Your Money

[xcd48gtf3]

Wind and solar are not as affordable as nuclear due to their intermittent operation and low power density.

It would take over $140 billion in solar to equal one $10 billion two reactor nuclear power station over its 60 year lifespan. Wind and solar receive multiple times more subsidies than nuclear and if it weren't for ignorant anti-nuclear opposition lawsuits, the cost of nuclear would be even lower.

This anti-nuclear campaign goes against sound logic and will expand the use of coal.

[hmodywakid]

Bullshit u dont know anything about science u ignorant people nuclear energy is very save today and doesnt cosat monet later and doesnt pollute the air so fuck every 1 who is against u know nothing of physics

[Artivistmb]

Nuclear power relies on fossil fuels. It is at the top of the industrial food chain and gets a gold star for nasty waste products. Cleverly some of these 'products' are 'recycled' back into the market such radioactive scrap metal - the nuclear industry also produces fluoride which is forced down peoples throats in Cumbria. At Sellafield there is a dedicated fossil fuel plant to back up the nuclear plant in an emergency.

[mynameisdarthtater]

do you know what fluoride is? it hardens your teeth. its in your drinking water if you live in the US, and adding it is considered one of the top 5 public health advances in the last century.

[butdiene]

nonsense, misleading ads

because solar/wind couldn't be the base load, which is 24/7 and adjustable for demand

hydro/geothermal/coal/nuclear, if we don't do nuclear, we burn more coal, that's the reality.

coal plants release more radiation and also other forms of pollutants

[andresfusion]

BULL..Nuclear is the safest and cleanest way to harness huge amounts of baseload power without emitting any CO2. This add is just fear mongering( what is with the creepy music). The default rate is just a complete lie, and they forget that the loan guarantee is for all technologies that dont emit green house gases, nuclear just happens to QUAliFY.Why dont we follow the lead of countries that have already reduce their emissions like France or Finland which BTW get most of the power from Nuclear

[NickDanger1980]

What evidence to you have to support these "facts" Andres? The default rate isn't a lie, it's an official government estimate. Also, nuclear is getting more expensive, but wind is more affordable. And efficiency is the most affordable of all. And whoever told you nuclear is safe sold you a bill of goods. Remember Chernobyl? Do you think the 100,000 radioactive waste trains that will have to travel through the U.S. to get the waste to a storage site will be safe? Puh-lease.

[andresfusion]

Nuclear is not getting more expensive, but it is expensive to build however the operational cost are extremely low. Wind is intermittent and no good for big parts of our country ( south-east) Wind takes too much land and spoils landscapes.Nuclear is SAFE look at the numbers NO deaths or seriously injured in any western country. Chernobyl reactor was seriously flawed it didnt even have a containment field. Today reactors are far more efficient and safe.

[andresfusion]

Waste should be recycle like every other develop country does. I fell fine about waste travailing through the US, there is no danger and besides they incase the waste in concrete blocks able to withstand any kind of accident imaginable. The default rate is base on outdated report from the "congress budget office" I'm betting they could not find anything recent since is not true, otherwise no company would want to build nuclear reactors.

[popworld7]

Even if everything you said was true, you still have the same problem. The waste. Plutonium is highly poisonous for 250,000 years. There is nowhere to store it and there is no safe way to store it either.

[andresfusion]

But there is, it has been done by many countries for a few years now. First they recycle the waste which reduces the amount. (cup of coffee would be equivalent to the waste for a family of 4 through their lifetime). When recycle the waste takes 200-300 years to decay instead of thousands. Then using vitrification they store it safely underground. However, the thing that gets me mad is why the pin point nuclear when Coal or Oil get unbelievable subsidies with no questions ask.

[Artivistmb]

In Cumbria home of Sellafield the nuclear industry knows money talks in the game of public relations. The nuclear industry has 'given' £18 million to hospitals, £79,000 to Citizens Advice Bureau - has paid for staff members of Copeland Borough Council and Made in Cumbria - the list goes on and on. All of these should be properly funded by central government instead painting a sugary veneer on the nuclear industry. Who are they trying to kid and coerce with this Shussh Fund? All of us!

[GoingGreenIsGood]

This is crap pure and simple. Wind, solar and geothermal absolutely depend on government subsidies. (Why are we bailing them out?) The loan gauarantees for nuclear won't cost taxpayers one penny because the companies stand to lose everything should they default. In fact, the government will make money because of the fees the companies must pay. This nation needs to encourage more carbon-free and pollution-free energy. Friends of the Earth don't know what they're talking about.

[NickDanger1980]

Are you nuts?

[aaronmcgee]

Good video; but it only mentions how nuclear is financially risky. Many people don't know or have forgotten how truly dangerous nuclear is. The video should remind us of radioactive waste (which we still have no idea how to get rid of safely) and of nuclear meltdowns, not to mention the greater risk involved from terrorists attacking nuclear plants.

[Cr8Joi]

Those addicted to wealth will do whatever it takes to make more money. Even build toxic disasters at tax payer expense. Stop them with democracy and people power.