Nuclear vs. Fossil Fuels (Mac vs. PC Spoof)

A short film to show why nuclear energy is cool and coal is not. A spoof on the MAC vs. PC commercials.

Save The Planet Contest Video Entry
Submitted by Derek from Saskatoon, SK.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• AREVA
• Resources
• Canada
• Save
• Contest
• Planet
• Nuclear
• Video
• Uranium
• Environment
• Greenhouse
• Gases
• Energy
• Oil
• Gas
• Solar
• Wind
• Biomass
• alternative

[AtheistKiwi]

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.

[arevaresources]

@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.

[frbe0101]

@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.

[arevaresources]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[arevaresources]

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

[whatupgreentea]

@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.

[arevaresources]

@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.

[PM3520]

@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]

@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....