This is astounding. Since Hiroshima and Nagaski -- the nuclear age has been imperiling the planet. Constructing the future energy needs of humanity based on a nuclear model is destined for disaster. There is no way to safely dispose of the massive amounts of dangerous waste. Nuke facilities are most often located near or on major water sources AND WITH RISING SEA LEVELS -- THE VULNERABILITY OF THESE FACILITIES IS CLEAR. FUKUSHIMA IS JUST ONE OF MANY TO COME. NUKE POWER WILL DESTROY US.
oh, you're too kind MarsMoonEuropa! and thank you for your continued interest in the free GEET 80%water20%used oil engine. I am glad to see that you realize that it works perfectly and the 430 examples of running GEET engine on youtube gave you some good insight. Thanks again for just Google searching "FREE GEET PLANS" and calling 601-TRY-GEET for free information. I am glad you also realize this make nukes useless, and has done so for 30 years now. Have fun with your new GEET riding mower!
@analyzingfunny You know, I would actually love to see a live demonstration of this.
Nuclear Power will take us to the final frontier. To distant planets. To the furthest reaches of our solar system. To the smallest particles in the Universe. Nuclear is wonderful. Nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is Awesome. Nuclear is Power.
@analyzingfunny Yes, you are right, GEET can work in ANY generator situation. And since it burns 80%water and 20%used oil its much safer that the evil Pluto which you hug like a tree-hugger hugs trees. Thanks for Google searching "free geet plans" and youtube searching "geet generator runs on coffee and beer".
I love Nuclear, I don't think you exactly understand my obsession. Of coarse I hug Nukes. I joined a pro-Nuclear march once! It was lovely :) We sang and we chanted, and built a whole new culture around Nuclear Power! :)
Oil and gas, in the US at least, is the most profitable because of subsidies and other government spending on it. If it were a fair competition, nuclear would win. If nuclear was supported instead of oil, it would win and have enough cash left over to be safe too.
Wait a minute: I LOVE how media tries to sway opinion. This is total bullshit. GEET burns 80%water20%anything carbon AND transforms the exhaust into a breathable form.
@MarsMoonEuropa Google "free geet plans" and PRINT them, for they will not last long. Then, get your parts form the hardware store, and build your own water powered lawnmower. youtube search "geet lawnmower" "geet generator runs on coffee" and "geet riding mower". You may be surprised to learn that this technology has been around for 30 years, about as long as they have been fucking us all up the ass and lying to us about energy.
@MarsMoonEuropa lol I KNEW y ou were a shill by your stupid questions. That ok you can call 601-TRY-GEET to find out more about GEET. It burns water and we just dont need nukes anymore. Sorry...But you trolling has now opened a can of worms to promote geet.
You silly GEET people!!! I can't be bothered arguing with you. If you want a discussion on Nuclear I am more than happy to discuss with you, but we must use reason and logic. Don't slander by calling my questions stupid.
I know a fair bit about Nuclear, so I am happy to explain the benefits to you :)
@MarsMoonEuropa Well, we can just keep going on about your support for alternate energies. But your support for alternate energies is not the question here. How does your water-powered lawn work for you? I think I saw your video on youtube called "geet powered lawn-mower". Was that you as well with the video entitled, "geet powered generator"? great video! It just proves conclusively that we dont need nukes anymore.. Thank you for your support of GEET.
just sit on the fence while the planet gets hoter what?
thats like siting with your hand in the oven wondering if u should take it out
darn politics and people that dont want to se the big picture
nuclear power is not the best thing but its the only thing today with todays technology that can stop the global warming. but for nuclear to work and be safe
there has to be no focus on saving money if they say it wil cost say 500milions to build then budget 1500milions and realy overcompensate
@ZeppelinFloydRoses Me too. I'd like to see us become 100% renewable someday, but until then nuclear is the way to go. We should build new generation nuclear plants AND wind AND solar and anything else that makes electricity without making CO2. When we're ready, we start shutting down the fossil-fueled plants. And when the last fossil-fuel plant is shut down, THEN we can start shutting down the nuclear plants. Not until then.
SCUM BAMMA & the NWO want nuclear power because it is the quickest path to murdering 93% of the worlds population as is directly stated on the GEORGIA GUIDE STONES ~ which demand we reduce earth population by 93% which I agree with by the way ~
```
U EARTHLINGS are so fucking stupid U cant see the writing on the wall ~
```
Fucking morons ~ FUKUSHIMA will kill millions if not more & we have 442 with 65 being built...ALL IT WILL TAKE 4 THE NWO TO WIPE US OUT IS 2-3 MORE SO CALLED ACCIDENTS
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Please tell me how many people have died as a result of radiation exposure at Fukushima. Please tell me where you got that information.
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel You haven't answered my question. This is a discussion about nuclear power, in particular the Fukushima accident, not Agent Orange or your opinion of my intelligence.
My question, again: please tell me how many people have died from radiation exposure at Fukushima.
Do you even know the dosage figures? How about the exposure levels generally accepted as increasing long-term cancer rates? How about the dose required to cause acute radiation sickness? Please use SI units.
@ApolloWasReal You stup;id scumgab...it took the goverment 90 fucking gays to tell the world what they knew 5 hours after the accdint and you expect me to believe them as to how many people have been over exposed to radiation...
```
your a fucking idiot...do the world a favor and show us how to do the [[ HARRIE CARRIE ]]]
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Um, many of the Fukushima radiation figures are coming from the IAEA - the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna and run by people from many countries.
But I guess you're not about to let facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant, huh?
@1canyonguy if you stand at the front gate at Fukushima for 2 days you will get less radiation than you will from a single chest CT scan. THAT IS A FACT.
@BabyMakR Yeah right the "rest" of the world knows nothing about radiation. All the radiation experts I have been listening,watching and reading via numerous outlets all all wrong.The difference between us is that I know I am crazy you are yet to come out of the crazy closet.
@1canyonguy So what radiation experts were those, and what did they tell you? Give me names and numbers. While you're at it, compare those numbers to those in the fact sheets published by the Health Physics Society, the professionals whose job it is to protect people from ionizing radiation.
Just think of it this way.. gamers of the future will have a chance for some excellent gaming when they play S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Shadow of Jervis Bay.. or the sequel, S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Call of Ulladulla. Wallabies with psionic powers, fun stuff.
There is MONEY in uranium. It's more dangerous than oil and just as profitable. Keep that in mind when pro-nuclear politicians or nuclear power plants tell you nuclear power is safe...
@bmecher If you do more research u eill discover than whilst a huge advance on uro-plut tech, thorium still has some dangers. It is also not true that thorium energy is unusable for nuclear armaments. U can use thorium it is just about 3 more times expensive, takes (look at half-lifes) about 12 times as long and requires much more technical and skill infra-structure. Thorium is better but not an absolute, complete solution.
People tend not to do the research before making an opinion on nuclear energy generally. Chernobyl for example won't happen in N. America. Why? Did you know Chernobyl was build using very unstable Russian nuclear power plant designs. Even before it fucked it people knew it was a shitty design. The safety features on most plants nowadays are quite advanced. But despite this, people form opinions based on opinon, then they search up only info that would back up their emotions.
@123Clean123 Countless disasters and meltdowns that HAVE ALREADY happened in the U.S. Research these: The Hanford site, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Rocky Flats N. Weapon Plant, Three-mile Island...
What about the hundreds of thousands of people dying of cancers caused by the burning of coal? See the health statistics for the Central Coast of NSW, Australia and compare them to other areas with no coal fired stations (Gunnedah, NSW) - look at lung cancer and leukaemia.
There have been a handful of accidents and most have seen zero release of radiation into the environment. Before you start saying Chernobyl, it was poorly designed reactor with very limited safety systems.
@backindauk Not sure why you think I support coal burning power plants... I'm for solar and wind and getting homes off the grid. AND using less energy in general.
I will repost what I mentioned earlier.... Countless disasters and meltdowns HAVE ALREADY happened in the U.S. Research these: The Hanford site, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Rocky Flats N. Weapon Plant, Three-mile Island. (None of which are Chernobyl).
Well that is what people here in Australia support (idiots)
Anyway, i'm well aware of the Hanford Site. I wrote my thesis on some activities there (Physics)
Three-Mile Island was the most serious incident out of those you mentioned but it was pretty much contained and the structural integrity of that design (which is now 40+ years old) prevented serious disaster.
We have moved on since then
Anyway, solar and wind are both extremely expensive and not suitable for baseload generation
@backindauk I'm australian but I agree with you 100%. Even the RBMK reactor design which was involved in the chernobyl disaster; the worst nuclear accident in history is not that unsafe. Little does anybody know there are still 11 operating RBMK reactors in the former soviet union. Although it's techically the most unsafe reactor design used today, no other serious accidents have occurred in the remaining RBMK powered NPPs.
It is good to know that there are at least a few people out there who base their opinion on fact rather than populist ideologies :) Nuclear power done properly is a great way of generating energy though it's almost impossible to get anything done properly in Australia. Too many half baked political decisions and too many mistakes with even the most trivial of projects...
@1canyonguy if you stand at the front gate at Fukushima for 2 days you will get less radiation than you will from a single chest CT scan. THAT IS A FACT.
We don't need currently used uranium/plutonium fission reactors. We don't need coal or natural gas burners. We don't need wind turbines nor solar power. We don't need wave power generation. Look up Thorium reactors and rejoice. Make your voice heard to your governments. Thorium has all the benefits of Uranium, without the dangers. Read up on it. The technology is ready.
I live in Australia and i can tell you, electricity is bloody expensive. I hate it when people misrepresent facts about nuclear power though. I would prefer 'renewable' energy sources but they just aren't quite efficient enough.
@HBOMB99 Why not doubt? There is no conclusive evidence that CO2 is contributing towards significant/irreversible changes to the climate- infact, there is substantial evidence which suggests something to the contrary - namely, that climate change can be attributed to increased solar activity. Look at a time-lapse of solar activity between 1996 and 2009. You will notice that there is a significant increase.
I invented a breakthrough source of energy, which contradicts the law of conservation of energy. I have a PROOF that there are electrodynamic phenomena which contradict the law of energy conservation. It will cost about $1200 to make a 6 kW generator in mass production. Value of the energy produced yearly about $5400. I am looking for $300 000 for a prototype and for $3M for patents.
There are about 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium in the oceans. This is nearly 1000 times more than the terrestrial uranium sources in the western world... Nuclear power is the only way to meet our growing energy needs...
Holy shit the amount of downright ignorance in your comment is unbelievable. The only expensive part of nuclear power is the building of the plant itself. Running them is very cost efficient. Your metal garden chair argument just shows how little you know about the subject at hand. It doesn't work like that.
The next part of your comment is just a bunch of moronic conspiracy theories.
@EVITPOF Radioactivity doesn't work like that. Not everywhere around and in the npp is irradiated by neutron radiation. They won't use metal that is contaminated through mixing of contaminated metals, or metal that he been exposed to large amounts of neutrons. You know, your smoke alarm probably has about 50 micrograms of Americium in it, a radioactive substance. Going outside exposes yourself to large amounts of radiation. Staying in your house does as well.
@EVITPOF If you want a better example of radioactive substances being released into the enviroment, look at coal plants. Nuclear plants go to very far lengths to contain radioactive substances. Coal plants do not. An American will receive higher doses of radiation by living near a coal plant than a nuclear power plant. More people are exposed to larger amounts of radiation, and die from issues related to coal plants than NPP's.
@EVITPOF Youtube apparently doesn't like me linking websites. But go to ornl.gov then add info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain and then .html
Hydroelectric plants have a very, very large impact on the surrounding enviroment. Solar power isn't very effective, and not effective everywhere. For example, in my native country Sweden, we get very little sunlight-hours every year due to our longitude.
@EVITPOF Scrap metals that have been derived from medical refuse are commonly used in consumer goods - some of this waste is infact radioactive. It has nothing to do with nuclear powerplants - the nuclear power industry is one of the most stringently regulated of all industrial sectors.
@EVITPOF That's a silly misconception. Nuclear power can be incredibly safe. It is also cheaper than coal.
Chernobyl is actually thriving with wildlife. Recent studies have concluded that there is no particular increase in the incidence of cancer, nor mutations in animals inhabiting the region. Besides, radiation levels in Chernobyl top out at a couple of millisieverts. Although this may be considered significant when compared to background, it isn't particularly dramatic.
Agreed with the last guy, we have no idea the long term effects of burying radioactive waste. I do have 1 question though: Isn't Australia over 70% desert?...have you thought about putting some solar power farms out there in the outback? Solar power might now have the same return on investment, but it would be much quicker to start up, would require less startup $, and wouldn't raise public concern.
@devrobbiz Deserts are popular miltiary areas. The metal reflects light which can evently blind pilots. Therefore it would raise concerns. Also planting Solar plants will return the local habitat.
@Caseyr0206 chernobyl is a horrid example against nuclear power. the USSR's mindset back then had no regard for safety, just look at their space program and how many failures they had. they weren't concerned over safety in the slightest.
Despite the high level of contamination at Chernobyl and Pripiyat, there has been a prolific increase of wildlife and fauna since humans packed up and left. It is incredibly selfish to condemn the whole planet in order to conserve a small region - or rather, its population of humans should something actually go wrong. Besides, with modern engineering practices proper execution and adequate safety and implementations, Chernobyl won't ever happen again.
There will "ALWAYS" be "WASTE" whether its coal, nuclear or even WIND (yes thats right even wind). I will explain please read carefully.
1. While there is a need for "ELECTRICITY" (man made power) there will be a "MAN MADE" device to produce this. Now wind is a means to rotate a turbine to create power but not without a turbine.
2. Every "MACHINE" (MAN MADE device) requires large amounts of recources to A) Create, B) Maintain, C) Transport Power.
i believe they should stick to coal burning but there will be a bit of adjustment of where the toxic fume will go.
instead of releasing to the air we breathe, it would be awesome to tunnel the fume to a big container with water. imagine how u construct a bong, i believe that should do the trick.
stay out of my country you greedy ass holes .anyone can see through your blatant propaganda .why dont you tell us about the fact that radioactive waste has a half life of 250000 years ..oh but dont worry you would just love to make my clean country a dumping ground for your disgusting filth you pigs
@turborota You need an anger management class, or some sort of counseling that reverses mental retardation. You have no idea what you're talking about. And this is MY country, jerk.
@ghjiop23 To get the ahead in the world you need to take a gamble. Despite Chernobyl was built poorly. Today, its foolish even to consider anything else other then nuclear power, In anycase, they got so many regulations and safety measures to prevent a major melt down. Really, I don't really feel IT as a gamble,
Ouch too bad it's been proving the Earth is colling... yikes! Coal is so old... comapare Chernobyl to all the shit spewed out from oil, gas and coal. Nuclear power is geeting better, Austrlia needs to have guns, more jobs and nuclear facilities.
@Hairysteed I do believe that I was referring to "MODERN" energy sources. Do I have to spoon feed this info to you ? does your mummy still hold your hand in public ? Would you like me to change your diaper for you ?
yeah big accidents are rare, but there are small accident that still happen which kill employee's of the nuclear power plant. Also when accidents occur look what happens. Chernobyl is inhabitable still and you've seen all the birth defects and deaths from that incident. Maybe if they had a way to clean up the accident and treat it to a certain degree maybe nuclear power will be safer and smarter option, but if you can't live or clean up without people dying, nuclear power will be dangerous.
Ya technology hasnt gone anywhere since then right.
All these Ipods and other computers were everywhere.
Technology advances and things become safer. 50 years ago if you asked someone to round the world and arrive somewhere at an earlier time then he left they would punch you in the face. Now the Blackhawk does that with no problem. Technology advances, and currently in the newer power plants there are so many failsafes that a major dissaster can be easily avoided.
@StedySniper lol, yeah technology advanced since chernobyl but ur telling me there is a safe way to clean up the mess and we can live on the land soon after it's been cleaned up!?!? can we contain the nuclear materials within at least 10km radius? obviously technology has advanced but not that much. chernobyl was a small town outside any major city, but it still made its way to a lot of European countries. there is a power plant in pickering near toronto, if that blew up, over 5 million people
@mywJOE would be killed almost instantly... and the clouds would spread and find it's way to new york, and other metropolitan areas.. why take the risk and endanger so many lives? im down for nuclear power but put it somewhere far far away.
My point isnt that clean up would be easier, my point is that it wouldnt be necesarry.
With current tech we can stop a nuclear reaction in a few seconds, meaning the chances of something going wrong and not being able to stop are around 0.
Besides in the chernobyl case most of the plant operators ran like hell, while only a few stayed back and tried to stop it, if the rest would have continued helping it may have never happend in the first place.
the problem is when something catostrophic happens to nuclear plant. The radioactive contamination stays there for thousands of years. Its clean yes in releasing very little pollution. Its very dangerous because of the damage it can cause once it has a meltdown
well caol is money and u can make money off it selling it to other countries see? so its kinda like gold. creates jobs to ay cuz u hav mining and all that. so free power nuclear power will cut alot of jobs and australia with lose alot of trade of coal. its all about money capitalism and trade.
Stupid video, you can also touch the uranio and nothing will appening soon... whait just your time and will kill. I living in lithuania and belivime that the nuclear power now is close (one reactor) because was killing everybody
they build soviet reactors the soviet way meaning cheap and not safe at all we should get nasa to build rockets and get all the waste and throw it out there to the sun or something
the energy consumed by the rocket would cancel out any sort of power you generated from the spent fuel youre sending up. best just to drop it down a big hole encased in glass and lead
we could look for other sources of energy...the earth is warming at a very slow rate...we dont have to make the decision now...nuclear "accidents" have the power to exterminate humans in one fell swoop...just think about your neighborhood looking like pripyat...who cares about the great barrier reef if we might not be here to see it
You do realize that was an old type of nuclear reactor with a graphite moderator? Now a days we use heavy water as a moderator, new safety and backup procedures, better construction, so they are close to impossible to meltdown. the great barrier reef is very important to scientific study and shows the health of the ocean. I think nuclear reactors are just fine especially if we use thorium to decrease nuclear waste.
people need to stop being stupid with spent fuel and manufacturing. eventually were gonna start digging old rods up and recycling them with 90% efficiency right now its just cheaper to mine the fuel. the plant in Chernobyl was build by incompetent soviets. the waste produced by the creation of solar cells is nasty nasty stuff too
"the plant in Chernobyl was build by incompetent soviets"
Not exactly.
Chernobyl was built for a primary purpose ... and it wasn't for generating electricity (that was an afterthought).
The purpose of an RBMK (which was what Chernobyl was) was to produce weapons grade material.
The reactor was large to facilitate extraction of individual fuel rods without shutting down. That trait is responsible for many weaknesses in the RBMK design.
Safe reactor designs aren't compromised like that.
there is soooo much unused space in the world so ehy not use it for solar and wind power desserts chernobyl even anyplace where thers no civilazation and even where there is
do you have any idea how expensive and inneficient that would be? millions of pv cells and wind turbines vs a few thousand nuclear power plants? the latter is certainly the least environmentally damaging and the most cost effective.
Wind turbines can change climate. The wind currents will drastically change if there are too much turbines installed. Wind is basically moving air particles. When the particles collide with the turbine blade, its losing velocity because the energy within particles are transferred to the blade, making it move. That is how wind turbines affect natural wind currents.
everyone who watches this should also watch this video---watch?v=z21On24m4Lc----8 parts...look what it did to those people...that could be all of us...people will always make mistakes...and one mistake could doom us all....
The ocean is already radioactive... A million tons of uranium-238 isn't going to make much of a difference. Plus it's only a weak emitter of beta particles (won't even penetrate skin). Toxicity of uranium-oxide is what you should be worried about. Poisonous as hell.
@tiagandremo wrong. They are strategically placed in areas of the ocean where the plates are moving. Thus the nuclear material is brought in from the two plates, and it is then pushed under towards the earths mantle.
If France is almost 80 percent nuclear, and they've managed it well since the oil embargo, it certainly isn't impossible to take on nuclear power, and use it responsibly as well.
omg the Russians took the design for their reactor from us then cut corners to reduce cost and get the plant online then when the reactor went critical they panicked and dumped hundreds of gallons into the reactor and all the watter flashed into steam that increased the pressure in the reactor until the wall of the reactor cracked causing a large radioactive steam explosion..... in america the building around a nuclear reactor is strong enough to withstand a 747 crashing into it and not leak.
For all those afraid of radiation, coal power stations actually emit far more radiation during normal operation than a nuclear power station. When coal is burnt the tiny amounts of uranium and thorium found in coal are carried up the chimney and deposited in the surrounding area. Nuclear reactors are completely sealed systems.
@quantumbits We have made mistakes in the past but more often than not they did not kill anyone, this includes TMI. Also, 30,000 Americans die each year from coal burning so I don't see how you can criticize nuclear.
This is astounding. Since Hiroshima and Nagaski -- the nuclear age has been imperiling the planet. Constructing the future energy needs of humanity based on a nuclear model is destined for disaster. There is no way to safely dispose of the massive amounts of dangerous waste. Nuke facilities are most often located near or on major water sources AND WITH RISING SEA LEVELS -- THE VULNERABILITY OF THESE FACILITIES IS CLEAR. FUKUSHIMA IS JUST ONE OF MANY TO COME. NUKE POWER WILL DESTROY US.
Aboriginalmedia 1 month ago
oh, you're too kind MarsMoonEuropa! and thank you for your continued interest in the free GEET 80%water20%used oil engine. I am glad to see that you realize that it works perfectly and the 430 examples of running GEET engine on youtube gave you some good insight. Thanks again for just Google searching "FREE GEET PLANS" and calling 601-TRY-GEET for free information. I am glad you also realize this make nukes useless, and has done so for 30 years now. Have fun with your new GEET riding mower!
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny You know, I would actually love to see a live demonstration of this.
Nuclear Power will take us to the final frontier. To distant planets. To the furthest reaches of our solar system. To the smallest particles in the Universe. Nuclear is wonderful. Nuclear is beautiful. Nuclear is Awesome. Nuclear is Power.
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny Sorry but I've now seen a few videos, and it looks like a con to me :(
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny Yes, you are right, GEET can work in ANY generator situation. And since it burns 80%water and 20%used oil its much safer that the evil Pluto which you hug like a tree-hugger hugs trees. Thanks for Google searching "free geet plans" and youtube searching "geet generator runs on coffee and beer".
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny Yeah I hug plutonium real tight.
I know I'm right. GEET stands for Gross Electric Einsteinium Thermal - GEET Nuclear Power Plant.
i.e. Gross Electric Einsteinium Thermal Nuclear Power Plant. Thanks for supporting my cause :)
GEET Nuclear Power Plant.
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa We call troll all day if you want, nuke-hugger. Go Geet/
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny Let's go Nuclear lets go!
I love Nuclear, I don't think you exactly understand my obsession. Of coarse I hug Nukes. I joined a pro-Nuclear march once! It was lovely :) We sang and we chanted, and built a whole new culture around Nuclear Power! :)
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa Cool, super troll. Lets troll this page a new -asshole. Go GEET!
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny Go Nuclear!!!
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear Nuclear
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
Go GEET!!! or Tesla engine, or any other suppressed technology! Fuck these nuke-dicks, and their propaganda films.
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
Oil and gas, in the US at least, is the most profitable because of subsidies and other government spending on it. If it were a fair competition, nuclear would win. If nuclear was supported instead of oil, it would win and have enough cash left over to be safe too.
MrJivePirate 5 months ago
Wait a minute: I LOVE how media tries to sway opinion. This is total bullshit. GEET burns 80%water20%anything carbon AND transforms the exhaust into a breathable form.
analyzingfunny 5 months ago
@analyzingfunny huh? please explain .......
MarsMoonEuropa 5 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa Google "free geet plans" and PRINT them, for they will not last long. Then, get your parts form the hardware store, and build your own water powered lawnmower. youtube search "geet lawnmower" "geet generator runs on coffee" and "geet riding mower". You may be surprised to learn that this technology has been around for 30 years, about as long as they have been fucking us all up the ass and lying to us about energy.
analyzingfunny 5 months ago
@analyzingfunny I'm confused :/
What has this got to do with Nuclear Power?
MarsMoonEuropa 5 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa Becasue, we dont need nukes, or oil, all we really need is GEET. and it has been here for 30 years. youtube search those videos.
analyzingfunny 5 months ago
@analyzingfunny I know I don't need to live,
but I want all these things. Oil is wonderful and has and can fix many of the worlds problems.
I have not seen GEET verified by independent researchers or governments. I'd like to see proof that it works.
And besides, why not Nuclear? Nuclear is wonderful - cheap energy. Why waste so much time and energy on GEET when you have Nuclear?
MarsMoonEuropa 5 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa lol I KNEW y ou were a shill by your stupid questions. That ok you can call 601-TRY-GEET to find out more about GEET. It burns water and we just dont need nukes anymore. Sorry...But you trolling has now opened a can of worms to promote geet.
analyzingfunny 5 months ago
@analyzingfunny hahhahahahhhahah ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah ahhahahahahahahahah ahahahahhah ahahahahaha hahahahahahhahahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahah ahahahahahah ahhahahah ahahahahaha
You silly GEET people!!! I can't be bothered arguing with you. If you want a discussion on Nuclear I am more than happy to discuss with you, but we must use reason and logic. Don't slander by calling my questions stupid.
I know a fair bit about Nuclear, so I am happy to explain the benefits to you :)
MarsMoonEuropa 5 months ago
@MarsMoonEuropa Well, we can just keep going on about your support for alternate energies. But your support for alternate energies is not the question here. How does your water-powered lawn work for you? I think I saw your video on youtube called "geet powered lawn-mower". Was that you as well with the video entitled, "geet powered generator"? great video! It just proves conclusively that we dont need nukes anymore.. Thank you for your support of GEET.
analyzingfunny 4 months ago
@analyzingfunny You are funny! Analysing Funny!!!
Nice talking to you. Would be nice to see this GEET had it existed.
All though I do find Nuclear Power fascinating so I'd be supporting it non the less :)
MarsMoonEuropa 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anyone find suspicious the 2 sponsored results appearing in a Google search of 'carbon tax'?
Now that imposed legislative dependence is certain, I wonder how soon our GE supplied nuclear reactors will be arriving?
DhrTressie 6 months ago
just sit on the fence while the planet gets hoter what?
thats like siting with your hand in the oven wondering if u should take it out
darn politics and people that dont want to se the big picture
nuclear power is not the best thing but its the only thing today with todays technology that can stop the global warming. but for nuclear to work and be safe
there has to be no focus on saving money if they say it wil cost say 500milions to build then budget 1500milions and realy overcompensate
georg841984 6 months ago
Hell yeah sweden ;-D
MightyBif 6 months ago
I'm ashamed of my government for using coal and not nuclear power. It's bullshit.
ZeppelinFloydRoses 7 months ago
@ZeppelinFloydRoses Me too. I'd like to see us become 100% renewable someday, but until then nuclear is the way to go. We should build new generation nuclear plants AND wind AND solar and anything else that makes electricity without making CO2. When we're ready, we start shutting down the fossil-fueled plants. And when the last fossil-fuel plant is shut down, THEN we can start shutting down the nuclear plants. Not until then.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
SCUM BAMMA & the NWO want nuclear power because it is the quickest path to murdering 93% of the worlds population as is directly stated on the GEORGIA GUIDE STONES ~ which demand we reduce earth population by 93% which I agree with by the way ~
```
U EARTHLINGS are so fucking stupid U cant see the writing on the wall ~
```
Fucking morons ~ FUKUSHIMA will kill millions if not more & we have 442 with 65 being built...ALL IT WILL TAKE 4 THE NWO TO WIPE US OUT IS 2-3 MORE SO CALLED ACCIDENTS
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 8 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Please tell me how many people have died as a result of radiation exposure at Fukushima. Please tell me where you got that information.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal ass-wipe ASS WIPE THAT YOU ARE PLEASE TELL ME
```
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED FROM AGENT ORANGE AND HOW MANY
```
THE SCUM BAG UNITED STATES MAFIA NEVER TOLD US ABOUT
```
FUCK YOU MORON ~
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal AND WHILE YOUR FEELING SMART TELL ME WHY IT TOOK THESE SCUMBAGS 90 DAYS TO TELL US WHAT THEY KNEW AFTER ONLY 6 HOURS...
```
THEY WANT TO REDUSE THE POPULATION BY 90%
```
YOU FUCKING PUTZ...EAT SHIT...YOU FUCKING BRAIN WASHED PEASENT ~
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 7 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel You haven't answered my question. This is a discussion about nuclear power, in particular the Fukushima accident, not Agent Orange or your opinion of my intelligence.
My question, again: please tell me how many people have died from radiation exposure at Fukushima.
Do you even know the dosage figures? How about the exposure levels generally accepted as increasing long-term cancer rates? How about the dose required to cause acute radiation sickness? Please use SI units.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal You stup;id scumgab...it took the goverment 90 fucking gays to tell the world what they knew 5 hours after the accdint and you expect me to believe them as to how many people have been over exposed to radiation...
```
your a fucking idiot...do the world a favor and show us how to do the [[ HARRIE CARRIE ]]]
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 7 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Um, many of the Fukushima radiation figures are coming from the IAEA - the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna and run by people from many countries.
But I guess you're not about to let facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant, huh?
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal FCK U WHERE YOU BREATHE...ASS WIPE...
```1
IT TOOK 90 FUCKING DAYS T FOR THEM TO TELL US THE REACTORS
``` WERE MELTED AND THEY KNEW THAT MUCH
``` 6 HOURS AFTER THE TUSUNAMI...
```
WHERE YOU FUCKING BREATHE ~
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 7 months ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Thank you so much for your eloquent, rational, fact-filled argument!
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal FOR YOU WE GO ALL OUT...NO PROBLEM... SHEEP BOY ...
```
If you think that was eloquent...you should see me eat spare ribs...
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 7 months ago
@1canyonguy if you stand at the front gate at Fukushima for 2 days you will get less radiation than you will from a single chest CT scan. THAT IS A FACT.
BabyMakR 10 months ago
@BabyMakR Yeah right the "rest" of the world knows nothing about radiation. All the radiation experts I have been listening,watching and reading via numerous outlets all all wrong.The difference between us is that I know I am crazy you are yet to come out of the crazy closet.
1canyonguy 9 months ago
@1canyonguy So what radiation experts were those, and what did they tell you? Give me names and numbers. While you're at it, compare those numbers to those in the fact sheets published by the Health Physics Society, the professionals whose job it is to protect people from ionizing radiation.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
xaxa stupid swed
leo02yu 1 year ago
I wish there was a nice clean body of water being used by a nuclear plant near me. The water is cold and dirty. :(
HWGuyEG 1 year ago
Just think of it this way.. gamers of the future will have a chance for some excellent gaming when they play S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Shadow of Jervis Bay.. or the sequel, S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Call of Ulladulla. Wallabies with psionic powers, fun stuff.
Echsentriq 1 year ago
There is MONEY in uranium. It's more dangerous than oil and just as profitable. Keep that in mind when pro-nuclear politicians or nuclear power plants tell you nuclear power is safe...
jenaardell 1 year ago
ooh australians view of the world....so very differnet from americans!
nyletakatelyn 1 year ago
@nyletakatelyn So true..
Echsentriq 1 year ago
what about thorium!
captinseperoth 1 year ago
If we get away from Uranium/Plutonium based reactors and go with the Thorium reaction process, the weapon materials problem would dissappear.
check wikipedia.
bmecher 1 year ago
@bmecher If you do more research u eill discover than whilst a huge advance on uro-plut tech, thorium still has some dangers. It is also not true that thorium energy is unusable for nuclear armaments. U can use thorium it is just about 3 more times expensive, takes (look at half-lifes) about 12 times as long and requires much more technical and skill infra-structure. Thorium is better but not an absolute, complete solution.
parabat7 1 year ago
@bmecher
Or just use reactors with low enriched fuel.
backindauk 1 year ago
People tend not to do the research before making an opinion on nuclear energy generally. Chernobyl for example won't happen in N. America. Why? Did you know Chernobyl was build using very unstable Russian nuclear power plant designs. Even before it fucked it people knew it was a shitty design. The safety features on most plants nowadays are quite advanced. But despite this, people form opinions based on opinon, then they search up only info that would back up their emotions.
123Clean123 1 year ago
@123Clean123
most people dont care,
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@123Clean123 Countless disasters and meltdowns that HAVE ALREADY happened in the U.S. Research these: The Hanford site, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Rocky Flats N. Weapon Plant, Three-mile Island...
jenaardell 1 year ago
@jenaardell
What about the hundreds of thousands of people dying of cancers caused by the burning of coal? See the health statistics for the Central Coast of NSW, Australia and compare them to other areas with no coal fired stations (Gunnedah, NSW) - look at lung cancer and leukaemia.
There have been a handful of accidents and most have seen zero release of radiation into the environment. Before you start saying Chernobyl, it was poorly designed reactor with very limited safety systems.
backindauk 1 year ago
@backindauk Not sure why you think I support coal burning power plants... I'm for solar and wind and getting homes off the grid. AND using less energy in general.
I will repost what I mentioned earlier.... Countless disasters and meltdowns HAVE ALREADY happened in the U.S. Research these: The Hanford site, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Rocky Flats N. Weapon Plant, Three-mile Island. (None of which are Chernobyl).
jenaardell 1 year ago
@jenaardell
Well that is what people here in Australia support (idiots)
Anyway, i'm well aware of the Hanford Site. I wrote my thesis on some activities there (Physics)
Three-Mile Island was the most serious incident out of those you mentioned but it was pretty much contained and the structural integrity of that design (which is now 40+ years old) prevented serious disaster.
We have moved on since then
Anyway, solar and wind are both extremely expensive and not suitable for baseload generation
backindauk 1 year ago 2
@backindauk I'm australian but I agree with you 100%. Even the RBMK reactor design which was involved in the chernobyl disaster; the worst nuclear accident in history is not that unsafe. Little does anybody know there are still 11 operating RBMK reactors in the former soviet union. Although it's techically the most unsafe reactor design used today, no other serious accidents have occurred in the remaining RBMK powered NPPs.
HolyGfunnies 11 months ago
@HolyGfunnies
It is good to know that there are at least a few people out there who base their opinion on fact rather than populist ideologies :) Nuclear power done properly is a great way of generating energy though it's almost impossible to get anything done properly in Australia. Too many half baked political decisions and too many mistakes with even the most trivial of projects...
backindauk 11 months ago 2
@backindauk HEY PRO-NUKER!
How's that clean, safe, too-cheap-to-meter nuclear power workin' out for ya today?
CrudeDude 10 months ago
@CrudeDude
Better than coal.
backindauk 10 months ago
@backindauk Sure it is. Ask anyone in Japan,
CrudeDude 10 months ago
@CrudeDude Have you got a better means for generating baseload cleanly in Japan?
I'm all ears.
backindauk 10 months ago
@CrudeDude In addition to this, there has been no serious radiological release from any of the Japanese reactors...
backindauk 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@backindauk There has been NOW !
CrudeDude 10 months ago
Comment removed
CrudeDude 10 months ago
@backindauk The radiation being released is not "serious" WTF is it healthy? why bdont you go there and help with the clean up?
1canyonguy 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@1canyonguy if you stand at the front gate at Fukushima for 2 days you will get less radiation than you will from a single chest CT scan. THAT IS A FACT.
BabyMakR 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First video seems to be from Finland
KillerJoeFIN 1 year ago
We don't need currently used uranium/plutonium fission reactors. We don't need coal or natural gas burners. We don't need wind turbines nor solar power. We don't need wave power generation. Look up Thorium reactors and rejoice. Make your voice heard to your governments. Thorium has all the benefits of Uranium, without the dangers. Read up on it. The technology is ready.
Landrar 1 year ago 2
@Landrar Sorry, I want Canada to be an Economic power so I'll stick with uranium.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 Come now, lets be reasonable...we both know that will NEVER happen, lol.
Landrar 1 year ago
@Landrar It could.
A wise man once said "Never say never." Remember never means till the day times, life and space stops.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 Tell the wise man to hold his breath and let me know how it turns out for him. ;)
Landrar 1 year ago
I live in Australia and i can tell you, electricity is bloody expensive. I hate it when people misrepresent facts about nuclear power though. I would prefer 'renewable' energy sources but they just aren't quite efficient enough.
blarginatorisback 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blarginatorisback They never will be.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
Coal power plants kills the ozone. Go nuclear!
KillTheGrasshopper 1 year ago
@durpydurpy
well - good we have such educated people like you with such fine language.
EVITPOF 1 year ago
Holy shit are Aussies fucking retarded??? There gov't is still doubting climate change??? LOL!! Idiots.
HBOMB99 1 year ago
@HBOMB99 Why not doubt? There is no conclusive evidence that CO2 is contributing towards significant/irreversible changes to the climate- infact, there is substantial evidence which suggests something to the contrary - namely, that climate change can be attributed to increased solar activity. Look at a time-lapse of solar activity between 1996 and 2009. You will notice that there is a significant increase.
scrfce123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I invented a breakthrough source of energy, which contradicts the law of conservation of energy. I have a PROOF that there are electrodynamic phenomena which contradict the law of energy conservation. It will cost about $1200 to make a 6 kW generator in mass production. Value of the energy produced yearly about $5400. I am looking for $300 000 for a prototype and for $3M for patents.
H. Tomasz Grzybowski
tel. +48-512-933-540
henrykay01 1 year ago
Nuclear Power makes no sense for the ordinary population.
It is expensive and unsafe.
It dont even need a chernobyl like accident to release radio activity into the environment.
Metals used in NPP´s are in danger to get into the metal cycle - you might end up buying a metal garden chair that radiates.
So WHY?
Coz it helps superrich energy-corporations to maintain monopoly´s.
They employ lobbyists and corrupt politicians to drum "nuclear power is indispensable" and "cheap" but the cost is high.
EVITPOF 1 year ago
@EVITPOF
There are about 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium in the oceans. This is nearly 1000 times more than the terrestrial uranium sources in the western world... Nuclear power is the only way to meet our growing energy needs...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill
Nuclear power is the sure way to poison our invironment.
Our energy needs can be met with wind, hydro and solar power easily, cheaper and safer!
EVITPOF 1 year ago
@EVITPOF
EVITPOF: "Nuclear power is the sure way to poison our invironment."
-
Learn to spell environment... then learn to read...
There are about 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium in the oceans.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@EVITPOF
I´m sooo sorry to write "i" instead of "e"
And you can attack my arguments (well, you suck at that)
but you should refrain from attacking me as a person (shows on what level you are).
EVITPOF 1 year ago
@EVITPOF
Holy shit the amount of downright ignorance in your comment is unbelievable. The only expensive part of nuclear power is the building of the plant itself. Running them is very cost efficient. Your metal garden chair argument just shows how little you know about the subject at hand. It doesn't work like that.
The next part of your comment is just a bunch of moronic conspiracy theories.
Ishnuvalok 1 year ago
@Ishnuvalok
if you deny, that scrap metal from NPP´s ended up in consumer goods than you show who is the ignoramus here.
EVITPOF 1 year ago
@EVITPOF Radioactivity doesn't work like that. Not everywhere around and in the npp is irradiated by neutron radiation. They won't use metal that is contaminated through mixing of contaminated metals, or metal that he been exposed to large amounts of neutrons. You know, your smoke alarm probably has about 50 micrograms of Americium in it, a radioactive substance. Going outside exposes yourself to large amounts of radiation. Staying in your house does as well.
Ishnuvalok 1 year ago
@EVITPOF If you want a better example of radioactive substances being released into the enviroment, look at coal plants. Nuclear plants go to very far lengths to contain radioactive substances. Coal plants do not. An American will receive higher doses of radiation by living near a coal plant than a nuclear power plant. More people are exposed to larger amounts of radiation, and die from issues related to coal plants than NPP's.
Ishnuvalok 1 year ago
@Ishnuvalok
NPP do not totally contain radiation (in normal operation)
And the biggest problem is the ultimate disposal of spent fuel-rods.
Coal plants do emit radiation (so far you´re right) but they - as well - have filters that contain pollution.
(I´m not making a case for coal plants - I prefer hydro, solar and wind power)
Where do you have it from that a US citizen will receive a higher dose of radiation from a NPP vs. a coal plant?
EVITPOF 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ishnuvalok 1 year ago
@EVITPOF Youtube apparently doesn't like me linking websites. But go to ornl.gov then add info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain and then .html
Hydroelectric plants have a very, very large impact on the surrounding enviroment. Solar power isn't very effective, and not effective everywhere. For example, in my native country Sweden, we get very little sunlight-hours every year due to our longitude.
Ishnuvalok 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ishnuvalok 1 year ago
@EVITPOF Scrap metals that have been derived from medical refuse are commonly used in consumer goods - some of this waste is infact radioactive. It has nothing to do with nuclear powerplants - the nuclear power industry is one of the most stringently regulated of all industrial sectors.
scrfce123 1 year ago
@EVITPOF That's a silly misconception. Nuclear power can be incredibly safe. It is also cheaper than coal.
Chernobyl is actually thriving with wildlife. Recent studies have concluded that there is no particular increase in the incidence of cancer, nor mutations in animals inhabiting the region. Besides, radiation levels in Chernobyl top out at a couple of millisieverts. Although this may be considered significant when compared to background, it isn't particularly dramatic.
scrfce123 1 year ago
Agreed with the last guy, we have no idea the long term effects of burying radioactive waste. I do have 1 question though: Isn't Australia over 70% desert?...have you thought about putting some solar power farms out there in the outback? Solar power might now have the same return on investment, but it would be much quicker to start up, would require less startup $, and wouldn't raise public concern.
devrobbiz 1 year ago
@devrobbiz Oh i understan you want to go and clean the dust of like 100 000 square miles of solar panels? go ahead ;)
TheEsseboy 1 year ago
@devrobbiz Deserts are popular miltiary areas. The metal reflects light which can evently blind pilots. Therefore it would raise concerns. Also planting Solar plants will return the local habitat.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER CHERNOBYL, SAY NO TO NUCLEAR POWER!
Caseyr0206 1 year ago
@Caseyr0206 chernobyl is a horrid example against nuclear power. the USSR's mindset back then had no regard for safety, just look at their space program and how many failures they had. they weren't concerned over safety in the slightest.
146546468416 1 year ago
Despite the high level of contamination at Chernobyl and Pripiyat, there has been a prolific increase of wildlife and fauna since humans packed up and left. It is incredibly selfish to condemn the whole planet in order to conserve a small region - or rather, its population of humans should something actually go wrong. Besides, with modern engineering practices proper execution and adequate safety and implementations, Chernobyl won't ever happen again.
scrfce123 1 year ago
There will "ALWAYS" be "WASTE" whether its coal, nuclear or even WIND (yes thats right even wind). I will explain please read carefully.
1. While there is a need for "ELECTRICITY" (man made power) there will be a "MAN MADE" device to produce this. Now wind is a means to rotate a turbine to create power but not without a turbine.
2. Every "MACHINE" (MAN MADE device) requires large amounts of recources to A) Create, B) Maintain, C) Transport Power.
Nothing made by man is clean. PERIOD. PEACE
MakeMeMonarch 1 year ago
@MakeMeMonarch In recent years we actually create things using the waste.
USAForLife2057 1 year ago
i believe they should stick to coal burning but there will be a bit of adjustment of where the toxic fume will go.
instead of releasing to the air we breathe, it would be awesome to tunnel the fume to a big container with water. imagine how u construct a bong, i believe that should do the trick.
MrBlackjack211 1 year ago
Wait, wait, wait..... soooo...... @ 2:48 ok... hmm Well now @ 6:30 listen to the new voice that comes on and see who it is
Bentnapkins 1 year ago
stay out of my country you greedy ass holes .anyone can see through your blatant propaganda .why dont you tell us about the fact that radioactive waste has a half life of 250000 years ..oh but dont worry you would just love to make my clean country a dumping ground for your disgusting filth you pigs
turborota 1 year ago
@turborota You need an anger management class, or some sort of counseling that reverses mental retardation. You have no idea what you're talking about. And this is MY country, jerk.
shellius 1 year ago
Comment removed
shellius 1 year ago
We are all terrified of nuclear power. Which is toxic death
JonThm 1 year ago
I am afraid of nuclear power, I'm just afraid that something will be the next Chernobyl.
ghjiop23 1 year ago
@ghjiop23 To get the ahead in the world you need to take a gamble. Despite Chernobyl was built poorly. Today, its foolish even to consider anything else other then nuclear power, In anycase, they got so many regulations and safety measures to prevent a major melt down. Really, I don't really feel IT as a gamble,
ShadowWolfRtL 1 year ago
Ouch too bad it's been proving the Earth is colling... yikes! Coal is so old... comapare Chernobyl to all the shit spewed out from oil, gas and coal. Nuclear power is geeting better, Austrlia needs to have guns, more jobs and nuclear facilities.
12GaugeLosAngeles 1 year ago
global warming is a bunch of hippie bull shit.
cne9 1 year ago
who ever the bald guy is he needs to do his homework its safe, provides jobs, and provides energy.
peru2246 1 year ago
"As the evidence for global warming becomes undeniable" ROFL that gave me a good laugh.
Lokivoid 1 year ago
"ya, is only cooling water, no radiation at all..." say man with 3 legs, and swim away wobble the tail :)
v3dDotRu 1 year ago
okay people here are the facts
#1 we all use energy, (execption) the bushmen of Africa.
#2 population growth requires more energy to be made.
If you are opposed to expanding energy production AND you are not an african bushman, then STFU and let the grown ups handle the situation.
rllang01 1 year ago
@rllang01 Bushmen don't have campfires?
Hairysteed 1 year ago
@Hairysteed I do believe that I was referring to "MODERN" energy sources. Do I have to spoon feed this info to you ? does your mummy still hold your hand in public ? Would you like me to change your diaper for you ?
Grow the F*** up.
Playtime on the energy debate is over.
rllang01 1 year ago
@rllang01 Wow! Someone needs a chill pill!
Hairysteed 1 year ago
yeah big accidents are rare, but there are small accident that still happen which kill employee's of the nuclear power plant. Also when accidents occur look what happens. Chernobyl is inhabitable still and you've seen all the birth defects and deaths from that incident. Maybe if they had a way to clean up the accident and treat it to a certain degree maybe nuclear power will be safer and smarter option, but if you can't live or clean up without people dying, nuclear power will be dangerous.
mywJOE 1 year ago
@mywJOE
Ya technology hasnt gone anywhere since then right.
All these Ipods and other computers were everywhere.
Technology advances and things become safer. 50 years ago if you asked someone to round the world and arrive somewhere at an earlier time then he left they would punch you in the face. Now the Blackhawk does that with no problem. Technology advances, and currently in the newer power plants there are so many failsafes that a major dissaster can be easily avoided.
StedySniper 1 year ago
@StedySniper
BlackBird, sorry I was thinking of the SR-71 blackbird.
StedySniper 1 year ago
@StedySniper lol, yeah technology advanced since chernobyl but ur telling me there is a safe way to clean up the mess and we can live on the land soon after it's been cleaned up!?!? can we contain the nuclear materials within at least 10km radius? obviously technology has advanced but not that much. chernobyl was a small town outside any major city, but it still made its way to a lot of European countries. there is a power plant in pickering near toronto, if that blew up, over 5 million people
mywJOE 1 year ago
@mywJOE would be killed almost instantly... and the clouds would spread and find it's way to new york, and other metropolitan areas.. why take the risk and endanger so many lives? im down for nuclear power but put it somewhere far far away.
mywJOE 1 year ago
@mywJOE Do you really think nuclear reactors blow up in a nuclear explosion when they fail?
Hairysteed 1 year ago
@Hairysteed no because they have thousands of fail safe for things like that.
peru2246 1 year ago
@peru2246 ...other than the mere PHYSICAL IPOSSIBILITY? Its like trying to burn water!
Hairysteed 1 year ago
@mywJOE
My point isnt that clean up would be easier, my point is that it wouldnt be necesarry.
With current tech we can stop a nuclear reaction in a few seconds, meaning the chances of something going wrong and not being able to stop are around 0.
Besides in the chernobyl case most of the plant operators ran like hell, while only a few stayed back and tried to stop it, if the rest would have continued helping it may have never happend in the first place.
StedySniper 1 year ago
we could launch spent fuel rods into the sun! nothing would happen and we get rid of waste as well
InstantMix 1 year ago
Check out Desertec!
originalrhombus 1 year ago
This is unbelievably absurd. Australia could meet ALL of its electricity needs with solar. 90% of the country is desert, for pete's sake.
originalrhombus 1 year ago
the problem is when something catostrophic happens to nuclear plant. The radioactive contamination stays there for thousands of years. Its clean yes in releasing very little pollution. Its very dangerous because of the damage it can cause once it has a meltdown
thehantavirus 1 year ago
if we all cut down on the power we use there would be less coal used and less co2
1979jondam 1 year ago
Me!
JonThm 1 year ago
well caol is money and u can make money off it selling it to other countries see? so its kinda like gold. creates jobs to ay cuz u hav mining and all that. so free power nuclear power will cut alot of jobs and australia with lose alot of trade of coal. its all about money capitalism and trade.
DEGAUSS138 1 year ago
@DEGAUSS138 dont ya have to mine the uranium for nuclear power plants ? yeah ? and australia has one of the largest uranium reserves on earth ,,,
rllang01 1 year ago
Stupid video, you can also touch the uranio and nothing will appening soon... whait just your time and will kill. I living in lithuania and belivime that the nuclear power now is close (one reactor) because was killing everybody
TylerMonaco 1 year ago
LOL do half of you really believe the $hit that come's out your mouth's?. Take a science lesson would you.
outlawdex1 1 year ago
they build soviet reactors the soviet way meaning cheap and not safe at all we should get nasa to build rockets and get all the waste and throw it out there to the sun or something
geekforlifevandc 1 year ago
the energy consumed by the rocket would cancel out any sort of power you generated from the spent fuel youre sending up. best just to drop it down a big hole encased in glass and lead
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
Who's Afraid of a big climate change?
LeukeGast 1 year ago
thanks
mimijem 1 year ago
we could look for other sources of energy...the earth is warming at a very slow rate...we dont have to make the decision now...nuclear "accidents" have the power to exterminate humans in one fell swoop...just think about your neighborhood looking like pripyat...who cares about the great barrier reef if we might not be here to see it
bentboybbz 1 year ago
You do realize that was an old type of nuclear reactor with a graphite moderator? Now a days we use heavy water as a moderator, new safety and backup procedures, better construction, so they are close to impossible to meltdown. the great barrier reef is very important to scientific study and shows the health of the ocean. I think nuclear reactors are just fine especially if we use thorium to decrease nuclear waste.
Ecelleon 1 year ago
people need to stop being stupid with spent fuel and manufacturing. eventually were gonna start digging old rods up and recycling them with 90% efficiency right now its just cheaper to mine the fuel. the plant in Chernobyl was build by incompetent soviets. the waste produced by the creation of solar cells is nasty nasty stuff too
UniteForgetLeftRight 1 year ago
"the plant in Chernobyl was build by incompetent soviets"
Not exactly.
Chernobyl was built for a primary purpose ... and it wasn't for generating electricity (that was an afterthought).
The purpose of an RBMK (which was what Chernobyl was) was to produce weapons grade material.
The reactor was large to facilitate extraction of individual fuel rods without shutting down. That trait is responsible for many weaknesses in the RBMK design.
Safe reactor designs aren't compromised like that.
Watcher3223 1 year ago
there is soooo much unused space in the world so ehy not use it for solar and wind power desserts chernobyl even anyplace where thers no civilazation and even where there is
geekforlifevandc 1 year ago
do you have any idea how expensive and inneficient that would be? millions of pv cells and wind turbines vs a few thousand nuclear power plants? the latter is certainly the least environmentally damaging and the most cost effective.
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
Yeah and not to mention you would have to replace the pv cells and those cells use some rare elements like galium
Darkwizzrobe 1 year ago
@geekforlifevandc money
larsanien 1 year ago
Wind turbines can change climate. The wind currents will drastically change if there are too much turbines installed. Wind is basically moving air particles. When the particles collide with the turbine blade, its losing velocity because the energy within particles are transferred to the blade, making it move. That is how wind turbines affect natural wind currents.
Raptor13270 1 year ago
everyone who watches this should also watch this video---watch?v=z21On24m4Lc----8 parts...look what it did to those people...that could be all of us...people will always make mistakes...and one mistake could doom us all....
bentboybbz 1 year ago
@bentboybbz
Actually to doom us all every single plant would have to melt down within a rediculously small time frame.
StedySniper 1 year ago
nuclear waste is incased in lead and concreted and put down mine shafts and oceans, in 600 yrs the oceans will become radioactive
tiagandremo 1 year ago
The ocean is already radioactive... A million tons of uranium-238 isn't going to make much of a difference. Plus it's only a weak emitter of beta particles (won't even penetrate skin). Toxicity of uranium-oxide is what you should be worried about. Poisonous as hell.
SiliconM4trix 1 year ago
beta particles do penetrate the skin
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
well be digging it up. those rods can be reused once we start running out of fuel in the mines
UniteForgetLeftRight 1 year ago
@tiagandremo wrong. They are strategically placed in areas of the ocean where the plates are moving. Thus the nuclear material is brought in from the two plates, and it is then pushed under towards the earths mantle.
EpiDemic117 1 year ago
I live in Japan where a large percent of our electicity comes from nuclear power.
vanfarowe 1 year ago 4
If France is almost 80 percent nuclear, and they've managed it well since the oil embargo, it certainly isn't impossible to take on nuclear power, and use it responsibly as well.
suemorphplus2009 1 year ago 3
Yep. They have the lowest per capita emissions of CO2 in the developed world and yet they are a net exporter of electricity. Look no further really!
XPLAlN 1 year ago
Do you want to store nuclear waste in your closet ???
THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY NO TO NUCLEAR POWER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KarenGardener1 1 year ago
@KarenGardener1
Propaganda:
1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
Congrats on coming up with bullshit to push fear into people without any real reason.
StedySniper 1 year ago
@malvoo in chernobyl they did an test thats got wrong and exploded
Exo19966 1 year ago
omg the Russians took the design for their reactor from us then cut corners to reduce cost and get the plant online then when the reactor went critical they panicked and dumped hundreds of gallons into the reactor and all the watter flashed into steam that increased the pressure in the reactor until the wall of the reactor cracked causing a large radioactive steam explosion..... in america the building around a nuclear reactor is strong enough to withstand a 747 crashing into it and not leak.
ianmastin 1 year ago 2
@Chrism3fbp wata bout chernobyl
youngmarineRCTwhite 1 year ago
For all those afraid of radiation, coal power stations actually emit far more radiation during normal operation than a nuclear power station. When coal is burnt the tiny amounts of uranium and thorium found in coal are carried up the chimney and deposited in the surrounding area. Nuclear reactors are completely sealed systems.
Chrism3fbp 1 year ago 19
@Chrism3fbp but unfortunately an accident or malfunction with nuclear is far more devastating!
quantumbits 1 year ago
@quantumbits You mean like three mile island that killed nobody?
TheSfaaf 1 year ago
@TheSfaaf Do we actually have to kill people before we realize we can make mistakes?
quantumbits 1 year ago
@quantumbits We have made mistakes in the past but more often than not they did not kill anyone, this includes TMI. Also, 30,000 Americans die each year from coal burning so I don't see how you can criticize nuclear.
TheSfaaf 1 year ago