in theory all forms of our current power is nuclear or coming from nuclear power the sun is nuclear power. coal and oil came from different life forms such as plants and animals. the wind comes from the sun warming up air. and hydro power is partially from water evapourating and condensing to make rain which fills lakes and rivers to run the hydro plants and then the sun affects the tides ever so slightly tho the sun has a lot less pull than the moon.
wow the people aren't completely incompetent. A lot of the time veratasium does a very good job of making people look stupid. I thought that every would be against it or something even the pros outweigh the cons.
I support nuclear power, but even more I support the colonization of space and the production of mass solar generating abilities in space as outlined by G. K. O'neill in _The High Frontier_ I honestly believe that space is the only long term solution to our energy and land problems.
why don't we just harness solar power? use the ozone hole to our advantage by trapping some of that excess uv light as energy. i mean, we had a drought a few years ago, so there is plenty of sun. i honestly don't understand why it isn't our main source of power yet.
@imamadmad1 The question is HOW do we capture the energy from the sunlight? You have to build some sort of device capable of capturing that energy and converting it into electricity. It's a very difficult problem, and a lot of really smart people are working really hard at it, but their best efforts so far just can't compete with the low cost and high energy output of coal.
Let's be honest, a few people are going to die no matter what source of power we choose. However Nuclear has by far the least death rate. The BP oil spill is miles worse than the Fukushima incident, and Nuclear has by far the best track record of any power source.
Radioactive plutonium has a half life of around 25,000 years and is a waste product of nuclear power. It remains dangerously radioactive for 10 half lives before it is close to background levels.
Is it really OK to create a leathal waste product that linger for a QUARTER OF A MILLION YEARS just so we can get cheap power and spend the rest of our lives on our asses watching TV?
A teaspoon of the stuff will render a city water supply unusable. If we go nuclear.. the terrorists win.
@cheapcutsofmeat if you get rid of it safely, its no problem. i think eventually the world should send an unmanned rocket full of the waste headed towards the sun. but if its isolated and far away in a radioactive protected box, its not too big a deal. and nuclear power is very different from nuclear weaponry.
Rocket to the sun? For safety? Really? I dont think strapping a thousand tonnes of highly explosive rocket fuel to a payload of radioactive waste is safe.
Agreed that nuclear fuel is different to nuclear weaponary. Doesn't stop a ground up teaspoon of non weapons grade plutonium from taking out a water supply for thousands of years. Just because it wont go bang doesnt mean it's not a weapon.
If you store it on land, some sicko will eventually try to get to it and use it for terrorisim.
@cheapcutsofmeat thats why i stick by my original idea of a rocket to the sun. just package it very carefully so that if something went catastrophic on the rocket, it wouldnt affect the material. no offense, but what would be your idea for handling it? theres no way to get around the fact that it is a HUGE source of energy. best bang for your buck, and if you dispose of the material correctly, it is almost as clean as windpower.
@bonalicious69 Not best bang for your buck according to wikipedia "Economics of new nuclear power plants" article.
Goes on to say that many studies that show nuclear as cheaper were generally funded by pro nuclear organisations.
Also suggest you check out Arnie Gundersons website - google "fairewinds" . ex nuclear specialist in the states has some interesting views on nuclear power. Many of his vids are directed towards what happened as a result of the Japan earthquake.
Thermal power is very damaging to the environment, as opposed to nuclear power. If you want cleaner air but amazing amounts of power, nuclear is the way to go. Like that guy said, the reason people are afraid of nuclear meltdowns is because they typically happen with really old reactors.
Isn't Australia the world's biggest uranium exporter? It's very ironic that they don't use any of it themselves: the pollution from mine tailings is far worse than a power plant! In fact, even burning coal releases more radioactivity up the chimney than a nuclear reactor. People need to get over the fear of nuclear energy and allow more modern, safer reactors: this is the only way to decommission the old less safe ones like Fukushima.
@RKD919 Nuclear wasn't at fault. What was at fault was the lack of more protection against the tsunami. The tsunami was one of the most damaging in Japan's history, and it's waves went over the wall built for the power plant to stop potential tsunami's. The waves of the tsunami went over the protective wall because of its size, and then fucked everything up from the inside. <_<
Read up on the new generation of Thorium nuclear power plants. They require only a small amount of Uranium to kick start chain reactions in the core and use salt to keep cool, not water. :)
I think we should have nuclear energy, There are plenty of uninhabited locations in Australia which could house such a facility without a risk to people. But we would also have to increase the safety protocols etc to prevent anything from going wrong. A lot of people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy. Australia also has quite a large percentage of the worlds Uranium.
Solar, wind, and other renewables is the only way to go. Check out the big solar-plant(s) in north-west of africa. Those, some more, in the desert of north africa could be enough to power europe. So, as you do have deserts as well, why not use sth like that? No nuclear waste, no big risk and no risk of big and centuries-long damages.
Thinking that just putting it in the desert is a good idea is bullshit. Then its less important to keep save, and wind, ground-water, etc. You can't predict what will happen, and what it will influence. Nuclear power requires a zero-risk policy. I only know that sweden had such a thing, but they dropped it as well. It can only get worse. And how do you think australia could turn off old power plants when the other countries won't? Again, influence on politics, even against the citizens.
Do not think nuclear power is a good thing. Don’t think “we’ll figure something out with the waste” – we have dunno how many countries with 400-whatnot (?) powerplans, and nobody figured anything out, other than putting it underground. Nuclear power monepolizes the market, and the energy companies with their great will influence the politics a great bit, like they do everywhere.
in theory all forms of our current power is nuclear or coming from nuclear power the sun is nuclear power. coal and oil came from different life forms such as plants and animals. the wind comes from the sun warming up air. and hydro power is partially from water evapourating and condensing to make rain which fills lakes and rivers to run the hydro plants and then the sun affects the tides ever so slightly tho the sun has a lot less pull than the moon.
islagkage15963 4 days ago
wow the people aren't completely incompetent. A lot of the time veratasium does a very good job of making people look stupid. I thought that every would be against it or something even the pros outweigh the cons.
kindpotato 1 week ago
@1:55 and @2:11 at last, the voice of reason.
Nathanchooper 1 week ago 2
I support nuclear power, but even more I support the colonization of space and the production of mass solar generating abilities in space as outlined by G. K. O'neill in _The High Frontier_ I honestly believe that space is the only long term solution to our energy and land problems.
thutama 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
why don't we just harness solar power? use the ozone hole to our advantage by trapping some of that excess uv light as energy. i mean, we had a drought a few years ago, so there is plenty of sun. i honestly don't understand why it isn't our main source of power yet.
imamadmad1 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@imamadmad1 The question is HOW do we capture the energy from the sunlight? You have to build some sort of device capable of capturing that energy and converting it into electricity. It's a very difficult problem, and a lot of really smart people are working really hard at it, but their best efforts so far just can't compete with the low cost and high energy output of coal.
pdieraue 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
its clean, apart from the waste
diahorror 1 month ago 2
@diahorror i was about to comment that...
ThatDudeWithTheCube 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
It's actually kangaroos on giant wheels
Buzz3023 1 month ago in playlist Altri video di 1veritasium
why didn't you respond to your last question?
cooROPyoBODY 2 months ago
Fossil fuels vs Nuclear power: Charybdis and Scylla. That's all I'm going to say.
MKirro 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@MKirro Mmm because everybody's read The Odyssey.
Let's be honest, a few people are going to die no matter what source of power we choose. However Nuclear has by far the least death rate. The BP oil spill is miles worse than the Fukushima incident, and Nuclear has by far the best track record of any power source.
nhmllr725 1 month ago in playlist More videos from 1veritasium 2
@nhmllr725 Much agreed. Figured a few people would get the Odyssey reference and the rest would ignore it or go to Wikipedia.
MKirro 1 month ago
You ask a alot of questions, but what the answer
stuch11 4 months ago
Solar Thermal?
schr4nz 4 months ago
Radioactive plutonium has a half life of around 25,000 years and is a waste product of nuclear power. It remains dangerously radioactive for 10 half lives before it is close to background levels.
Is it really OK to create a leathal waste product that linger for a QUARTER OF A MILLION YEARS just so we can get cheap power and spend the rest of our lives on our asses watching TV?
A teaspoon of the stuff will render a city water supply unusable. If we go nuclear.. the terrorists win.
cheapcutsofmeat 5 months ago
@cheapcutsofmeat if you get rid of it safely, its no problem. i think eventually the world should send an unmanned rocket full of the waste headed towards the sun. but if its isolated and far away in a radioactive protected box, its not too big a deal. and nuclear power is very different from nuclear weaponry.
bonalicious69 3 months ago
Comment removed
cheapcutsofmeat 3 months ago
Rocket to the sun? For safety? Really? I dont think strapping a thousand tonnes of highly explosive rocket fuel to a payload of radioactive waste is safe.
Agreed that nuclear fuel is different to nuclear weaponary. Doesn't stop a ground up teaspoon of non weapons grade plutonium from taking out a water supply for thousands of years. Just because it wont go bang doesnt mean it's not a weapon.
If you store it on land, some sicko will eventually try to get to it and use it for terrorisim.
cheapcutsofmeat 3 months ago
@cheapcutsofmeat thats why i stick by my original idea of a rocket to the sun. just package it very carefully so that if something went catastrophic on the rocket, it wouldnt affect the material. no offense, but what would be your idea for handling it? theres no way to get around the fact that it is a HUGE source of energy. best bang for your buck, and if you dispose of the material correctly, it is almost as clean as windpower.
bonalicious69 2 months ago
@bonalicious69 Not best bang for your buck according to wikipedia "Economics of new nuclear power plants" article.
Goes on to say that many studies that show nuclear as cheaper were generally funded by pro nuclear organisations.
Also suggest you check out Arnie Gundersons website - google "fairewinds" . ex nuclear specialist in the states has some interesting views on nuclear power. Many of his vids are directed towards what happened as a result of the Japan earthquake.
cheapcutsofmeat 2 months ago
Thermal power is very damaging to the environment, as opposed to nuclear power. If you want cleaner air but amazing amounts of power, nuclear is the way to go. Like that guy said, the reason people are afraid of nuclear meltdowns is because they typically happen with really old reactors.
I did a project on Chernobyl in high school :P
H057IL3 8 months ago
Isn't Australia the world's biggest uranium exporter? It's very ironic that they don't use any of it themselves: the pollution from mine tailings is far worse than a power plant! In fact, even burning coal releases more radioactivity up the chimney than a nuclear reactor. People need to get over the fear of nuclear energy and allow more modern, safer reactors: this is the only way to decommission the old less safe ones like Fukushima.
werdnativ 9 months ago
Nuclear power's wonderful, but dangerous and toxic.
saints360row 10 months ago
Nuclear rocks! Its clean, and wind and solar energy is costly and can power only about 0.015 of the world.
sovietbeatle8 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nuclear sucks
japan bro
too much risk
RKD919 10 months ago
nuclear sucks
japan bro
RKD919 10 months ago
@RKD919 Nuclear wasn't at fault. What was at fault was the lack of more protection against the tsunami. The tsunami was one of the most damaging in Japan's history, and it's waves went over the wall built for the power plant to stop potential tsunami's. The waves of the tsunami went over the protective wall because of its size, and then fucked everything up from the inside. <_<
NicoleNa666 5 months ago
nuclear sucks
RKD919 10 months ago
@RKD919 yeah, looks like someone needs to get a bit more informed...
xSleepyKylex 9 months ago
japan wasn't a fluke accident, they had previous data on earthquakes and tsunamis hitting that area from the past. 2:23
Kokoda144 10 months ago
Kangaroos lmao.
halo69091 10 months ago
@halo69091 Lol- there's no kangaroos in our major cities buddy.
AntonioAzz 7 months ago
Read up on the new generation of Thorium nuclear power plants. They require only a small amount of Uranium to kick start chain reactions in the core and use salt to keep cool, not water. :)
devilishpersian 10 months ago
I think we should have nuclear energy, There are plenty of uninhabited locations in Australia which could house such a facility without a risk to people. But we would also have to increase the safety protocols etc to prevent anything from going wrong. A lot of people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy. Australia also has quite a large percentage of the worlds Uranium.
erkziltonz 11 months ago
Solar, wind, and other renewables is the only way to go. Check out the big solar-plant(s) in north-west of africa. Those, some more, in the desert of north africa could be enough to power europe. So, as you do have deserts as well, why not use sth like that? No nuclear waste, no big risk and no risk of big and centuries-long damages.
Kissaki0 11 months ago
Thinking that just putting it in the desert is a good idea is bullshit. Then its less important to keep save, and wind, ground-water, etc. You can't predict what will happen, and what it will influence. Nuclear power requires a zero-risk policy. I only know that sweden had such a thing, but they dropped it as well. It can only get worse. And how do you think australia could turn off old power plants when the other countries won't? Again, influence on politics, even against the citizens.
Kissaki0 11 months ago
Do not think nuclear power is a good thing. Don’t think “we’ll figure something out with the waste” – we have dunno how many countries with 400-whatnot (?) powerplans, and nobody figured anything out, other than putting it underground. Nuclear power monepolizes the market, and the energy companies with their great will influence the politics a great bit, like they do everywhere.
Kissaki0 11 months ago
I was waiting for someone to say, "An electrical outlet in the wall." (=
ghrpdx 11 months ago
and from like 2:30 - 2:50 did you chime inbetween 2 people sitting together on a bench?
wombatrage 11 months ago
yea frist comment....nice video derek.
wombatrage 11 months ago