Nuclear Power Explained : Climate of Hope : Part 3

This animated documentary takes viewers on a tour through the science of climate change, the nuclear fuel chain, and the remarkable energy revolution that is under way.

Produced in 2007 by Scott Ludlam and Jose Garcia for the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia.

http://www.anawa.org.au

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• limate
• change
• doc
• doco
• documentary
• nuclear
• energy
• low
• carbon

[ed1phant]

According to the Lenzen report on electricity generation the life cycle emissions (which accounts for operation, development and supply) of nuclear power is around 65 grams per kilowatt compared to coal at 900, hydro @ 45, solar @ ~100 and geothermal @ ~100.

Chernobyl was one-off because the meltdown was associated with a poorly designed plant with no containment building, which all modern reactors use. If a containment building was present there would have been no release of radioactive gasses.

[TheCaptainLulz]

nuclear is still FAR safer than coal. the casualty toll for nuclear is at or around 5 million, as you state, but more people than that die in china alone from diseases caused by breathing coal waste products.

[BynoKawai]

Those emissions targets are really hopeful. Unfortunately I don't have faith that all countries will stick to them. Also, this video's a little out of date.

[BynoKawai]

"It is argued that this [nuclear waste] is the price we must pay to maintain our current levels of energy demand in an age of climate change."

I agree. I believe that nuclear power is not a permanent solution, but the possibility of minor to moderate destruction of our planet is a considerable alternative to the deathly amounts of CO2 produced by coal.

[papcio]

This vid isn't very informative at all. It's full of lies and almost lies. I know it's sooo shiny and simple that every idiot will understand it. Unlike all those borring documents, but if you want to know the truth than you have to spend many hours on reaserching on your own.

[142stanfordbinet]

Chess, did you watch the video? If so, please watch it again. The point is that with nukes you get radiation, mutation, cancer and birth defects for thousands of years and you don't even solve the CO2 problem.

Wind, solar and geothermal can provide all our power needs without the pollution. Why should we keep making those awful nuke plants? I don't think that having electricity to run my game console is so important that it's worth poisoning my descendants for the nest 20,000 years.

[jeeremie]

"dump the waste in space" -> That's not that easy. Do you know how much it costs to send our rubbish to space? Billions!! Besides, we will need to send it far enough so it doesn't pollute our solar system.

[chess202]

good video

i say make nuclear plants

dump the waste in space

instead of countries making space weapons try and make technology to dump radiation waste to space i win u lose stfu documentary beliefs is wrong

uhm wind energy lol good luck pulling through the balloon , itll eventually burst hahaah

[04087550]

Good Vid. Very informative

[eniac2000]

Obama is all about hope! Do they make it in 91 octane? My BMW says 91 minimum octane rating...