NEW VIDEO: Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
Added 2021-04-13 14:05:59 +0000 UTCDo we need nuclear energy to stop climate change? More and more voices from science, environmental activists and the press have been saying so in recent years – but this comes as a shock to those who are fighting against nuclear energy and the problems that come with it. So who is right? Well - it is complicated.
Comments
oooooooo this is my fav video!
Kity Bird
2021-11-06 16:55:36 +0000 UTCThis video turned me to be pro nuclear power
Torben Rudgaard
2021-05-25 18:37:46 +0000 UTCHeyo :) This might not be related directly - but I had the thought that it could be so cool to have a video on the Tzar Bomba, I think it's super interesting and would be very cool to learn about with Kurzgesagt's animated visuals to go with it.
wozardy
2021-05-15 21:45:24 +0000 UTCRemember Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerer's Apprentice? This video is well made, but I'm concerned that the producers rely too heavily on technology itself as the only solution. I grew up with TMI and the gas crunch in the 1970's, so my perspective on the nuclear and fossil fuel industries is pretty severe. We keep allowing large corporate and government bureaucracies to spring up between ourselves and our means of existence. And their nature makes them prone to corruption. Both privatize profit, and make the public pay the debts. While we don't have to go back to living in caves, we have to take a hard look at corporate accountability, energy efficiency, advertising, over-consumption and population control. Nuclear power is here to stay, I get that. But while fossil fuel pollution will last for eons, nuclear pollution will poison all life on earth, long after we're gone. I don't believe we can keep going with our current big grid and big city concepts. Just look at Texas. As "hippyish" as it sounds, the Earth itself deserves some respect. It's not just a tool we can turn on and off. Or a dump where we can keep hiding our garbage. I have my list of issues that puts atomic power in a bad light, but that's a fight for another day. I know it's pretty broad topic, but I hope you can make a video that addresses the historic and political origins of our environmental situation.
Ken Roskos
2021-04-17 16:59:47 +0000 UTCNuclear energy... fossil fuel. I think they r both risky... however our tech has really controlled that
Danny Tsai
2021-04-15 12:37:09 +0000 UTCIs there a reason that releasing that water is bad? The ocean is very big. Yes, that doesn't mean we can just pollute it to an infinite amount. But it does mean that a relatively tiny amount of radiation is going to be diluted to the point where it will be nigh-undetectable.
Shadmere
2021-04-14 09:41:40 +0000 UTCWas I the only one who noticed the lack of intro video? I missed it greatly, as I’ve come to associate that jingle with a rare spark of brilliance in this world.
Your Architect Overlord
2021-04-14 09:17:33 +0000 UTCI think the risks of nuclear energy need to be further thought through. Yes deaths are low from nuclear accidents but the land mass that is ruined and uninhabitable for a large number of years doesn't appear to be considered. There is also the risk of "nuclear power plants" being converted to an underground nuclear program which could increase the risk of nuclear war which will likely cause even more devastation to the environment and humans than climate change. Japan is considering releasing their reactive water in the ocean because apparently they do not have an alternative. I am not against nuclear power - still probably think it is necessary to provide enough energy while reducing fossil fuel consumption - but I would like the videos to be a bit more balanced. I thought the older videos on this subject were better and I would recommend checking them out.
Astrid
2021-04-14 04:16:41 +0000 UTCIt's not like reactor tech has totally stagnated in the US...what do you think is powering our subs and aircraft carriers? Each carrier has enough juice for a population of about 6,000 crew and pilots AND to run an electric catapult in the new Ford class. The Ford actually has two reactors on board. It seems to me if you want a fast small-plant demo, then you plunk a tried-and-true aircraft carrier style reactor on land somewhere and fire it up. Lots of ex-Navy and DOD civilian techs around to run them, that's for sure. Heck, put it on a ship a few miles offshore and lay a power cable if that makes everyone feel safer. Once proven, maybe size it up a bit or just cluster more in one spot (or in one ship). And then keep cranking out the same design over and over, one area at a time.
IndigoSea
2021-04-14 02:55:28 +0000 UTCAgree on more in-depth information about the safer tech, about which I've heard some but would appreciate the Kurzgesagt approach. I know there are technologies, such as encasing fissile pellets in ceramic coatings, that literally can't melt down no matter how hot they get.
IndigoSea
2021-04-14 02:48:54 +0000 UTCSee their video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM - it reinforces the "opinion" part of this one. Birdies don't have chicken brains.
Dragi Raos
2021-04-13 19:39:26 +0000 UTC"But when a rare accident at a nuclear plant happens, the media blows it up" - exactly, although there were only *once* actual casualties, in Chernobyl, in ancient reactor built for easy extraction of material for weapons.
Dragi Raos
2021-04-13 19:35:51 +0000 UTCSunny. Fukushima Daiichi was an epitome of things *not* done right. And yet once in a millennium tsunami triggered disaster killed *nobody* (panicked evacuation did kill some elderly and critically ill.) There is *no* safer power source than nuclear, not even residential solar (apparently, climbing roofs is dangerous). And nuclear "waste" problem is invented as a scarecrow. It served Koch brothers and their ilk very well.
Dragi Raos
2021-04-13 19:32:11 +0000 UTCThankfully, research did go one elsewhere. Otherwise, we would in twenty or thirty years be in panic mode building nuclear power plants from outdated designs left and right with next to no concern for safety.
Dragi Raos
2021-04-13 19:29:25 +0000 UTCNuclear is *the* safest energy source, just not the cheapest, even when artificial obstacles erected by fossil fuel lobby are removed.
Dragi Raos
2021-04-13 19:26:06 +0000 UTCI have to agree with Trieste; you've portray this discussion as having two sides of the debate, with experts coming down equally in both camps. That smacks of the Climate Change deniers who say there's "proponents of both sides". There's pretty much experts and people who don't know what they're talking about, representing "both sides" as equals isn't helping this discussion. Nuclear has a sorted past, but so does air travel. The limitations we have slapped on nuclear energy is akin to giving up on fireproofing because asbestos was bad.
Chris Stone
2021-04-13 19:06:40 +0000 UTCIs there a way for us to invest in nuclear energy in the USA or other countries?
Jeremy Clark
2021-04-13 18:43:36 +0000 UTCI think this was a really fantastic video. Peak Kurzgesagt. Well done.
Cavan Griffin
2021-04-13 18:15:53 +0000 UTCVery small visual error: the bucket of the bucket wheel excavator at 3:59 is spinning in the wrong direction. See https://youtu.be/DDgvtrQyuPY
Elliot Marshall
2021-04-13 16:41:09 +0000 UTCNo question about that. My only concern is that IF something happens, even if it happens very rarely, the radioactivity is gonna be a problem that will stick around. Just thinking about the Fukushima event, where they wanna start dumping the collected cooling water into the ocean next year. You cant filter out Tritium. And nobody knows how bad the consequences of this will be. Simply put. Do we have new solutions for these old known problems or are those risks we just need to get the public onboard with?
Sunny Bär
2021-04-13 16:19:13 +0000 UTC:(
Ken Roskos
2021-04-13 16:16:35 +0000 UTCAirplane travel is the safest way to travel. People are afraid of airplanes because they see that when something goes wrong then it's sometimes pretty catastrophic and gets blown up in the media as well (no pun intended!). Nuclear energy is the exact same. Millions and millions of people have died over the past 150 years from fossil fuels: air pollution kills many people every year, climate change (think more and stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, flooding, drought, etc.), industrial accidents such a coal mine cave ins, etc. etc. But when a rare accident at a nuclear plant happens, the media blows it up. Nuclear energy has by far the best safety record, in the same way that airline travel does.
RoseAnne
2021-04-13 16:01:35 +0000 UTCMy emotional part is still screaming hell no. My logical part is agreeing more and more with the „it’s not black and white“ approach. But Nuclear power is only save if used right and The pst has shown that’s not always the case. Also nobody wants a possible nuclear fallout zone or end storage near them. What are the radical new approaches there? Do we actually have ideas that go further than „let’s bury it in our backyard and hope future generations will not dig it up“. Again I understand that time is the most crucial part in the climate crisis and without nuclear we won’t nearly have enough but I don’t like how people start jumping on the new cool nuclear train without hesitation because I haven’t heard anything that will help with these questions like endstorage and(to a lesser degree) failsaves. Hopefully someone here knows more. :)
Sunny Bär
2021-04-13 15:30:38 +0000 UTCHonestly, the fear of nuclear power is overplayed. Diversifying our power sources should be the main priority, so that we are able to remove and replace individual components without affecting the whole system too drastically. Nuclear would be a relatively safe and abundant energy source to tide us over while we figure out how to increase the efficiency levels of our renewable sources and the storage systems we would need to make renewables our primary sources of energy. Nuclear would also buy us valuable time in delaying climate change while we figure THAT problem out as well.
Trieste08
2021-04-13 14:37:12 +0000 UTCSweden's reactors are now very old and are also being shut down on vague political grounds using outdated environmental arguments. Since a sunset on nuclear power was decided upon in the 70:s, research in nuclear power was forbidden for decades ("the thought ban"). So on the horizon is less nuclear power and no new modern reactors.
Forodriac Origamius
2021-04-13 14:23:51 +0000 UTC
