Added: 3 years ago
From: arevaresources
Views: 11,572
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (82)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • 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 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.

  • @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.

  • 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....

  • @PM3520 The well established procedures are well summarized in this video by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization: nwmo(.)ca/videos/video:7

  • @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.

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • Hi from Brazil! Great Vid.

  • 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 !

  • Great Video!

    On behalf of Facebook user "Chandra Bourget Krueger"

  • Ironically burning coal puts out a lot of radioactive isotopes. :c

    ie, we need moar sodium cooled reactors.

  • Yes...totally AWESOME! good job!

  • wats up with the eye patch

  • treasure hunting

  • Maybe to show that the "fossial fuel" guy don't see other options any good...

  • they should try not to echo. other than that, it's good

  • loved it.

  • Good job, lads! Very creative take on an extremely controversial topic!

  • 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.

    Other than that, s'good.

  • 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?

  • 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

  • Very informative boys! Keep up the great work!

  • 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!!

  • I'm proud of you boys.

  • Good work guys.

  • great job... perhaps it could be shorter

  • Good job guys!

  • Awesome job!

  • Great job :)

  • haha great job

  • I love it!!!

  • haha awesome vid!

  • Creative!!! Why I am not surprised?

  • Nice one Rob. Really liked it.

  • nice work!! good info, well made. this is awesome!!

  • thats was cute! you guys are awesome!

  • Meh

  • great job!!

  • Great job!!!!-Amanda M

  • I laughed, I cried.

    nice work

  • Fantastic! I LOVE the Spoof! Great idea! Good luck guys!

  • haha well done

  • When will you know the results of the contest? Good luck guys!

  • haha nicely done Derek

  • I love it!

  • Good work 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!!

  • Great Video! Good work!

  • nice

  • Very Awesome. Now I feel like a glass of milk...

  • Good luck, guys. Nice work.

  • Great work guys! I love it!

  • very nice work guys!

  • Great job, guys! Rob, you're looking handsome as ever in your suit. Great message, and great acting... GOODLUCK!

  • very well done video...This should definitely win the contest!

  • Love it boys! Good luck with the contest.

  • nice work guys.  Good luck with the contest.

  • Great video!

  • haha that is sweet and intresting

  • This Video should win!!! <3

  • Best Video !!!

  • That is some good knowledge.

  • Awsome, me and Josh never ended up making ours for this, so you got my vote

  • Watched it, loved it! nice to see you guys on the net!

  • Best one by far!

  • Best one yet. Loved it.

  • Great video. Loved it!

  • Best video in this competition. Good work guys.

  • Really well done. I'm still smiling. Congrats. 5 stars

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more