weaken the ground around the plant, have high initiation costs, and without proper management can deplete the heat sources they drain power from.
DeathToPsuedoScience 9 months ago
@DeathToPsuedoScience
"Greed is the sole driving force of the economy!"
No, not greed - Please read John Nash's addendum to Adam Smith. Ethical self interest is the sole diving force, else you get Bernie Madoff
Greed does exist however and when it mixes with a technology as POTENTIALLY dangerous as nuclear power, the risk of a catastrophic event occurring with that technology failing catastrophically rises accordingly. EG FUKUSHIMA
BeondaPale 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Geothermal power can weaken the ground around the plant."
An easily dealt with design consideration
"have high initiation costs"
LOL not even in the same solar system as the huge initiation cost of nuclear
"And without proper management can deplete the heat sources they drain power from."
Without proper management you can't ride a fricken bicycle - SOLUTION?? PROPER MANAGEMENT - Duhhh
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Browns Ferry - the second-biggest nuclear power plant in the United States - may be down for weeks after killer thunderstorms and tornadoes in Alabama knocked out power and automatically shut down the plant, avoiding a nuclear disaster, officials said on Thursday.
Lucky us.
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale Until the truth of a leak comes out years later lol
22ness0hayden 8 months ago
@THeindl5122 Thank you for agreeing with me.
DeathToPsuedoScience 9 months ago
@emaildoctor You can't be serious...pro-nuclear propoganda? Wanna know the difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima? Chernobyl EXPLODED spewing MILLIONS of Curies of radioactive material in the air..killing THOUSANDS of people - these were LONG LIVED and dangerous fission products. Fukushima had an explosion (OUTSIDE of containment), RELEASING NOTHING. The radioactive material being released into the ocean is SHORT LIVED IODINE, and will have ZERO impact on the public.
THeindl5122 9 months ago
@emaildoctor You can't be serious...pro-nuclear propoganda? Wanna know the difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima? Chernobyl EXPLODED spewing MILLIONS of Curies of radioactive material in the air..killing THOUSANDS of people - these were LONG LIVED and dangerous fission products. Fukushima had an explosion (OUTSIDE of containment), RELEASING NOTHING. The radioactive material being released into the ocean is SHORT LIVED IODINE, and will have ZERO impact on the public.
jojocrazypants 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jojocrazypants
Fukushima is ongoing and will remain so into the foreseeable future - they don't even know what the hell to do about it right now
Fukushima IS releasing cs 137 - AS WE SPEAK - EVERY SINGLE DAY
Fukushima WILL kill thousands - just not right away
"and will have ZERO impact on the public."
How the hell can you state this AS FACT???
BeondaPale 9 months ago
finally the voice of reason! this should be an education video shown to all narrow minded hippies.
gent070 9 months ago
I live in New York, our dumbass governor wants to close down the Indian Point Power Plant. I don't think he knows that the same nuclear power plant powers 30% of the energy of New York City. Fuck Democrats.
shinokiba 9 months ago
The US Navy has been using Nuclear power ships for over 50 yrs. Why? Because its the best. Japan has three major fault lines. Putting a Nuclear plant near major fault lines is a very bad idea. France uses nuclear power and it works for them. And if the French can get it right theirs no reason any other country can't.
WarlordNWN 9 months ago
@WarlordNWN
France is a socialist nation - nuclear power REQUIRES socialism
Btw, where is France going to put all the nuclear waste when decommissioning time comes rolling around?
Hint: even the French don't know
BeondaPale 9 months ago
You're good, Do you want to write my school essays for me? I'll pay you hahaha
Devngel 9 months ago
I deleted my comment because, in light of Japan, people seem to think I've been "pwned". When you compare the history of the impact of nuclear plants to the history of the impact of oil drilling, nuclear energy clearly wins. I think the reactors in Japan could have been designed better. But as noted, an 8.9 earthquake (plus tsunami) is a very unique event!!! To the Japanese, the plants aren't the "big issue" right now. FOOD and SHELTER are!!
pburto 9 months ago
This nigga got proved wrrroonnnngggg!!! look at japan lately bud?
halo3narb 9 months ago
Radiation levels in the shaft have been measured at more than 1,000 millisieverts per hour, which is more than 330 times the dose an average resident of an industrialized country naturally receives in a year. Radioactivity above the shaft was measured at 250 millisieverts per hour, said Tokyo Electric, the plant's owner.
a992356 10 months ago
yeah, quite safe indeed....>_>
SteveIronmaiden 10 months ago
LOL! You gotta love how these neo-liberals are just turning a blind eye to the facts and continue to fester in the propaganda that they believe in. And what will be the result? More environmental hazards and inefficiency will occur than they really want to simply because they're being such ignorant morons. Nuclear power FTW!
Great video by the way!
madderbass 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordofKings135
"there is not going to be another meltdown like Chernobyl because that can't happen with all the safety measures put in place now"
Ladies and gentlemen this clown said this only 1 year ago
BeondaPale 10 months ago
@BeondaPale Man youtube dose not give alot of space to type I have quite a bit to say about that maybe I should make a video but to the truth is modern reactors in the west eg Gen 2 and 3,4 don't have Chernobyl's and this was a gen 1 before they fixed the hydrogen problem that engineers in the 70's fixed in our plants the Japanese didn't bother so the containment exploded. Also Fukishima even though the government claims its a 7 it has released around 1% radiative substances of Chernobyl
Darkwizzrobe 9 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe
"even though the government claims its a 7 it has released around 1% radiative substances of Chernobyl
Uh huh. Well, I supposed you have a reliable source for this silly claim, right? I'll be waiting.
BTW fukushima is ON GOING - so using the word "released" is wrong - the word is RELEASING and WILL release into the foreseeable future
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale I sent you some of the links to my "silly claim"
Darkwizzrobe 9 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe
"I sent you some of the links to my "silly claim"
As reliable as Tepco, no doubt.
Your claim is silly because Fukushima is NOT OVER - hell, Chernobyl is not over, but it's WAY more over than Fukushima.
Tell ya what, why don't you hold all your pronouncements of "fact" until the 6 to 9 month period that Tepco CONSERVATIVELY estimates it will take to get these reactors under complete control has passed
Because until AT LEAST then these nukes are going to continue to leak.
BeondaPale 9 months ago
Radioactive iodine detected in seawater at raised levels in Glasgow and other parts of the UK/Europe. Waters 300m off the shore of the Fukushima 3,335 times the usual amount of radioactive iodine. Engineers frantically trying to trace the leak. Plant operator TEPCO admitted there was no end in sight to the world's worse nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. - BBC/WPO
22ness0hayden 10 months ago
For everyone who brings up Japan: HELLO! THERE WAS AN 8.9 EARTHQUAKE! No wonder it was shaken up.
LilDrummerBoy74 10 months ago
To further elaborate on my comment: alot of means to harness various energies keep developing, getting cheaper & more efficient, wind is one of those. But let's say for arguments sake: the whole world & it's ca 2,4 million cities are run by nuclear plants & that there's a rough 1 million plants to run these cities with, that means that every three years they completely throw out tons of these metal rods, shut inside canisters that would mean tons of non reusable metal garbage canisters. Ideas?
vidarmoose 10 months ago
@vidarmoose
Even in my city, people are recycling metal for money, so with that in mind I absolutely doubt we'd be able to produce caskets of that quanitity, in contrast to producing windmills that may only need repairing & not these excess safety methods & waste handling, not to speak of mining costs & the intense process of actually getting the uranium ready for the plant as you know. It's more a question of efficiency to me, I'm open for any argument though :)
vidarmoose 10 months ago
@vidarmoose The whole mining milling and enriching takes about 4% of the energy the plant produces this does not take into account that there are better methods of enrichment coming on to the market and further methods in research. Not to mention with fast reactors and reprocessing we can handle the waste problem fairly easily
Darkwizzrobe 9 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe Ok but still the mining puts radioactive waste on land which contains about 80& of the total radioactive waste that the process for nuclear energy creates. 0.1% of the stuff they dig up is actually used then you melt the stuff with acid, shape it into a cake, turn it into gas & pick up the uranium in filters, just consider wind: there is NO pre process to harness the energy. & A windmill brings in the energy it took to build it in 7 months compared to nuclear which takes 3 years.
vidarmoose 9 months ago
Comment removed
vidarmoose 9 months ago
@Darkwizzrobe What it comes down to for me basically is the efficiency. A windmills machinery doesn't become radioactive & in the end Uranium is such a unique power source that can be used for better things than boiling water haha :)
vidarmoose 9 months ago
@vidarmoose One of those things may well be powering 2nd stage rockets I would say though I have to say uranium and thorium have limited application outside energy not many industrious uses I know thorium is used in certain glass but as we see with DU its either stocked pile for use later as a waste or used as a weapon in war which I see as the most wasteful part of using that resource
Darkwizzrobe 9 months ago
You really are helping destroy lives by this ill thought out crap you are spewing. Look at youtube.com/user/dutchsinse and study his links to verifiable, sties. Look at seismic maps. Look at the 4 $ITES in Japan, that have gone to MELTDOWN. In New York, there are TWO power plants, OF THE $AME DE$IGN AS FUKU$HIMA, that are built on FAULTLINES! What the F*CK is wrong with you? Coal burning plants should be done away with, but, THEY DON'T MELTDOWN INTO NUCLEAR FISSION, YOU IDIOT! No nuclear power!
VictoriaEatingCake 10 months ago
You are misinformed. Have you considered that power sources do NOT have to be centralized in massive power plants? The Swedes have a system to heat homes with human waste. Have you told people about the Bloombox, the micro turbine? Non-dam hydro-electric? There are so many alternatives, wind and solar would work even better if DECENTRALIZED, and dispersed, building by building, town by town, city by city. The ultra-rich could pay for this transfer of power (pun intended).
VictoriaEatingCake 10 months ago
Fact #1 : If you have enough nuclear power plants operating there will be nuclear meltdowns and core breaches. The Nuclear industry denied this fact from day one just like you, But the proof is in, "impossible" melt downs and nuclear core breaches do occur and cause major health hazards. If we accept nuclear power we must also accept the real risk that a New York City with 14 million people may someday have to be evacuated and contaminated with deadly radioisotopes for a very long time.
emaildoctor 10 months ago
@emaildoctor Let's see the in depth probabilistic risk assessments by the engineers who are familiar with plant design specs and compare those to practical alternatives. Wait, you don't have those? Then you're not by any stretch of the imagination qualified to comment on the risks. Stats or GTFO.
Libertarianist 10 months ago 3
@Libertarianist GTFO? Not qualified to make comments? Like you are? The Union of Concerned Scientists website presents informed, scientific, independent, and realistic risk assessments of N-power. You continue to naively insist we can get valid safety analysis from the engineers who work for the n-power industry? Fact: meltdowns, widespread contamination, mass evacuations, and many human cancers and deaths have occurred. Continued NP development means we will have more of the same.
emaildoctor 10 months ago
@Libertarianist, Once again, IDIOT, it's in the f*cking newspapers, you dipsh*t! The NRC has stated that Indian Point Nuclear power plant is at extremely high risk of earthquake damage. It's built on a faultline, you ASS! This is common knowledge! The stats are easily obtainable. Everyone, just Google, Governor Cuomo Indian point nuclear power plant or go to Dutchsinse YouTube channel with verifiable scientific site links not like this Libertarianist who is spouting nuclear indu$try $hit.
VictoriaEatingCake 10 months ago
@Libertarianist Although your argument seems well supported and credulous, I still strongly believe that nuclear power plants should not--under any circumstances--be used as a source of energy. The risk of a nuclear meltdown could cause entire populations to evacuate cities and towns. Moreover, radiation contamination would leave large cities uninhabited for years. This means thousands of dollars down the drain. Furthermore, regardless of how efficiently (continued in next comment)...
redmicrowave125 10 months ago
@redmicrowave125 energy is provided by nuclear power plants, people should not compromise their safety over sufficient electrical energy. It is much better to have insufficient energy via solar power or wind power than to have the potential of a total nuclear fallout.
redmicrowave125 10 months ago
@Libertarianist I may not be qualified independently to comment on the risks but the Union of Concerned is and I can read their opinion and note it. I suggest you search for it and read a realistic view of the risks and stats on N-power. They, unlike you, do know shit about nuclear power. Your statement that unless I have alternatives I am not qualified to comment on N-power is not based in logic and is ridiculous on its face. Anything can legitimately be criticized in its own right.
emaildoctor 10 months ago
@Libertarianist
Libertarianist SAYZZZ:
"Never mind those 30 million people currently at risk. I WANT STATISTICS!!!"
You say you are a libertarian - but you listen to whatever CRAP government or industry sources spoon feed you
BeondaPale 10 months ago
@emaildoctor I agree with this, hit thumbs down by accident. You couldn't be more right! Thanks!
VictoriaEatingCake 10 months ago
@emaildoctor Ever heard of LFTR? It stands for Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor. It's a type of nuclear reactor which, because it uses thorium, operates in a kind of semi-liquid form. This gives it unique properties, that namely being that it is self-regulating, as the process causes the material to expand as it heats, slowing the reaction, where it then condenses. Plus, it produces much less waste as the by-products produced are also used as nuclear fuel.
halo07guy2 9 months ago
@halo07guy2 If we must use NP we must use technologies that do not require active intervention to contain an accident. If the LFTR truly operates with passive automatic shut down in the event of an accident and it's a practical alternative to today's melt down prone and vulnerable reactors I'm all for it but I want objective scientists to lay out the facts and not nuclear industry engineers who make their typical false and unrealistic claims of dependability and near absolute safety.
emaildoctor 9 months ago
@emaildoctor It isgiven the right design. Most designs incoporate this passive regulation system, where because the fuel regulates itself, there is no danger of out of control temperatures. You can find videos about it here. Also important is that Thorium by itself cannot fission. It requires a kind of spark to start the reaction, as it can't initiate it itself. Basically you'll never get a nuclear reaction with Thorium unless you use something else to initiate it.
halo07guy2 9 months ago
thankyou for this, Im still unsure to whether i agree with it or not (I may just be subconsciously afraid that i will be wrong and am sitting on the fence) you made some very compelling arguments, and many of the facts i did know before which has lead me defending nuclear power in the past its just the storing that makes me queasy Im a country girl and i know its safe but putting things underground or under water makes me nervous but besides that thankyou or video was very helpful and insightful
CuginiSandwich 10 months ago
Nuclear energy is statistically the safest method of energy generation, by a long way.
It doesn't matter how many sensationalist media stories you bring up, how many hypothetical scenarios you put out, how many times you can fit Chernobyl into a sentence. Nuclear power is safest. The end. It's really that simple.
AnnoyingingeXD 10 months ago
@AnnoyingingeXD, You are completely out of your mind. As problematic as other energy sources are, especially brown coal burning plants, THEY DON'T HAVE NUCLEAR CORE MELTDOWNS WITH PLUMES OF RADIOACTIVITY THAT CIRCULATE AROUND THE PLANET, you moron! LOOK, go to Dutchsinse's YouTube channel. He's a scientist, a geologist and an excellent researcher with links to scientific sites. World seismic activity is up. Gerrmany shut down ALL of their GE Mark II (same as Fukushima) we have more here in NY!
VictoriaEatingCake 10 months ago
@VictoriaEatingCake
And? I never said nuclear is completely safe, only the safest. And it is. Any other feasible method of energy generation kills far more people and does far more damage to the environment (read the foreword on the video), and the backward steps society would take if it stopped generating energy using any of these methods would cause huge numbers of deaths from previously preventable diseases and halt our advancement.
AnnoyingingeXD 10 months ago
@AnnoyingingeXD, Again, you are misinformed. READ the other comments. There's the Bloombox, magnetic power, non-dam hydro-electric, DECENTRALIZED solar( local, on each specific site— NOT in massive, stupid, corporate controlled power plants), bird-guarded wind, human, animal and food waste heating, Temperature differentials, simple mechanical device engineering for human physio-kinetic energy, etc. Go To YouTube channel Dutchsinse. He's a scientist and geologist with links to scientific sites.
VictoriaEatingCake 10 months ago
@VictoriaEatingCake
Haha, you think I'm gonna form my opinion from random Youtube comments and users? Mate, I did a half-year project on energy sources. I've looked at scientific papers on every generation method you could think of, and some you couldn't. All those other small-scale ones simply don't work for any sizable population, not least beacuse they are horrendously inefficient and expensive compared to centralised power generation. Nuclear is the future for 30-60 years, then solar power.
AnnoyingingeXD 10 months ago
@AnnoyingingeXD, Okay, I'm going to try this again. DUTCHSINSE IS A SCIENTIST! He is a GEOLOGIST. Dutchsinse, is referring to SCIENTIFIC WEBSITES, from AROUND THE GLOBE, including, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and JET PROPULSION LABORATORY, etc. etc. etc. Go educate yourself and stop spewing disinformation.
VictoriaEatingCake 9 months ago
@VictoriaEatingCake
He's a geologist? Rofl, he did geography. I'll go to him if I want to see how an earthquake works, but nuclear power is outside his domain.
Also, the fact remains that nuclear power causes less deaths than any other method. It doesn't matter how bad it is, right now we have no alternatives that aren't even worse.
AnnoyingingeXD 9 months ago
All I know is Germany get about 30% of there electricity from solar and wind.
I'm sure we could do better.