@AtheistKiwi Studies on full life-cycle greenhouse gas production, including mining and waste management, show that nuclear, wind and hydro are by far the lowest. Nuclear and hydro can provide baseload electricity, but hydro requires damming more rivers. All these energy sources are part of the mix for electricity that our society is demanding. All have environmental implications.
Banqiao Reservoir Dam disaster: Hydroelectric dam bust, washed away several towns, killed ~171,000, more then even what Green Peace says Chernobyl killed. I agree that some alternative energy sources are very safe but nuclear is safer than coal, oil or natural gas, which killed a combined ~300,000 a year in pollution caused and exacerbate diseases, not counting global warming or mining fatalities.
In response to Areva Resources' claim that the nuclear industry bears the costs of its wastes: I have done much research on the uranium industry in Australia, as well as the global problem of nuclear waste disposal. I found that, while the costs of temporary disposal of radioactive waste is accounted for, the larger, more long-term problem of permanent disposal, is not accounted for. The broader environmental and social costs, eg radioactive tailings destroying ecosystems, are certainly not.
@Tandools Nuclear wastes can and are being safety managed. In North America, regulations require sufficient funds to be put aside by the power producers for waste management including long-term permanent disposal of spent fuel. In Saskatchewan, uranium mines are required to put aside decommissioning funds before mining even begins.
@arevaresources and what about all the exported uranium since Canada is the largest exporter? the cost of dealing with the spent fuel is not part of the decommission fund for the mines. The nuclear plants also need to be decommissioned, and the US will have a lot of fun with that very soon. I guess many of them can just be covered with cement though, since that is the cheapest way to go.
@rinalas The cost of decommissioning uranium mines in Saskatchewan is guaranteed up-front by the mining companies. The cost of managing spent fuel is managed through a fund built up by the nuclear utilities based on the amount of electricity produced. Nuclear plants are required to be safely decommissioned. Covering with concrete is not appropriate.
@rinalas The cost of decommissioning uranium mines in Saskatchewan is guaranteed up-front by the mining companies. The cost of managing spent fuel is managed through a fund built up by the nuclear utilities based on the amount of electricity produced. Nuclear plants are required to be safely decommissioned. Covering with concrete is not appropriate.
Good use of vid but misleading message. The UK is decommissioning it's first nuclear powerstation now. It will take 120 years to complete, more money than it cost to build and 50,000 years for the waste to be safe! It will be stored in concrete casing that will only last for 1,000 years. Makes you wonder...
@ChrisBarkerTV In all countries using nuclear energy there are well established procedures for storing, managing and transporting such wastes, funded from electricity users. Storage is safe and secure; plans are well in hand for eventual disposal. Nuclear power is the only energy-producing industry which takes full responsibility for managing all its wastes, and bears the cost of this.
@arevaresources No Way, Jose. You are spreading very dangerous and naive mis-information here. If this were't such a serious issue we could all have a good laugh, but this is deadly stuff you're playing with, and this sort of mind-numbing chit-chat just spreads scientific illiteracy. Tell us more about these "well established procedures..." Can you point to anything on the planet that has remained stable for 250,000 years? Remember that the last major ice age was just ~10K years ago....
@arevaresources "Well established procedures" and "Well in hand" plans is language used to only to cover the fact that the industry AND those charged with regulating it are willing to sacrifice 1000 years down the road for a little joy ride right now.
The pellet in the video is larger than a standard fuel pellet. Perhaps it is truthful because the energy comparison is phrased as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas AND 147 gallons of oil AND more than 1000 kilograms of coal. The card I have with a smaller standard pellet lists those same comparisons with the word OR as the conjunction.
@atomicrod59 ... and dimensions aside, nothing you'd want in your shirt pocket!
The one intelligent thing the Nuke guy said was about reducing our energy consumption -- here, here, he hit it right on the head! That, more than any other thing, is the key to our future.
Coal power plants emit much more radio active waste than nuclear power plants, in addition coal power plants emitted 150x as much radiation the year that 3 mile Island happened. Honestly, I don't like nuclear, but for now, it's the only realistic option. until we can build enough infrastructure for our exponentially growing population.
Both actors are classically trained. I believe that they were going for the uncomfortably awkward feel at points. I am pretty sure that both actors were off script at the point of shooting, and were looking at the screen to accurately imitate the original Mac vs. PC commercials put out by Apple.
Eh, the actors were kinda awkward... some of the pauses were uncomfortably long, and they were a little too obvious about repeatedly looking at the screen.
there is very little waste if you transmute the U-238 to Pu-239, since Pu-239 will fission in nuclear reactors...and you can transmute most of the bad fission product waste from nuclear plants in fast reactors
Awesome video guys this is the best one I've seen!! Very creative and well done, great acting and great spoof idea of a commercial everyone knows!! Very awesome job guys!!
Great job boys! I really enjoyed this video, it was very entertaining yet very informative about the difference between the two energy types! I hope you win!
I love this video, you guys did a great job to make it entertaining yet very informative about the difference between using fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Great job!!
This is misleading. Both forms of energy have downsides. If something goes wrong the outcome can be disastrous.
Never heard of a windfarm accident shutting down a town, city or region.
Even Hydro is comparatively safer than fossil and nuclear.
AtheistKiwi 1 year ago 15
@AtheistKiwi Studies on full life-cycle greenhouse gas production, including mining and waste management, show that nuclear, wind and hydro are by far the lowest. Nuclear and hydro can provide baseload electricity, but hydro requires damming more rivers. All these energy sources are part of the mix for electricity that our society is demanding. All have environmental implications.
arevaresources 1 year ago 14
@AtheistKiwi
Banqiao Reservoir Dam disaster: Hydroelectric dam bust, washed away several towns, killed ~171,000, more then even what Green Peace says Chernobyl killed. I agree that some alternative energy sources are very safe but nuclear is safer than coal, oil or natural gas, which killed a combined ~300,000 a year in pollution caused and exacerbate diseases, not counting global warming or mining fatalities.
frbe0101 10 months ago
In response to Areva Resources' claim that the nuclear industry bears the costs of its wastes: I have done much research on the uranium industry in Australia, as well as the global problem of nuclear waste disposal. I found that, while the costs of temporary disposal of radioactive waste is accounted for, the larger, more long-term problem of permanent disposal, is not accounted for. The broader environmental and social costs, eg radioactive tailings destroying ecosystems, are certainly not.
Tandools 1 year ago
@Tandools Nuclear wastes can and are being safety managed. In North America, regulations require sufficient funds to be put aside by the power producers for waste management including long-term permanent disposal of spent fuel. In Saskatchewan, uranium mines are required to put aside decommissioning funds before mining even begins.
arevaresources 1 year ago
@arevaresources and what about all the exported uranium since Canada is the largest exporter? the cost of dealing with the spent fuel is not part of the decommission fund for the mines. The nuclear plants also need to be decommissioned, and the US will have a lot of fun with that very soon. I guess many of them can just be covered with cement though, since that is the cheapest way to go.
rinalas 1 year ago
@rinalas The cost of decommissioning uranium mines in Saskatchewan is guaranteed up-front by the mining companies. The cost of managing spent fuel is managed through a fund built up by the nuclear utilities based on the amount of electricity produced. Nuclear plants are required to be safely decommissioned. Covering with concrete is not appropriate.
arevaresources 1 year ago
@rinalas The cost of decommissioning uranium mines in Saskatchewan is guaranteed up-front by the mining companies. The cost of managing spent fuel is managed through a fund built up by the nuclear utilities based on the amount of electricity produced. Nuclear plants are required to be safely decommissioned. Covering with concrete is not appropriate.
arevaresources 1 year ago
Good use of vid but misleading message. The UK is decommissioning it's first nuclear powerstation now. It will take 120 years to complete, more money than it cost to build and 50,000 years for the waste to be safe! It will be stored in concrete casing that will only last for 1,000 years. Makes you wonder...
ChrisBarkerTV 1 year ago
@ChrisBarkerTV In all countries using nuclear energy there are well established procedures for storing, managing and transporting such wastes, funded from electricity users. Storage is safe and secure; plans are well in hand for eventual disposal. Nuclear power is the only energy-producing industry which takes full responsibility for managing all its wastes, and bears the cost of this.
arevaresources 1 year ago
@arevaresources No Way, Jose. You are spreading very dangerous and naive mis-information here. If this were't such a serious issue we could all have a good laugh, but this is deadly stuff you're playing with, and this sort of mind-numbing chit-chat just spreads scientific illiteracy. Tell us more about these "well established procedures..." Can you point to anything on the planet that has remained stable for 250,000 years? Remember that the last major ice age was just ~10K years ago....
PM3520 1 year ago
@PM3520 The well established procedures are well summarized in this video by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization: nwmo(.)ca/videos/video:7
arevaresources 1 year ago
@arevaresources "Well established procedures" and "Well in hand" plans is language used to only to cover the fact that the industry AND those charged with regulating it are willing to sacrifice 1000 years down the road for a little joy ride right now.
whatupgreentea 1 year ago
One question, what do we do with all the spent rods? nuclear's cool, but i think I'll wait 'till fusion hits, fission is so old hat...
thebeetalls 1 year ago
The pellet in the video is larger than a standard fuel pellet. Perhaps it is truthful because the energy comparison is phrased as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas AND 147 gallons of oil AND more than 1000 kilograms of coal. The card I have with a smaller standard pellet lists those same comparisons with the word OR as the conjunction.
atomicrod59 1 year ago
@atomicrod59 ... and dimensions aside, nothing you'd want in your shirt pocket!
The one intelligent thing the Nuke guy said was about reducing our energy consumption -- here, here, he hit it right on the head! That, more than any other thing, is the key to our future.
PM3520 1 year ago
Coal power plants emit much more radio active waste than nuclear power plants, in addition coal power plants emitted 150x as much radiation the year that 3 mile Island happened. Honestly, I don't like nuclear, but for now, it's the only realistic option. until we can build enough infrastructure for our exponentially growing population.
imanerd36 1 year ago
Hi from Brazil! Great Vid.
FREDSTS 1 year ago
Great job you guys .....was surprised about seeing someone I know submitting to the same contest im in the process of editing a vid for !
DownToFilm05 2 years ago
Great Video!
On behalf of Facebook user "Chandra Bourget Krueger"
LucidHelix 2 years ago
Ironically burning coal puts out a lot of radioactive isotopes. :c
ie, we need moar sodium cooled reactors.
SeverEnergia 2 years ago
Yes...totally AWESOME! good job!
heavym3tal 2 years ago
wats up with the eye patch
Jackpotxx 2 years ago 2
treasure hunting
Tazman91291 2 years ago
Maybe to show that the "fossial fuel" guy don't see other options any good...
guos89 2 years ago
they should try not to echo. other than that, it's good
musicmosaic7 2 years ago
loved it.
Chadhamre 3 years ago
Good job, lads! Very creative take on an extremely controversial topic!
Doopsette 3 years ago
Both actors are classically trained. I believe that they were going for the uncomfortably awkward feel at points. I am pretty sure that both actors were off script at the point of shooting, and were looking at the screen to accurately imitate the original Mac vs. PC commercials put out by Apple.
DAH265 3 years ago
Eh, the actors were kinda awkward... some of the pauses were uncomfortably long, and they were a little too obvious about repeatedly looking at the screen.
Other than that, s'good.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Think about what it takes to mine coal, about the kinds of wast products you would expect from coal.
now think about what it takes to mine uranium, about what kind of wast products you would expect.
Is nuclear really the way to go?
dillj34555 3 years ago
there is very little waste if you transmute the U-238 to Pu-239, since Pu-239 will fission in nuclear reactors...and you can transmute most of the bad fission product waste from nuclear plants in fast reactors
heavym3tal 2 years ago
Very informative boys! Keep up the great work!
mnr612 3 years ago 2
Awesome video guys this is the best one I've seen!! Very creative and well done, great acting and great spoof idea of a commercial everyone knows!! Very awesome job guys!!
specialk00002 3 years ago 3
I'm proud of you boys.
bgh416 3 years ago
Good work guys.
gphyland 3 years ago
great job... perhaps it could be shorter
lecavalier32 3 years ago 2
Good job guys!
TheJCCafe 3 years ago 5
Awesome job!
60782772 3 years ago 5
Great job :)
jlhequalsoreofreak 3 years ago 6
haha great job
avsrule1921 3 years ago 5
I love it!!!
davedaman33 3 years ago 6
haha awesome vid!
perkyboy08 3 years ago 3
Creative!!! Why I am not surprised?
cdngewels 3 years ago 7
Nice one Rob. Really liked it.
zim581 3 years ago 6
nice work!! good info, well made. this is awesome!!
bevveness 3 years ago 7
thats was cute! you guys are awesome!
shannags 3 years ago 7
Meh
FrozenMadinina 3 years ago
great job!!
amaloney235w35 3 years ago 8
Great job!!!!-Amanda M
amaloney235w35 3 years ago 6
I laughed, I cried.
nice work
doctorwalters 3 years ago 10
Fantastic! I LOVE the Spoof! Great idea! Good luck guys!
LTM315 3 years ago 6
haha well done
linettethedean 3 years ago 7
When will you know the results of the contest? Good luck guys!
kiwilauren 3 years ago 3
haha nicely done Derek
robd130 3 years ago 3
I love it!
davedaman33 3 years ago 7
Good work guys!
kiwilauren 3 years ago 3
Great job boys! I really enjoyed this video, it was very entertaining yet very informative about the difference between the two energy types! I hope you win!
adeux85 3 years ago 2
I love this video, you guys did a great job to make it entertaining yet very informative about the difference between using fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Great job!!
adeux85 3 years ago
Great Video! Good work!
oceanwaves122 3 years ago 4
nice
mynock2 3 years ago
Very Awesome. Now I feel like a glass of milk...
Thadeus1221 3 years ago 4
Good luck, guys. Nice work.
WNWSProductions 3 years ago 3
Great work guys! I love it!
shetree10 3 years ago 3
very nice work guys!
KrystleBorsa 3 years ago 3
Great job, guys! Rob, you're looking handsome as ever in your suit. Great message, and great acting... GOODLUCK!
JReim2 3 years ago 4
very well done video...This should definitely win the contest!
grahamw2222 3 years ago 3
Love it boys! Good luck with the contest.
christinekopperud 3 years ago 3
nice work guys. Good luck with the contest.
mwellert 3 years ago 2
Great video!
charingt 3 years ago
haha that is sweet and intresting
Lando101010 3 years ago
This Video should win!!! <3
Nicole123Paige 3 years ago
Best Video !!!
Nicole123Paige 3 years ago 2
That is some good knowledge.
15thSpartan 3 years ago 3
Awsome, me and Josh never ended up making ours for this, so you got my vote
Apevia21 3 years ago 4
Watched it, loved it! nice to see you guys on the net!
AndrewKesler 3 years ago 4
Best one by far!
tates6 3 years ago 7
Best one yet. Loved it.
z3r0ko0L 3 years ago 6
Great video. Loved it!
DHETProductions 3 years ago 6
Best video in this competition. Good work guys.
RooseLooseNoose 3 years ago 7
Really well done. I'm still smiling. Congrats. 5 stars
tishthedishpage 3 years ago 7