@techcafe Those plants that were shut down prematurely obviously would have a lower cost efficiency, since they faced their decommissioning cost before the end of the lifetime of the plants. All those old generation I and II reactors in the US that are obviously incurring no further construction costs and are getting 20+ life extensions are only going to make nuclear more competitive, not to mention the next generation designs.
The Fukushima disaster has made us more worried than we should be. Japan had this accident because of the earthquake, but France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has had no malfunctions. The fact is that nuclear power is much cleaner than fossil fuels, and the operators know how to manage radioactive material.
Nuclear power has been around for a relatively short amount of time. Other things that are generally accepted were the same early in their creation. You think the first heart surgery went down perfectly? And yet how many are performed nowadays world wide? How many lives do they save now? The reason that we need to keep developing technology is to work out all the kinks and glitches. That way we'll have a safer, cheaper, cleaner world.
I am from Slovakia , my mother contracted a dose of radiation from Chernobyl it killed my unborn brother. She is for Nuclear energy. Who has worse experience of it and is against it ? No one ? Ok case closed!
@22ness0hayden "They haven't discussed the radioactive waste that will live on for longer than mankind has even been on this planet"
1) Yes, they did. It was later in the episode. The disposal site would be Yucca Mt. Very safe.
2) On average, high energy radioactive material is estimated to last no more than 10,000 years. Humanity has been around for several hundred thousand years.
@22ness0hayden because no modern reactors are built which was way more safer than anything developed in 70s and 80s ... some of the low yield ones are so safe that even if you break it part manually the radiation would be so low that noone would be in danger at max the one who break it ...
Chernoybl had zero shielding and was in a converted Coal power plant. Zero shielding, coal plant. Great place to put a poorly designed and made reactor. The failure was entirely human created to. They shut down cooling, pulled the control rods and tried to get that reactor to its hottest. Realizing it was too hot, they tried to scram it and get the rods back in, and well, the rods cracked and jammed meaning there was no way to slow down the reactions combined with no containment, boom.
compare the only three nuclear disastar to ever happen to all four major oil spills that occured last year alone nuclear isnt perfict but its the only thing big enough to replace fossil fuels the othe renewables just do not cut it yet we have no other choice its a hell of a lot better than fossil fuels so support it its the best thing we got
Something you should know about the Japanese meltdown. The power got shut off to the plant meaning it couldn't pump water to cool down parts of the plant so it overheated. Modern plants can still cool down those parts even without power. So yeah, go nuclear.
Wow, Penn, Teller thanks for your bullshit! I know I fell for it. You guys are professional scammers (illusionists) and you're sideshow "Bullshit" reinforced my delusions about nuclear power.
Not only is nuclear power NOT safe, it's costly. Thanks for helping to reinforce my beliefs.
seems Penn just assumes that nuclear power is 'clean energy'? it's not. never was, never can be. to produce the 'nuclear fuel', uranium ore must be mined out of the ground (using fossil fuel guzzling monster trucks and other heavy mining equipment), blighting the face of the planet with hideous scars that can be seen from outer space, where the minerals/ore were gouged from the earth, leaving behind huge open pit sores.
and then the uranium ore (or thorium in today's 'modern' nuclear reactors) must be enriched into radioactive fuel pellets/rods. the processes involved to mine, refine, enrich, manufacture, safely/securely store, and so on, is costly and energy intensive, plus it produces tons of lethal waste (spent fuel) which remains deadly forever, often ending up in the hands of military contractors and arms dealers, who use the radioactive waste to make depleted uranium bullets, bombs and WMDs. just lovely.
@Hairysteed - the 'spent fuel' from nuclear power plants retains something like 99% of its radioactive isotopes (dangerous ionizing radiation) even after the fuel rods have been 'spent' and removed from the reactor core. the arms industry LOVES nuclear waste, b/c they use it to manufacture DU (depleted uranium) ammunition.
@techcafe DU is made in the enrichment process. Not in the reactor. The only way to make a WMD with nuclear waste is to use it as the radioactive material of a dirty bomb
@techcafe Oh, and DU is way less radioactive than natural uranium... practically not at all. DU is dangerous because of other reasons (toxicity, carcinogenic...)
@techcafe No, you are wrong, there is nothing "clean" about nuclear fission, that has waste, but there is absolutely no waste with nuclear fusion, unless you consider excess energy from tiny masses a waste.
The possibility of accidents isn't a valid reason to cease improving existing technologies and developing available power sources to meet future needs and insure that power is kept as affordable as possible. If a nation can take military action on two separate accounts to invade a single nation and consequently cripple it in order to secure oil resources, why can't newer technologies expand in the face of media adversity and superstition?
Surely that is more forward thinking and a lesser evil than the probability of continued conflicts with other nations such as Venezuela or Iran... slowly picking them apart for their oil reserves.
AND HOW ABOUT THOSE CHILDREN IN THE UKRAINE WHO ARE BEING BORN WITH BRAINS OUTSIDE OF THEIR HEADS AFTER CHERNOBYL?!?! WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO SAY TO THAT?!?!?!?!
@TranshumanCyborg Im glad you understand and didnt jump on the next bandwagon.......nuclear power is cheap and ez power....but what if something were to go wrong vs other power. water power......a dam breaking isnt as bad as leaking radiation.
@FatherTime89 Im not making any clam....all i said was nothing is safe, and because nothing is safe what is the affect of other power vs nuclear power if something were to go wrong? other power affected ITS areas where radiation can spread. use some logic and THINK about it.
@REDTEAM22003 "other power affected ITS areas where radiation can spread. use some logic and THINK about it."
You DO realize that the main source of power in the world is either coal or oil, right? You ever see an oil plant go up in flames? Yeah, the damage, both environmental and economical can EASILY spread as far as radiation. Pollution and radiation BOTH travel in the same way, via the wind.
Difference is, modern nuclear power plants can internally contain that shit. Oil plants can't.
@REDTEAM22003 How many people have died to due to the power plant? How many people have been contaminated? Go ahead, i'll wait while you go and find the answer.
@KitireFel are you dumb? its only safe until something happen. there is shit we cant control like weather and natural disasters, this is why japan is in trouble. they might even have the best nuclear power on the plante but look at them now.
@REDTEAM22003 Well? Nothing is safe, cars are not safe, your home is not safe, knives in your kitchen are not safe, your pillow is not safe (you know how many people has been murdered by those?!)... The only thing left to do is to kill yourself before anything else does! Quick!
@magikmw Today like i said, nothing is safe. today 50 heros are going to die in japan going head on to shut down a leak. why dont you stfu and stop jumping on the bandwagon to next hype and pay a little respect to them because of dumb ass people like yourself were told nuclear power is safe cuz they said so.....
@magikmw WTF are you talking about now man?? have you been watching the news? these 50 are going to die 100% and knowing they arent gonna see their love ones
Any severely limited source of power will not provide the answer. We need to look to wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power if we want sustainable, safe energy. In the use of nuclear power - even if it was completely harmless - we would only be delaying the application of these other, renewable sources of energy, to the exclusive benefit of a few business profiteers in the energy and security sectors.
@thomash0905 Isn't that the same argument people who are scared to fly use? When a plane crashes its often a horrific scene and many people die. Yet if you do the math, its still far safer then driving even though when something goes wrong, its a big problem. The plane crashes though killing many people at the same time, happen so less frequently then fatal car crashes.
Nuclear power is like flying, if something goes wrong its real bad, but its still better then the alternative.
@GhostInTheShell29 You can not seriously make an analogy between a plane crash and a nuclear accident.
Big difference between 200 victims and 2000. You must count in the big hazard to the environment (nearly every single process to nuclear energy brings some kind of danger to the environment).
Nuclear power is NOT the technology of tomorrow.
If the airplane is nuclear power, what energy source would be the "car"?
@thomash0905 ... Coal plants expose people to radiation, and PCB's on a daily basis... Nuclear plants are only dangerous when they have meltdowns. Of which there's only been one serious meltdown in the history of nuclear power, in a worse case scenario thats completely preventable by having basic safeguards.
Cleaner air would mean less upper respitory infections, better public health, better for the environment as well.
@GhostInTheShell29 Do you think nuclear power plants only contaminate when their is a meltdown?
From the mining of uranium there is contamination.
There is no way to prevent a nuclear disaster at a 100% rate (a single mistake can lead to over 200 000 been affected like in Chernobyl) , but it is very safe, i do not deny that.
But i prefer renewable energy sources, they should be investigated and promoted.
@thomash0905 Chernobyl was a perfect storm of several hundred mistakes.
They have been investigated, and are being promoted. But until they are economically feasible they won't be replacing coal/gas/nuclear. Plus with nuclear energy we won't be destorying the environment while we wait 30-40 years for renewable technology to become efficient enough to be practical.
@GhostInTheShell29 I meant they should be investigated and promoted at a bigger scale, especially in developing countries that could benefit greatly from them.
I never denied nuclear energy should not be used now, that is why i said it is not the technology of tomorrow.
@thomash0905 Developing countries should focus mostly on coal/natural gas/oil development. Being the cheapest forms of energy they will allow them to grow their industry, and improve standard of living. Which would save lives.
Developed countries really should switch mostly to nuclear energy. In time solar as it becomes more efficient will probably be on everyones roof, but even with them on your roof you'll still need some of your energy from the power plants.
@GhostInTheShell29 I hate to go all "conspirator asshole" here, but I don't think your scenario of universal solar power will ever happen, unfortunately. Powerful companies would lose a lot of money if everyone switched to cheap, self-reliant energy sources like universal solar power. They don't want to lose money, so they'll pressure the government to avoid passing laws that might promote that outcome. Certainly in America, at least.
"In time solar [power] as it becomes more efficient will probably be on everyones roof, but even with them on your roof you'll still need some of your energy from the power plants. "
That's the kind of universal solar energy usage I meant. But I think solar power will eventually be viable as the sole option for a lot of people. Naturally, other forms of energy would need to be available as a failsafe just in case of emergency.
@GhostInTheShell29 Starting from the point the reactor was designed. RBMKs were never legal in the US because they don't meet the requirement that a loss of coolant cause the reactor to shut itself down automatically.
"Short-sighted"? Hypocritical much?! I like P&T, but they've gotten this 1 wrong. Why do we need more power? To sustain ever-increasing energy demands. What sources of energy are available to us? Hydro, Solar, Tidal, Geo-thermal, etc, and Nuclear. Why opt for nuclear? For the same reason you'd opt 4 war... Profit. -The security/protection contract on nuclear waste (actively dangerous 4 thousands of years) must be quite sought after in this cut-throat corporate-elitist-serving economy.
@magicdarragh ...And why not? It is cheapest, it is safe and I think we should keep our minds open for every energy source, but still nuclear power is cleanest and cheap.
@Kelol100 Hey - I'm no expert, but I know nuclear energy is potentially very dangerous. It creates waste which we cannot safely dispose of, waste which lasts over 200,000 years. The radioactive waste produced can melt through metal, and great cooling tanks are required to prevent this before it is finally dumped in the deepest parts of the oceans, where they once believed there to be no life. Our health and safety, and the planets, takes precedence over "cost". Or can we not afford that?
@magicdarragh the waist could be dramatically reduced with a reclamation facility. if your scared about something you should learn more about it before passing judgment. did you know most of the nuclear waist of Chernobyl has already disappeared from the earth? it got absorbed and is now harmless
@Montork Yes, who cares how many lives Chernobyl ruined... Maybe you should also "learn some more" - find out how long nuclear power could sustain our rising energy consumption. Find out how many nuclear power plants would have to scour the face of the earth, radioactively poisoning our air. Yes we need energy, but at what cost. The world is borrowed from our children - but right now, we only seem to be burdening them with the problems of our own shortsightedness. Research "geothermal energy"...
@magicdarragh because you know Chernobyl was the fault of nuclear energy and not the fault of the fucked up Russian government. oh wait it was mostly poorly built equipment, little to no safety equipment, and trying to keep it quiet that caused the tragedy. if your as old as im guessing i could be "the children" you speak of.
@Montork im not saying nuclear energy should be the only energy source im saying we should try to be open minded and work to maintain and update the nuclear energy plants we already have installed. make them as safe and efficient as possible, but then by reading your comment im sure your mind is already set. nuclear energy is bad. using it to help heal cancer patients is bad. period.... i hope you never move to France.
@Montork No, but dangerous radiation is not the fault of nuclear energy - it is currently an unavoidable byproduct. There are currently NO means known to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Until there is, I would advocate the development of alternative cheaper, safer, more effective and sustainable energy sources. Attending to cancer patients does not necessitate the use of nuclear energy. And the phrase I used is applicable to EVERY generation. I just turned 20 btw, not that that matters anyway..
@magicdarragh if we used nuclear reclamation facilities like most of Europe does we could dramatically reduce waste by re-using the same uranium rods until they are spent, instead of using them once cooling them and storing them for destruction. but of course that's more expensive then just using it and tossing it, like most of the Americas do but then we cant really afford to build a nuclear re-use facility because the people are against all forms of nuclear energy.
@magicdarragh also you mentioned air poisoning.. im pretty sure that only happens when there's been a meltdown and those hardly ever happen. in 2007 when chalk river nuclear facility shut down for repairs there was a worldwide shortage of radioisotopes, of which chalk river is the largest suppler, it put tens of thousands of Canadians in serious jeopardy.
@Montork In a profit-based economy I do not, and cannot, trust some corporate heads and investors with the welfare of this planet & our people. Take 4 instance ur example below - profit came before people - and, in such a corrupt system as ours - it always will. Remove the incentive for a few individuals to get filthy rich off it and we'll All be on the right path. As 4 the Canadians in jeopardy - their dependancy on nuclear energy does NOT justify it as a means for energy. Ad hominem argument.
@magicdarragh which example? im sorry to say this but our two worlds are very different and yet the same. i can't trust those in power ether but then like you i have little power to control the world around me. you can argue all you wish with me but you wont change my mind.
i believe we should explore all available sources of energy in moderation, you believe all nuclear energy to be deadly. the world at this time is of your opinion. i may disagree but it wont matter popular opinion controls the world whether its right, or wrong. someday things may change but then again mabie they wont.
@Montork I'm not trying 2 argue with you. I too believe that we shud explore all available sources of energy in moderation. And I believe that people have more power than they realize. As Mr. Dylan said, "the times they are a-changin'!" Well, I hope so anyway! For 1 thing - people the world over are becoming painfully aware of the immense inequalities and pitfalls present in our current-day system. U may find this video interesting - after youtube dot com.. /watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg :) Let me know..
Competitive Enterprise Institute: front group for Libertarian foundations, big oil, and big tobacco. Hardly the best source. Oh, and have had high ranking member say "corporations have no other responsibility than to make a profit", plus deny global warming at every turn.
Pretty hypocritical for a fat dope smoking drop out who sports a pony tail to call others hippies. Do you want to know why there isn't more nuclear power corporate shills? The oil lobby, not the hippy lobby. And why are people "afraid" of nuclear power? They don't understand it? No, we understand all too well that some asshole CEO for a chickenshit outfit like Bectel can't be trusted. For cris sake they dumped the waste into the ocean till 1998! "Hippies" died stopping them.
@eldeberry What a wit! You know what is really idiotic? Turds like you who blindly follow shrill uniformed bullshit from entertainers like Penn in this day of corporate unaccountability. Ever heard of a company called British Petroleum? You have the gall to call somebody an idiot? a hypocrite? That's like the pot rejoicing in all blackness of the kettle. Hey don't let facts or logic get in the way of your "fact based" "reasoning". Ever hear of a place called Fallon Nevada? I didn't think so.
@hamnose you're an idiot, and it's hilarious to see that you've jumped on this fear mongering wagon over BP, which, by the way, I have no idea why you've even brought up. it seems like your mind is a mangled mess.
you're accusing me of following people blindly? take a look for yourself, idiot. nuclear energy is used all over the world, dumbass. seen any chernobyls lately? moreover, they're right in accusing "hippies" of fear mongering. get a clue, retard
@eldeberry Keep talking. Show us how slaves think. BP lied about the extent of its disaster. And like BP, despite a known correlation between cancer and exposure to radioactivity, corporations which cause this type of pollution deny it. They lie and you defend them. Do tell us why we should trust these assholes with nuclear power? Nuclear energy is fabulous, but there are too many ninnies like you in the world. Hippy lobby? Where? K street? That's funny. And you call me a retard. Yeah right.
@hamnose hippy lobby? green peace? are you retarded? YEAH RIGHT. you idiot. and who on earth DOESN'T know that radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer. BP may have lied; however, it's irrelevant, and because they're a private company they're the ones who're going to have to foot the bill for the disaster, as would any other company be responsible for nuclear energy. you really don't have an argument except some conspiracy theory crap about corporations lying to you. pathetic really
@eldeberry My my, have you got your panties in a wad. What "hippy lobby"? I asked you first. Don't you mean the oil lobby? What about "green peace"? That they put a stop to your beloved masters dumping nuclear waste in the sea? "Who on earth DOESN'T know that radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer?" Your beloved nuclear energy corporations apparently don't, or why would they spend millions to deny it? BP is going to foot the bill? You really believe that? Now that's pathetic! really.
@hamnose what about green peace? lol.. are you retarded, they're the ones who spew out this crap so that, people like in this clip, can go and mimic the same bullshit.
everything you're stating, you're pulling it entirely out of your ass. you've got no evidence for anything you're saying, and now you're speculating that somehow BP is to blame for everything thanks to all the media you've been fed.
you're as bad as a creationist or some zeitgeist retard.
@eldeberry Still got that hair up your ass I see. Admit it, you love being a slave. Any of these shit outfits you suck up to give you suck up pay back? They don't? Well aren't you a sucker. Still no come backs: What hippy lobby? Where? K street? Why would anyone spend money to deny a correlation of cancer and radioactivity? You blindly swallow Penn's BS and say I'm following people blindly? You are every bit as intolerant and muddled as any creationist.
@hamnose hippy lobby.. it's addressed in this fucking video, you arrogant idiot. you've yet to present any evidence to counter-argue this video. all you've done is speculate and spew out anti-capitalist crap that you'd expect from green peace.
@eldeberry "hippy lobby..it's addressed in this fucking video" The nut in Maryland who's not a "hippy" nor a lobbyist is your hippy lobby? Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that powerful lobbies like oil and coal stopped nuclear power, dufus. But don't worry, now that they have a major stake in nuclear energy they won't stand in the way. BP anyone? Exxon? Cute how Exxon wiggled out of paying the victims of the Valdez spill. What chance BP will pay? Or could pay? Wow! how "anti-capitalist!
@hamnose I love how you keep bringing BP up, especially when it wasn't even BP operating the rig. it was another company that BP had hired to drill for the oil, and who is ultimately responsible for the disaster. you're so incredibly misinformed, it's no wonder you're spitting out such crap.
@eldeberry Crap. Trans World, Haliburton and BP are pointing their fingers at each other over who's to blame but you don't see the danger in letting assholes like that operate nuclear plants? I'll continue to bring BP whether or not some idiot understands because this is precisely the problem. I don't trust the cock suckers. A spill can destroy fishing in the gulf for 20 years and bankrupt the nation but a nuclear spill can be worse. Still stewing in your juices? Keep posting.
@eldeberry I'd think twice about calling someone an idiot or a retard with the empty deck you carry. I said in the first post and I say it again. I don't trust these bastards. One more example: In the 50's and 60's thousands of Americans were injected with radioactive isotopes like strontium 90 without their knowledge by these unscrupulous corporations. And you say trust them. That's your "valid argument" and you don't even have the guts to make even that simple statement. Yeah goodbye /tool.
@hamnose you, yourself, don't trust them because you're a conspiracy theorist wacko anti capitalist from green peace. empty deck? what do i have to prove, the burden of proof is with YOU, and you've yet to present anything with any substance except "omg i don't trust them because i group all corporations together and generalise." dont make the stupid assumption that i trust them, it's just that i don't distrust them. you, on the other hand, blindly and groundless are scared of them.
@eldeberry Did Exxon pay the cost of the Valdez clean up? Did BP lie about the extent of the spill? Did Goldman Sachs lie to their clients? Did Union Carbide lie about Bhopal? Did Bectel lie about nuclear dumping? Did DOW lie about DDT or Agent Orange? Some conspiracy theories. The only conspiracy theory here is your speculation over my conspiracy theories. Try again.
@eldeberry Ridiculous is defending free of charge and a priori corporations which couldn't care less if their operations killed you or your loved ones. Pathetic is that apparently my questions have been too difficult. I'll try to make it easier on you: Are you stupid or just an asshole? Oops, trick question, it's both isn't it?
BTW, You're out of your league with Adult Swim, stick with Nickelodeon.
@eldeberry To say that coal companies lobbied against nuclear power means nobody should ever drive a car? Bechtel lied about pollution so never drive a car? I bet you think you're a genius. Don't you?. Pray, do tell genius, how you came up with that jewel of logic. Or how 'bout just answer the fucking last question since you can't or won't answer anything else: Are you stupid or just an asshole? Try again.
if we can perfectly master fission, then in a matter of time will we get to master fussion with no waste and will power all of the usa will like 10000 galloons of water
Do you think that these people know that they're being portrayed negatively when the show airs? "Hey, honey. I'm going to be on the tv!" "Oh, that's wonderful, let's watch it with our entire family" "Yay!" ...later... "Daddy, why're you such an asshole?"
if this is true, then whys yucca mtn being prepared to hold waste for 10k yrs? id love n powr to be viable, i really find thed whole idea facinating. but im skeptical of producing poisonous material that lasts for thousands of yrs.
see youre biased. even if youre correct, i know you dislike the ppl associated anti nuke. wat matters is the best decision for americans. not about ego
Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.
So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the eco-sphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation.
Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults.
But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor.
Plutonium, the most significant element in nucl. waste, is so carcinogenic that half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.
Holy shit! That... is... AWESOME!!! I especially like the way that anti-nuclear activists responded by saying that anyone who was willing to expose themselves to plutonium must be unreliable. Therefore plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to man and anyone willing to expose themselves to it should be discounted.
It is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nucl. power, the reality is that huge quant.s of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nucl. pow.plant, as well to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.
Indeed, a nucl. pow. plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in prep. and constr., the plant must operate for almost two decades.
while I admit I will never be as comfortable with nuclear power as hydro-electric power, because even if we can store nuclear waste safely the potential amount we might make will never sit well, the fact that there is not the capacity of hydroelectric or any non-dangerous power source to fuel our future energy needs means I support expanding its use. It's like the organic food argument: I'm not willing to let people die over an unknown or unlikely variable.
But then again, there are far more dams in the world than Nuclear Power Plants, and dams have also existed a good while longer. And if a N.P.P. actually DO blow up (which, yes I've heard, only happened once), the effects on the environment and the nearby population will be extremely wast in comparison with most dams. And I don't believe N.P. is safer than solar energy in any way.
It doesn't matter if there are more of them they still have a far worse safety record. Dams have broken and killed thousands of people.
In the US there has not been a single fatality from a commercial nuclear plant.
Even 3 mile island is exaggerated. The amount of radiation that was leaked from that accident is so small it is impossible to actually measure it. The only reason it is an issue is because it happened the same week the movie The China Syndrome came out.
Of course it matters if we're arguing about which energy source is most dangerous (which I thought we were), and not which energy source that has taken most lives - which I don't see any point of knowing, except out of interest of history. it is irrelevant in the question of what the safest source of energy is.
well seeing as worldwide hydroelectric plants provide about 20% of the worlds electricity and there are several thousand of them and Nuclear power plants provide 15% of the worlds electricity and there are only a few hundred well see my point.....
One nuclear power plant can provide more power then ten hydro plants so there doesn't need to be as many.
Let's also not forget that we have Nuclear power plants on over 250+ submarines and air craft carriers. Those are nuclear power plants that have been out in the middle of the ocean for years and had to fight against the most corrosive environment
Yet the navy has never had a single reactor accident.
Sorry but Nuclear power plants are far safer then any other form
As for the solar power tons of people die every year installing solar power that's why it is unsafe. Sounds silly but it is true
I see what you are saying, and I agree with you, Nuclear Power Plants have a very good accident rate. But my concern is that IF a N.P.P. one day do have a failure, the impact on nature will be horrific.
ok the first off the amount of safety measures in place are insane. It is impossible for a Chernobyl to happen in the US, Japan, England, Germany, Sweden or any of the other countries that have modern nuclear power plants.
If one did happen it still wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the effects of a Dam failure.
Even with Chernobyl no other source of power has the safety record that Nuclear power does.
Your fear of nuclear power is an irrational fear.
[...] but if a nuclear accident were to spew all kinds of chemical and nuclear wastes and radiation into the nature, it would probably take a couple of hundred (if not thousands) of years before the environment would be back on it's feet completely.
that's another one of the major misconceptions of nuclear power.
It doesn't have chemical waste or green sludge or anything like that.
The absolute worst case scenario is the reactor has a complete meltdown which btw is 100% impossible because we use water as a moderator which is a negative displacement moderator.
Now Chernobyl used graphite as a moderator which was stupid even when it was built it was stupid. No one even back then used it because it is a positive displacement moderator
Now part 2. If it does happen all US and pretty much all reactors in genral have several forms of containment. If it did meltdown all radiation would be stopped by the primary containment
Chernobyl only had 1 form of containment. Also it's containment was less then 6 in thick and made of inferior concrete
Our current nuclear plants with it's outer most containment are able to withstand planes crashing into them
If there was a nuclear accident everything would be contained
Then how exactly do you propose that we power this country? You support complaining about everything we do instead of adding constructive ideas.... IMHO nuclear is a MUCH better way to get power to the country until we can harness other forms reasonably.
Anything that doesn't contaminate nature. Hydro power, wind power, solar power, osmotic power...
If people's way of life (i.e. massive energy consumption) can't be supported without damaging the planet they live on, it's seems obvious to me that their way of life is both illogical and unethical.
Do you have any idea how a nuclear reactor works? They use a nuclear reactor to boil water extremely efficiently, whose steam, in turn, turns turbines that generate electricity. Where does this water come from? Most often, already extremely heavily polluted water supplies. And where does it go? The steam (which is pure H2O with NO contaminants) gets cooled, condensed, and returned to the source in its cleanest, purest form. This is called distillation.
Doesn't this distilled water have a tendency to carry radiation onwards? At least Sellafield in England has been known for seriously contaminating the Irish sea with radioactive water. There's also been noticed a high ratio of leukemia in the area.
Distillation produces the absolute purest form of water known to man. It's funny, the nuclear power plant, which so many believes hurts the environment, is actually acting to clean its water supply without wasting any of it. Hydroelectric power (though extremely efficient) requires damming up rivers, which depleats downstream water supplies, and burrying huge tracts of land under water upstream.
Wind power is the absolute most inefficient power source known to man, and solar power's overhead costs are so high the conversion process would be far from efficient, especially considering its relatively low output efficiency.
Oh, and as for the radioactive waste (which is stored in-house in super-thick concrete and steel stores, thereby eliminating its effect on the environment):
"Recent reports claim that coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power, and that the population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.
too bad that Reid shut down Yucca mountain. Politicians will do anything to re-main in control. Lucky ppl still want it open and a storage facility.
Sumoto999 3 months ago
bad news for nuclear advocates..
nuclear power, as it turns out, is even more expensive than we thought:
grist.org/nuclear/2011-09-29-germanys-phaseout-reveals-the-true-costs-of-nuclear-power
techcafe 4 months ago
@techcafe Those plants that were shut down prematurely obviously would have a lower cost efficiency, since they faced their decommissioning cost before the end of the lifetime of the plants. All those old generation I and II reactors in the US that are obviously incurring no further construction costs and are getting 20+ life extensions are only going to make nuclear more competitive, not to mention the next generation designs.
JhonGul 3 weeks ago
Depleted Uranium (DU) Munitions
used by U.S. and Israeli militaries against enemy personnel and civilians
/watch?v=6tJVFDmHaH8&hd=1
techcafe 4 months ago
Fallujah: Hidden Massacre
youtube.com/user/techcafe#grid/user/493BEFF01B873017
techcafe 4 months ago
link i posted to the playlist appears to be broken, so try this instead:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL493BEFF01B873017
techcafe 4 months ago
When the Dust Settles
the impact of depleted uranium weapons and the international campaign against them
/watch?v=UlGPtBX0IRY&hd=1
techcafe 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Empire or Humanity
what the classroom didn’t teach you about the American empire
/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg&hd=1
Economic Hitmen
/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ&hd=1
techcafe 4 months ago
Death by Fukushima: 0
Deaths by organic food: 29
Fuck you hippies!
Hairysteed 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hairysteed
The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were RIGHT!
/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4&hd=1
techcafe 4 months ago
The Fukushima disaster has made us more worried than we should be. Japan had this accident because of the earthquake, but France, which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, has had no malfunctions. The fact is that nuclear power is much cleaner than fossil fuels, and the operators know how to manage radioactive material.
potterfan392 4 months ago
I guess you won't find any bananas in the hippie's diet for all he's worried about radiation exposure.
SuaveTito 6 months ago
Nuclear power has been around for a relatively short amount of time. Other things that are generally accepted were the same early in their creation. You think the first heart surgery went down perfectly? And yet how many are performed nowadays world wide? How many lives do they save now? The reason that we need to keep developing technology is to work out all the kinks and glitches. That way we'll have a safer, cheaper, cleaner world.
thedragonryder 6 months ago
I am from Slovakia , my mother contracted a dose of radiation from Chernobyl it killed my unborn brother. She is for Nuclear energy. Who has worse experience of it and is against it ? No one ? Ok case closed!
Morclaw 7 months ago
They haven't discussed the radioactive waste that will live on for longer than mankind has even been on this planet
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
@22ness0hayden
Newfags can't half-life
asdfzxc920 6 months ago
@22ness0hayden
About nuclear waste:
watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE
BlizBob 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@22ness0hayden "They haven't discussed the radioactive waste that will live on for longer than mankind has even been on this planet"
1) Yes, they did. It was later in the episode. The disposal site would be Yucca Mt. Very safe.
2) On average, high energy radioactive material is estimated to last no more than 10,000 years. Humanity has been around for several hundred thousand years.
AndrewDeLong 5 months ago
He says himself the old nuclear plants aren't as safe as they should be LOL
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
@22ness0hayden because no modern reactors are built which was way more safer than anything developed in 70s and 80s ... some of the low yield ones are so safe that even if you break it part manually the radiation would be so low that noone would be in danger at max the one who break it ...
FoltynD 7 months ago
3/3 By April 2005, 22 tons of uranium had leaked, but still none of the
leak-detection systems detected the leak. It WAS detected by
accountancy, when the bean-counters noticed that they were getting 10%
less uranium out than their clients claimed they’d put in! Thank god
this private company had a profit motive, hey?
If we let private companies build new reactors, how can we ensure that
higher safety standards are adhered to?
(David MacKay FRS, chief scientific adviser to the UK DECC)
Irrazzo 9 months ago
2/3 Independent of the failed
safety alarms, routine safety-measurements of fluids in the sump should
have detected the abnormal presence of uranium within one month of the
start of the leak; but the operators often didn’t bother taking these routine
measurements, because they felt too busy; and when they did take mea-
surements that detected the abnormal presence of uranium in the sump
(on 28 August 2004, 26 November 2004, and 24 February 2005), no action
was taken.
Irrazzo 9 months ago
1/3 THORP (UK) reprocessing facility, had a growing leak from a broken pipe from Aug2004 to Apr2005. Over
eight months, the leak let 85 000 litres of uranium-rich fluid flow into a
sump which was equipped with safety systems that were designed to detect
immediately any leak of as little as 15 litres. But the leak went undetected
because the operators hadn’t completed the checks that ensured
the safety systems were working; and the operators were in the habit of
ignoring safety alarms anyway.
Irrazzo 9 months ago
Chernoybl had zero shielding and was in a converted Coal power plant. Zero shielding, coal plant. Great place to put a poorly designed and made reactor. The failure was entirely human created to. They shut down cooling, pulled the control rods and tried to get that reactor to its hottest. Realizing it was too hot, they tried to scram it and get the rods back in, and well, the rods cracked and jammed meaning there was no way to slow down the reactions combined with no containment, boom.
FarmerGriff 9 months ago 12
@FarmerGriff converted Coal power plant? Are you sure you're not confusing carbon-moderated reactor with coal power?
Hairysteed 4 months ago
compare the only three nuclear disastar to ever happen to all four major oil spills that occured last year alone nuclear isnt perfict but its the only thing big enough to replace fossil fuels the othe renewables just do not cut it yet we have no other choice its a hell of a lot better than fossil fuels so support it its the best thing we got
duchashes 9 months ago
Something you should know about the Japanese meltdown. The power got shut off to the plant meaning it couldn't pump water to cool down parts of the plant so it overheated. Modern plants can still cool down those parts even without power. So yeah, go nuclear.
FatherTime89 10 months ago
@TranshumanCyborg ...Low doses of radiation aren't lethal. It's been compared to 3 mile island which killed absolutely no one.
FatherTime89 10 months ago
Wow, Penn, Teller thanks for your bullshit! I know I fell for it. You guys are professional scammers (illusionists) and you're sideshow "Bullshit" reinforced my delusions about nuclear power.
Not only is nuclear power NOT safe, it's costly. Thanks for helping to reinforce my beliefs.
bjjbear73 10 months ago
You see, Penn's research shows that nuclear power is safe.
However, in the real world, conditions tend to run contrary to our expectations.
Penn has fallen victim to the main flaw in science: the fallacy of induction. Bua ha!
Jcolinsol 10 months ago
Techcafe, juandeldiablo696, and TranshumanCyborg know where it's at. NUCLEAR POWER IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE. END OF DISCUSSION.
fonkayzoa 10 months ago
@fonkayzoa Yeah fonkayzoa used his/her psychic powers to know that nuclear power can never be safe. Sure.
FatherTime89 10 months ago
hmmm i wonder if tha Japan accident will change some minds???
juandeldiablo696 10 months ago
have you ever heard of a 'wind spill' or a 'solar meltdown'?
yeah, me neither.
techcafe 10 months ago
@techcafe
And yet more people have been killed in accidents involving windmills or solar panels. Bloody amazing when you start throwing in numbers.
metsapeikkoo 8 months ago
@techcafe Ever heard of too much many.
SniperViper1000 5 months ago
seems Penn just assumes that nuclear power is 'clean energy'? it's not. never was, never can be. to produce the 'nuclear fuel', uranium ore must be mined out of the ground (using fossil fuel guzzling monster trucks and other heavy mining equipment), blighting the face of the planet with hideous scars that can be seen from outer space, where the minerals/ore were gouged from the earth, leaving behind huge open pit sores.
techcafe 10 months ago 2
and then the uranium ore (or thorium in today's 'modern' nuclear reactors) must be enriched into radioactive fuel pellets/rods. the processes involved to mine, refine, enrich, manufacture, safely/securely store, and so on, is costly and energy intensive, plus it produces tons of lethal waste (spent fuel) which remains deadly forever, often ending up in the hands of military contractors and arms dealers, who use the radioactive waste to make depleted uranium bullets, bombs and WMDs. just lovely.
techcafe 10 months ago 2
@techcafe None of those things are made from radioactive waste. That's WHY it's WASTE! Otherwise they'd use it to make those things.
Hairysteed 4 months ago
@Hairysteed - the 'spent fuel' from nuclear power plants retains something like 99% of its radioactive isotopes (dangerous ionizing radiation) even after the fuel rods have been 'spent' and removed from the reactor core. the arms industry LOVES nuclear waste, b/c they use it to manufacture DU (depleted uranium) ammunition.
LISTEN
/watch?v=6tJVFDmHaH8&hd=1
techcafe 4 months ago
@techcafe DU is made in the enrichment process. Not in the reactor. The only way to make a WMD with nuclear waste is to use it as the radioactive material of a dirty bomb
Hairysteed 4 months ago
@techcafe Oh, and DU is way less radioactive than natural uranium... practically not at all. DU is dangerous because of other reasons (toxicity, carcinogenic...)
Hairysteed 4 months ago
there is nothing 'clean' about nuclear power, and it's not renewable.
techcafe 10 months ago
@techcafe No, you are wrong, there is nothing "clean" about nuclear fission, that has waste, but there is absolutely no waste with nuclear fusion, unless you consider excess energy from tiny masses a waste.
cloudftw93 5 months ago
The possibility of accidents isn't a valid reason to cease improving existing technologies and developing available power sources to meet future needs and insure that power is kept as affordable as possible. If a nation can take military action on two separate accounts to invade a single nation and consequently cripple it in order to secure oil resources, why can't newer technologies expand in the face of media adversity and superstition?
photonlust 10 months ago
Surely that is more forward thinking and a lesser evil than the probability of continued conflicts with other nations such as Venezuela or Iran... slowly picking them apart for their oil reserves.
photonlust 10 months ago
AND HOW ABOUT THOSE CHILDREN IN THE UKRAINE WHO ARE BEING BORN WITH BRAINS OUTSIDE OF THEIR HEADS AFTER CHERNOBYL?!?! WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO SAY TO THAT?!?!?!?!
fonkayzoa 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fonkayzoa Looks like at least one of them survived...
Hairysteed 4 months ago
@TranshumanCyborg Im glad you understand and didnt jump on the next bandwagon.......nuclear power is cheap and ez power....but what if something were to go wrong vs other power. water power......a dam breaking isnt as bad as leaking radiation.
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 A dam breaking can cause a flood.
FatherTime89 10 months ago
@FatherTime89 and the flood only affected its areas where nuclear affected the whole plante, think about it
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 What nuclear power plant ever affected the entire planet?
FatherTime89 10 months ago
@FatherTime89 wow...you sound like a kid, do i really need to spoon feed you info?
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 Well you make a claim you should be able to back it up.
FatherTime89 10 months ago
@FatherTime89 Im not making any clam....all i said was nothing is safe, and because nothing is safe what is the affect of other power vs nuclear power if something were to go wrong? other power affected ITS areas where radiation can spread. use some logic and THINK about it.
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 "other power affected ITS areas where radiation can spread. use some logic and THINK about it."
You DO realize that the main source of power in the world is either coal or oil, right? You ever see an oil plant go up in flames? Yeah, the damage, both environmental and economical can EASILY spread as far as radiation. Pollution and radiation BOTH travel in the same way, via the wind.
Difference is, modern nuclear power plants can internally contain that shit. Oil plants can't.
AndrewDeLong 5 months ago
look at japan today....nothing is safe
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 How many people have died to due to the power plant? How many people have been contaminated? Go ahead, i'll wait while you go and find the answer.
KitireFel 10 months ago
@KitireFel people die....get over yourself, the point is they said nuclear is safe...but nothing is safe.
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 the nuclear plants have killed or injured no one... nuclear power is about as safe as it gets when it comes to power plants.
KitireFel 10 months ago
@KitireFel are you dumb? its only safe until something happen. there is shit we cant control like weather and natural disasters, this is why japan is in trouble. they might even have the best nuclear power on the plante but look at them now.
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 Well? Nothing is safe, cars are not safe, your home is not safe, knives in your kitchen are not safe, your pillow is not safe (you know how many people has been murdered by those?!)... The only thing left to do is to kill yourself before anything else does! Quick!
magikmw 10 months ago
@magikmw Today like i said, nothing is safe. today 50 heros are going to die in japan going head on to shut down a leak. why dont you stfu and stop jumping on the bandwagon to next hype and pay a little respect to them because of dumb ass people like yourself were told nuclear power is safe cuz they said so.....
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 It's not USRR, it's Japan. I'm pretty sure they'll be alright.
magikmw 10 months ago
@magikmw WTF are you talking about now man?? have you been watching the news? these 50 are going to die 100% and knowing they arent gonna see their love ones
REDTEAM22003 10 months ago
@REDTEAM22003 EVERYONE is going to die 100% How many of those 50 are now suffering from radiation sickness?
Hairysteed 4 months ago
Any severely limited source of power will not provide the answer. We need to look to wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power if we want sustainable, safe energy. In the use of nuclear power - even if it was completely harmless - we would only be delaying the application of these other, renewable sources of energy, to the exclusive benefit of a few business profiteers in the energy and security sectors.
magicdarragh 1 year ago
LFTR are the safest and most modern, but their must be research done in renewable energies, so they can replace 100% all fossil fuels.
Nuclear power is NOT answer.
Although risks are indeed low, one little mistake can cause really big, huge damage.
thomash0905 1 year ago
@thomash0905 Isn't that the same argument people who are scared to fly use? When a plane crashes its often a horrific scene and many people die. Yet if you do the math, its still far safer then driving even though when something goes wrong, its a big problem. The plane crashes though killing many people at the same time, happen so less frequently then fatal car crashes.
Nuclear power is like flying, if something goes wrong its real bad, but its still better then the alternative.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 You can not seriously make an analogy between a plane crash and a nuclear accident.
Big difference between 200 victims and 2000. You must count in the big hazard to the environment (nearly every single process to nuclear energy brings some kind of danger to the environment).
Nuclear power is NOT the technology of tomorrow.
If the airplane is nuclear power, what energy source would be the "car"?
thomash0905 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 That 2000 is only deaths, because if we count in the exposure to radiation it goes WAY UP.
thomash0905 1 year ago
@thomash0905 ... Coal plants expose people to radiation, and PCB's on a daily basis... Nuclear plants are only dangerous when they have meltdowns. Of which there's only been one serious meltdown in the history of nuclear power, in a worse case scenario thats completely preventable by having basic safeguards.
Cleaner air would mean less upper respitory infections, better public health, better for the environment as well.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 Do you think nuclear power plants only contaminate when their is a meltdown?
From the mining of uranium there is contamination.
There is no way to prevent a nuclear disaster at a 100% rate (a single mistake can lead to over 200 000 been affected like in Chernobyl) , but it is very safe, i do not deny that.
But i prefer renewable energy sources, they should be investigated and promoted.
thomash0905 1 year ago
@thomash0905 Chernobyl was a perfect storm of several hundred mistakes.
They have been investigated, and are being promoted. But until they are economically feasible they won't be replacing coal/gas/nuclear. Plus with nuclear energy we won't be destorying the environment while we wait 30-40 years for renewable technology to become efficient enough to be practical.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 I meant they should be investigated and promoted at a bigger scale, especially in developing countries that could benefit greatly from them.
I never denied nuclear energy should not be used now, that is why i said it is not the technology of tomorrow.
thomash0905 1 year ago
@thomash0905 Developing countries should focus mostly on coal/natural gas/oil development. Being the cheapest forms of energy they will allow them to grow their industry, and improve standard of living. Which would save lives.
Developed countries really should switch mostly to nuclear energy. In time solar as it becomes more efficient will probably be on everyones roof, but even with them on your roof you'll still need some of your energy from the power plants.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 I hate to go all "conspirator asshole" here, but I don't think your scenario of universal solar power will ever happen, unfortunately. Powerful companies would lose a lot of money if everyone switched to cheap, self-reliant energy sources like universal solar power. They don't want to lose money, so they'll pressure the government to avoid passing laws that might promote that outcome. Certainly in America, at least.
Schragmeister 1 year ago
@Schragmeister Dont know if you meant to respond to someone else, but yeah i don't think we'll have universal solar power either. Its to inefficient.
My scenario is we go nuclear and work in renewable energy sources as they become feasible.
Though solar will probably be limited to roof tops for the most part for the forseeable future.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 I responded to this excerpt of your comment:
"In time solar [power] as it becomes more efficient will probably be on everyones roof, but even with them on your roof you'll still need some of your energy from the power plants. "
That's the kind of universal solar energy usage I meant. But I think solar power will eventually be viable as the sole option for a lot of people. Naturally, other forms of energy would need to be available as a failsafe just in case of emergency.
Schragmeister 1 year ago
@GhostInTheShell29 Starting from the point the reactor was designed. RBMKs were never legal in the US because they don't meet the requirement that a loss of coolant cause the reactor to shut itself down automatically.
ajpmathwiz 10 months ago
"Short-sighted"? Hypocritical much?! I like P&T, but they've gotten this 1 wrong. Why do we need more power? To sustain ever-increasing energy demands. What sources of energy are available to us? Hydro, Solar, Tidal, Geo-thermal, etc, and Nuclear. Why opt for nuclear? For the same reason you'd opt 4 war... Profit. -The security/protection contract on nuclear waste (actively dangerous 4 thousands of years) must be quite sought after in this cut-throat corporate-elitist-serving economy.
magicdarragh 1 year ago
@magicdarragh ...And why not? It is cheapest, it is safe and I think we should keep our minds open for every energy source, but still nuclear power is cleanest and cheap.
Kelol100 1 year ago
@Kelol100 Hey - I'm no expert, but I know nuclear energy is potentially very dangerous. It creates waste which we cannot safely dispose of, waste which lasts over 200,000 years. The radioactive waste produced can melt through metal, and great cooling tanks are required to prevent this before it is finally dumped in the deepest parts of the oceans, where they once believed there to be no life. Our health and safety, and the planets, takes precedence over "cost". Or can we not afford that?
magicdarragh 1 year ago
@magicdarragh the waist could be dramatically reduced with a reclamation facility. if your scared about something you should learn more about it before passing judgment. did you know most of the nuclear waist of Chernobyl has already disappeared from the earth? it got absorbed and is now harmless
Montork 1 year ago
@Montork Yes, who cares how many lives Chernobyl ruined... Maybe you should also "learn some more" - find out how long nuclear power could sustain our rising energy consumption. Find out how many nuclear power plants would have to scour the face of the earth, radioactively poisoning our air. Yes we need energy, but at what cost. The world is borrowed from our children - but right now, we only seem to be burdening them with the problems of our own shortsightedness. Research "geothermal energy"...
magicdarragh 1 year ago
@magicdarragh because you know Chernobyl was the fault of nuclear energy and not the fault of the fucked up Russian government. oh wait it was mostly poorly built equipment, little to no safety equipment, and trying to keep it quiet that caused the tragedy. if your as old as im guessing i could be "the children" you speak of.
Montork 1 year ago
@Montork im not saying nuclear energy should be the only energy source im saying we should try to be open minded and work to maintain and update the nuclear energy plants we already have installed. make them as safe and efficient as possible, but then by reading your comment im sure your mind is already set. nuclear energy is bad. using it to help heal cancer patients is bad. period.... i hope you never move to France.
Montork 1 year ago
@Montork No, but dangerous radiation is not the fault of nuclear energy - it is currently an unavoidable byproduct. There are currently NO means known to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Until there is, I would advocate the development of alternative cheaper, safer, more effective and sustainable energy sources. Attending to cancer patients does not necessitate the use of nuclear energy. And the phrase I used is applicable to EVERY generation. I just turned 20 btw, not that that matters anyway..
magicdarragh 1 year ago
@magicdarragh if we used nuclear reclamation facilities like most of Europe does we could dramatically reduce waste by re-using the same uranium rods until they are spent, instead of using them once cooling them and storing them for destruction. but of course that's more expensive then just using it and tossing it, like most of the Americas do but then we cant really afford to build a nuclear re-use facility because the people are against all forms of nuclear energy.
Montork 1 year ago
@magicdarragh also you mentioned air poisoning.. im pretty sure that only happens when there's been a meltdown and those hardly ever happen. in 2007 when chalk river nuclear facility shut down for repairs there was a worldwide shortage of radioisotopes, of which chalk river is the largest suppler, it put tens of thousands of Canadians in serious jeopardy.
Montork 1 year ago
@Montork In a profit-based economy I do not, and cannot, trust some corporate heads and investors with the welfare of this planet & our people. Take 4 instance ur example below - profit came before people - and, in such a corrupt system as ours - it always will. Remove the incentive for a few individuals to get filthy rich off it and we'll All be on the right path. As 4 the Canadians in jeopardy - their dependancy on nuclear energy does NOT justify it as a means for energy. Ad hominem argument.
magicdarragh 1 year ago
@magicdarragh which example? im sorry to say this but our two worlds are very different and yet the same. i can't trust those in power ether but then like you i have little power to control the world around me. you can argue all you wish with me but you wont change my mind.
Montork 1 year ago
i believe we should explore all available sources of energy in moderation, you believe all nuclear energy to be deadly. the world at this time is of your opinion. i may disagree but it wont matter popular opinion controls the world whether its right, or wrong. someday things may change but then again mabie they wont.
Montork 1 year ago
@Montork I'm not trying 2 argue with you. I too believe that we shud explore all available sources of energy in moderation. And I believe that people have more power than they realize. As Mr. Dylan said, "the times they are a-changin'!" Well, I hope so anyway! For 1 thing - people the world over are becoming painfully aware of the immense inequalities and pitfalls present in our current-day system. U may find this video interesting - after youtube dot com.. /watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg :) Let me know..
magicdarragh 1 year ago
Find me one person who has died or become seriously sick because of nuclear energy! It's a challenge trust me
UofMgoblue2012 1 year ago
Competitive Enterprise Institute: front group for Libertarian foundations, big oil, and big tobacco. Hardly the best source. Oh, and have had high ranking member say "corporations have no other responsibility than to make a profit", plus deny global warming at every turn.
MagnesDrachen13 1 year ago
Pretty hypocritical for a fat dope smoking drop out who sports a pony tail to call others hippies. Do you want to know why there isn't more nuclear power corporate shills? The oil lobby, not the hippy lobby. And why are people "afraid" of nuclear power? They don't understand it? No, we understand all too well that some asshole CEO for a chickenshit outfit like Bectel can't be trusted. For cris sake they dumped the waste into the ocean till 1998! "Hippies" died stopping them.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose, penn hasn't even consumed a drop of alcohol. hypocrite? you, sir, are an idiot.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry What a wit! You know what is really idiotic? Turds like you who blindly follow shrill uniformed bullshit from entertainers like Penn in this day of corporate unaccountability. Ever heard of a company called British Petroleum? You have the gall to call somebody an idiot? a hypocrite? That's like the pot rejoicing in all blackness of the kettle. Hey don't let facts or logic get in the way of your "fact based" "reasoning". Ever hear of a place called Fallon Nevada? I didn't think so.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose you're an idiot, and it's hilarious to see that you've jumped on this fear mongering wagon over BP, which, by the way, I have no idea why you've even brought up. it seems like your mind is a mangled mess.
you're accusing me of following people blindly? take a look for yourself, idiot. nuclear energy is used all over the world, dumbass. seen any chernobyls lately? moreover, they're right in accusing "hippies" of fear mongering. get a clue, retard
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry Keep talking. Show us how slaves think. BP lied about the extent of its disaster. And like BP, despite a known correlation between cancer and exposure to radioactivity, corporations which cause this type of pollution deny it. They lie and you defend them. Do tell us why we should trust these assholes with nuclear power? Nuclear energy is fabulous, but there are too many ninnies like you in the world. Hippy lobby? Where? K street? That's funny. And you call me a retard. Yeah right.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose hippy lobby? green peace? are you retarded? YEAH RIGHT. you idiot. and who on earth DOESN'T know that radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer. BP may have lied; however, it's irrelevant, and because they're a private company they're the ones who're going to have to foot the bill for the disaster, as would any other company be responsible for nuclear energy. you really don't have an argument except some conspiracy theory crap about corporations lying to you. pathetic really
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry My my, have you got your panties in a wad. What "hippy lobby"? I asked you first. Don't you mean the oil lobby? What about "green peace"? That they put a stop to your beloved masters dumping nuclear waste in the sea? "Who on earth DOESN'T know that radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer?" Your beloved nuclear energy corporations apparently don't, or why would they spend millions to deny it? BP is going to foot the bill? You really believe that? Now that's pathetic! really.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose what about green peace? lol.. are you retarded, they're the ones who spew out this crap so that, people like in this clip, can go and mimic the same bullshit.
everything you're stating, you're pulling it entirely out of your ass. you've got no evidence for anything you're saying, and now you're speculating that somehow BP is to blame for everything thanks to all the media you've been fed.
you're as bad as a creationist or some zeitgeist retard.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry Still got that hair up your ass I see. Admit it, you love being a slave. Any of these shit outfits you suck up to give you suck up pay back? They don't? Well aren't you a sucker. Still no come backs: What hippy lobby? Where? K street? Why would anyone spend money to deny a correlation of cancer and radioactivity? You blindly swallow Penn's BS and say I'm following people blindly? You are every bit as intolerant and muddled as any creationist.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose hippy lobby.. it's addressed in this fucking video, you arrogant idiot. you've yet to present any evidence to counter-argue this video. all you've done is speculate and spew out anti-capitalist crap that you'd expect from green peace.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry "hippy lobby..it's addressed in this fucking video" The nut in Maryland who's not a "hippy" nor a lobbyist is your hippy lobby? Whatever. Doesn't change the fact that powerful lobbies like oil and coal stopped nuclear power, dufus. But don't worry, now that they have a major stake in nuclear energy they won't stand in the way. BP anyone? Exxon? Cute how Exxon wiggled out of paying the victims of the Valdez spill. What chance BP will pay? Or could pay? Wow! how "anti-capitalist!
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose I love how you keep bringing BP up, especially when it wasn't even BP operating the rig. it was another company that BP had hired to drill for the oil, and who is ultimately responsible for the disaster. you're so incredibly misinformed, it's no wonder you're spitting out such crap.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry Crap. Trans World, Haliburton and BP are pointing their fingers at each other over who's to blame but you don't see the danger in letting assholes like that operate nuclear plants? I'll continue to bring BP whether or not some idiot understands because this is precisely the problem. I don't trust the cock suckers. A spill can destroy fishing in the gulf for 20 years and bankrupt the nation but a nuclear spill can be worse. Still stewing in your juices? Keep posting.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose all your arguments are invald and have been addressed in this three part series and in part by me. you don't have an argument. /end
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry I'd think twice about calling someone an idiot or a retard with the empty deck you carry. I said in the first post and I say it again. I don't trust these bastards. One more example: In the 50's and 60's thousands of Americans were injected with radioactive isotopes like strontium 90 without their knowledge by these unscrupulous corporations. And you say trust them. That's your "valid argument" and you don't even have the guts to make even that simple statement. Yeah goodbye /tool.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose you, yourself, don't trust them because you're a conspiracy theorist wacko anti capitalist from green peace. empty deck? what do i have to prove, the burden of proof is with YOU, and you've yet to present anything with any substance except "omg i don't trust them because i group all corporations together and generalise." dont make the stupid assumption that i trust them, it's just that i don't distrust them. you, on the other hand, blindly and groundless are scared of them.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry Did Exxon pay the cost of the Valdez clean up? Did BP lie about the extent of the spill? Did Goldman Sachs lie to their clients? Did Union Carbide lie about Bhopal? Did Bectel lie about nuclear dumping? Did DOW lie about DDT or Agent Orange? Some conspiracy theories. The only conspiracy theory here is your speculation over my conspiracy theories. Try again.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose i LOL'd! you're absolutely ridiculous, to a point it's almost scary how pathetic it is.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry Ridiculous is defending free of charge and a priori corporations which couldn't care less if their operations killed you or your loved ones. Pathetic is that apparently my questions have been too difficult. I'll try to make it easier on you: Are you stupid or just an asshole? Oops, trick question, it's both isn't it?
BTW, You're out of your league with Adult Swim, stick with Nickelodeon.
Looking forward to hearing from you again
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose i see, using your logic, we should ban cars as well, as people clearly can't be trusted. you're retarded.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry To say that coal companies lobbied against nuclear power means nobody should ever drive a car? Bechtel lied about pollution so never drive a car? I bet you think you're a genius. Don't you?. Pray, do tell genius, how you came up with that jewel of logic. Or how 'bout just answer the fucking last question since you can't or won't answer anything else: Are you stupid or just an asshole? Try again.
hamnose 1 year ago
@hamnose what the hell are you on about now? you're either really confused or really stupid.
eldeberry 1 year ago
@eldeberry I'm confused? You don't even remember your last post and I'm confused? I'm stupid? What a loon.
hamnose 1 year ago
Comment removed
eldeberry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hamnose no, you mimicked me and completely fucked it up which is why it was confusing. you fail
corporations can't be trusted!! which is why europe's doing so well with all their nuclear facilities....... you fail
eldeberry 1 year ago
kevin, how about you grow a fucking dick.
mossafide 1 year ago
Nuclear technology is admittedly expensive, but the benefits far outweigh the risks.
Especially when the reactors are treated responsibly. Which did NOT happen at Chernobyl.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
if we can perfectly master fission, then in a matter of time will we get to master fussion with no waste and will power all of the usa will like 10000 galloons of water
nameis12396 1 year ago
Do you think that these people know that they're being portrayed negatively when the show airs? "Hey, honey. I'm going to be on the tv!" "Oh, that's wonderful, let's watch it with our entire family" "Yay!" ...later... "Daddy, why're you such an asshole?"
jogiff 1 year ago
well, of course. It's a biased show, they know it's a biased show but they go on the show to make their case even though they get proved wrong.
Daclunator 1 year ago
Great show.
metal87power 1 year ago
Thank you for putting nuclear power in terms people can understand!
I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.
If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be now?
Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced, let's use it!
MrNukemann 2 years ago 2
what about n waste?yuccas planned to hold it for 10k yrs. what can you practicly do with waste?that isnt recycled?
adzug 1 year ago
Most of the waste which is not recycled can be used in different style reactors (LFTR's) as fuel and the rest has relatively short half-lives.
MrNukemann 1 year ago
if this is true, then whys yucca mtn being prepared to hold waste for 10k yrs? id love n powr to be viable, i really find thed whole idea facinating. but im skeptical of producing poisonous material that lasts for thousands of yrs.
adzug 1 year ago
Because idiots don't want us to recycle it.
ajpmathwiz 1 year ago
see youre biased. even if youre correct, i know you dislike the ppl associated anti nuke. wat matters is the best decision for americans. not about ego
adzug 1 year ago
@adzug Easy, we bury it about 1/2 a mile underground in special geological formations similar to the Salado salt formation
capierce 1 year ago
For the first time in decades, the New York Times may be making sense.
pitcalco 2 years ago 24
Ahhhhh those damn HIPPIECRITES they make me laugh.
57StatesofAmerica 2 years ago
Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.
So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the eco-sphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation.
rotteklo 2 years ago
@rotteklo "tons of [Pu]."
At what isotope ratio?
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Plutonium
"Plutonium is graded by proportion of Pu-240"
hitssquad 2 years ago
Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults.
rotteklo 2 years ago
But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor.
Plutonium, the most significant element in nucl. waste, is so carcinogenic that half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.
rotteklo 2 years ago
@rotteklo "nuclear plants at the end of their 30- [...] year operating life"
Please show us examples of reactor-units with operating lifespans of only 30 years.
hitssquad 2 years ago
"half a kilo [of Pu] evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth."
Then why did radiotoxicity expert Bernard L. Cohen volunteer to eat as much of it, by weight, as Ralph Nader dared eat of caffeine?
google. com/search?q=ralph+nader+bernard+cohen+plutonium+caffeine
hitssquad 2 years ago
Holy shit! That... is... AWESOME!!! I especially like the way that anti-nuclear activists responded by saying that anyone who was willing to expose themselves to plutonium must be unreliable. Therefore plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to man and anyone willing to expose themselves to it should be discounted.
jogiff 1 year ago 2
It is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nucl. power, the reality is that huge quant.s of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nucl. pow.plant, as well to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.
Indeed, a nucl. pow. plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in prep. and constr., the plant must operate for almost two decades.
rotteklo 2 years ago
@rotteklo "the reality is that huge quant.s of fossil fuel are used to mine"
No. Explained here:
nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/OneCompletePage
Search the page for "storm van".
Even if mining of uranium did require large amounts of energy, it could be done entirely with electricity.
images. google. com/images?q=mining+truck+trolley
By far, the most energy goes toward enrichment, and that consumes less than 1% of the energy output.
hitssquad 2 years ago
Fuck hippies who bash Nuclear Power.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
"see, this show is controversial." lol
reapfreak 2 years ago
while I admit I will never be as comfortable with nuclear power as hydro-electric power, because even if we can store nuclear waste safely the potential amount we might make will never sit well, the fact that there is not the capacity of hydroelectric or any non-dangerous power source to fuel our future energy needs means I support expanding its use. It's like the organic food argument: I'm not willing to let people die over an unknown or unlikely variable.
gramamge33 2 years ago
really? do you know more people have died because of Dams failing then from nuclear power.
It's not even close entire cities have been wiped off the map because of dams even in the US and in recent years too.
Look up dam failures some time it will make you think twice. Wikiepedia has some good articles on it.
Facts are Nuclear is still the safest energy source out there. It isn't even a contest, it is even safer then solar energy believe it or not.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
But then again, there are far more dams in the world than Nuclear Power Plants, and dams have also existed a good while longer. And if a N.P.P. actually DO blow up (which, yes I've heard, only happened once), the effects on the environment and the nearby population will be extremely wast in comparison with most dams. And I don't believe N.P. is safer than solar energy in any way.
rotteklo 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if there are more of them they still have a far worse safety record. Dams have broken and killed thousands of people.
In the US there has not been a single fatality from a commercial nuclear plant.
Even 3 mile island is exaggerated. The amount of radiation that was leaked from that accident is so small it is impossible to actually measure it. The only reason it is an issue is because it happened the same week the movie The China Syndrome came out.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
Of course it matters if we're arguing about which energy source is most dangerous (which I thought we were), and not which energy source that has taken most lives - which I don't see any point of knowing, except out of interest of history. it is irrelevant in the question of what the safest source of energy is.
rotteklo 2 years ago
well seeing as worldwide hydroelectric plants provide about 20% of the worlds electricity and there are several thousand of them and Nuclear power plants provide 15% of the worlds electricity and there are only a few hundred well see my point.....
One nuclear power plant can provide more power then ten hydro plants so there doesn't need to be as many.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
Let's also not forget that we have Nuclear power plants on over 250+ submarines and air craft carriers. Those are nuclear power plants that have been out in the middle of the ocean for years and had to fight against the most corrosive environment
Yet the navy has never had a single reactor accident.
Sorry but Nuclear power plants are far safer then any other form
As for the solar power tons of people die every year installing solar power that's why it is unsafe. Sounds silly but it is true
Ackbar60 2 years ago 2
I see what you are saying, and I agree with you, Nuclear Power Plants have a very good accident rate. But my concern is that IF a N.P.P. one day do have a failure, the impact on nature will be horrific.
rotteklo 2 years ago
ok the first off the amount of safety measures in place are insane. It is impossible for a Chernobyl to happen in the US, Japan, England, Germany, Sweden or any of the other countries that have modern nuclear power plants.
If one did happen it still wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as the effects of a Dam failure.
Even with Chernobyl no other source of power has the safety record that Nuclear power does.
Your fear of nuclear power is an irrational fear.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
[...] but if a nuclear accident were to spew all kinds of chemical and nuclear wastes and radiation into the nature, it would probably take a couple of hundred (if not thousands) of years before the environment would be back on it's feet completely.
rotteklo 2 years ago
that's another one of the major misconceptions of nuclear power.
It doesn't have chemical waste or green sludge or anything like that.
The absolute worst case scenario is the reactor has a complete meltdown which btw is 100% impossible because we use water as a moderator which is a negative displacement moderator.
Now Chernobyl used graphite as a moderator which was stupid even when it was built it was stupid. No one even back then used it because it is a positive displacement moderator
Ackbar60 2 years ago 3
Now part 2. If it does happen all US and pretty much all reactors in genral have several forms of containment. If it did meltdown all radiation would be stopped by the primary containment
Chernobyl only had 1 form of containment. Also it's containment was less then 6 in thick and made of inferior concrete
Our current nuclear plants with it's outer most containment are able to withstand planes crashing into them
If there was a nuclear accident everything would be contained
Dams however..
Ackbar60 2 years ago 3
@rotteklo Have you seen the Chernobyl area? It's teeming with wildlife!
Hairysteed 10 months ago
What about the natural impact of coal slurry and emissions?
AustinSwill 2 years ago
Of course, I support neither nuclear power nor burning of coal or other fuels that are damaging to nature.
rotteklo 2 years ago
Then how exactly do you propose that we power this country? You support complaining about everything we do instead of adding constructive ideas.... IMHO nuclear is a MUCH better way to get power to the country until we can harness other forms reasonably.
AustinSwill 2 years ago
Anything that doesn't contaminate nature. Hydro power, wind power, solar power, osmotic power...
If people's way of life (i.e. massive energy consumption) can't be supported without damaging the planet they live on, it's seems obvious to me that their way of life is both illogical and unethical.
rotteklo 2 years ago
Do you have any idea how a nuclear reactor works? They use a nuclear reactor to boil water extremely efficiently, whose steam, in turn, turns turbines that generate electricity. Where does this water come from? Most often, already extremely heavily polluted water supplies. And where does it go? The steam (which is pure H2O with NO contaminants) gets cooled, condensed, and returned to the source in its cleanest, purest form. This is called distillation.
captainphoenix 2 years ago
Doesn't this distilled water have a tendency to carry radiation onwards? At least Sellafield in England has been known for seriously contaminating the Irish sea with radioactive water. There's also been noticed a high ratio of leukemia in the area.
rotteklo 2 years ago
And no distilled water does not carry radiation. It's literally just H2 and O, that's it.
captainphoenix 2 years ago
Distillation produces the absolute purest form of water known to man. It's funny, the nuclear power plant, which so many believes hurts the environment, is actually acting to clean its water supply without wasting any of it. Hydroelectric power (though extremely efficient) requires damming up rivers, which depleats downstream water supplies, and burrying huge tracts of land under water upstream.
captainphoenix 2 years ago
Wind power is the absolute most inefficient power source known to man, and solar power's overhead costs are so high the conversion process would be far from efficient, especially considering its relatively low output efficiency.
captainphoenix 2 years ago
Oh, and as for the radioactive waste (which is stored in-house in super-thick concrete and steel stores, thereby eliminating its effect on the environment):
"Recent reports claim that coal power actually results in more radioactive waste being released into the environment than nuclear power, and that the population effective dose equivalent from radiation from coal plants is 100 times as much as nuclear plants.
"
From Wikipedia.
captainphoenix 2 years ago 12