Personally, I don't think nuclear power is the final solution. But I do see it as the perfect solution to reduce carbon output, while we figure a way to make solar, wind and water power plants affordable, without it highly affecting countries budgets.
Personally I think it is but not at its current form, we should figure a way to make nuclear power safer and affordable, without it highly affecting countries budgets.
@@bruhemoth5599 nuclear is already safe and affordable, a lot more affordable than solar and wind, 100 acres of nuclear is 20 times better than 100 acres of wind and solar, and also stops us cutting down forests and using space we can use
I don't get the impression that he thinks he's a genius. I get the impression that he knows he's just a regular guy and he's just speaking his mind. I see nothing wrong with that.
"Proper lightbulb" are you talking about the firemen night light? Because that's almost as helpful as the counting on the moonlight to illuminate anything. Not to say that our New LED bulbs are infinitely better, since even LED bulbs also have a life span killer designed into they (the resistors usually are overpowered and die quicker if I remember correctly) so obviously we can't have our perfect bulb that'll last longer than our own bodies, whether it is due to material wearing down or capitalistic products that can't be too good or else it'll not make as much money
@@thecreator4296 yes I knew that, idk about the "low cost increase" but I know it wasnt profitable for the business to make a perfect bulb, so they made lightbulbs worse in order to leech money from the consumers
nuclear power is the halfway that we need to keep up with energy demands until actual clean energy is feasible on a large scale. I don’t like nuclear either but it sadly is imo
Nuclear power is the best option at the moment. Solar power is terrible, it doesn't generate a lot and, the solar panels have an expiration date, and they are not recyclable because they include things that are toxic to the environment. Wind turbines break a lot and also they often have to be turned off because they would be generating more then there is demand at the time. Electric cars aren't emission free as the manufacturing causes more harm then the manufacture of regular cars. Also lithium ion batteries will need to be replaced and they are hard to recycle. Some of the teslas already have failing batteries and they are very expensive to replace. No government is doing anything to stop oil/fossil fuel conglomerates from poisoning the rain forests and China and India from poisoning the atmosphere. Great thing that government now forced us to have paper straws in the EU though, even though they are terrible to use and cannot even be recycled.
Yeah, and nuclear power definitely has no byproducts that are toxic to the environment? If you're bringing this up as a point, nuclear is way worse on this metric. Wind turbines "break" as on an individual scale, not a whole farm and thus the "shrinkage" can be accounted for - nukes going down for maintenaince brings the power output significantly down over a long period (autumn of last year in UK for example spiked fuel prices as 2 nuke reactors went down). Electric cars aren't emission free but assuming they last more than 3 years they beat combustion on emissions. P.S. I have absolutely nothing against Nuclear power - I am all for building more nuke stations, but lets not pretend it's some silver bullet, no power source is perfect and doesn't have drawbacks, which is why we need a mix of them ALL.
@@Swisskies Wasn't one of the reasons for the spike that 2021 was quite windlesss in the UK, meaning more gas needed to be burnt? Also you can plan for nuclear maintenance too. France does it. Their main problem us that they neglected it. Going 100% renewables without proper storage technology is pure suicide.
@@alexanderiliev1431 Yes it was also quite windless. Yes nuclear maintenance can also be planned (tho this one was not). My point was that only looking at the positives of nuclear and the negatives of renewables is a dumb position to hold. I'm for all carbon-free energy sources and hate when people politick between them.
@@Swisskies I agree. Nuclear is not perfect, but it is necessary if we want to reduce the effects of global warming as fast as possible. I believe that first we must reach 100% (or as close as possible) renewables + nuclear and only then to start shutting down the nuclear plants.
It's not the cleanest energy. Simple as that. It's *cleaner* than most, but absolutely not the cleanest, it has for so many years been proven that solar, wind, biomass and geothermal is by far the cleanest.
Nuclear is great but we dont have decades to build it up, and every nuclear plant emits water vapor, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, (much weaker than CO2) Not to mention where will we put nuclear waste?
I mean i dont hate solar power and wind energy but they tend to be useless when there's a snow storm and such and for the wind energy you need to get the best wind condition to output the most energy and for the Nuclear power the only thing you need to worry about is a meltdown and sabotages
@@janaldrichlandicho3560 Clean energy didn't cause the Texas blackout though? It wasn't because there wasn't enough sunlight or wind that the power went out. Is that actually what you think caused that?
Sabotage is a concern for all power generation with that kind of thinking, no? And I'm not super versed on this topic but I thought even meltdowns are even more unlikely due to our safety precautions
If countries can get their shit together, then we can make international/continental supergrids. This means that if it's there's not wind in Scotland, then it can use energy produced by solar in Spain and vice versa. We have the technology and ability to do this already, it's just countries don't want to be beholden to others
In America the sad part about changing to renewable energy is that a lot of people still rely on coal, gas, etc… as their livelihood. In many cases these areas are also very poor already Appalachia is a perfect example. The reason why idiot politicians that run on bases that are not helping anyone is because we always forget about the people being disenfranchised by the changes. The worst part is the people in these situations are mostly uneducated because the government has made no effort to help them. TL:DR, governments left behind a lot of people who rely on the fossil fuel industry and did not provide them the tools to pull themselves out and end up being the reason why change is stifled as they depend on it
the coal industry doesn't employ many people in US, only 39.000 of a population of almost 300 million. The excuse of maintain jobs is mostly propaganda. These governments should give welfare and education opportunities to retrain in other fields.
@@atari947 No healthcare, no college, no training, and no unemployment. If you get laid off, you're fucked. The federal government has yet to finish processing taxes for 2019, and is still sitting on millions of unemployment and welfare claims from the lockdowns. Add that coal mining isn't the only job that will be affected by regulations, almost 10 million people work in oil and natural gas. If 1% of them are laid off, that's 100k people that lost their job without a second thought. If they influence even 1 person with their experience, it creates insane amounts of people who will be anti environmental anything. That's the real reason Americans fight environmental regulations tooth and nail. It's not that they don't care, they have no choice without a safety net.
@@atari947 it’s still people who can vote and have on representatives who do have an impact. Why is Mitch McConnell still in office. This is one reason why.
Ι can't see why Germany, Sweden and the US must reduce their CO2 emissions, when the population of Africa, Asia and South America is skyrocketing, and their emissions with them. No matter what Germany or Sweden do, the temperature will increase because of the population increase in these areas.
It's true, and I doubt solar panels and wind turbines are helping when the panels and batteries are made in the dirtiest way possible in China or Vietnam. They use dirty, low-grade coal power and rare earth minerals mined by Congolese children, coupled with serious corruption and a general lack of safety/enviromental regulations that are actually followed. The enviromental damage caused by dumping all sorts of industrial chemicals and heavy metals into rivers, lakes, etc. goes way beyond the effects of CO2. Around 75%+ of China's groundwater and 33%+ of their surface water is undrinkable/"unsuitable for direct human contact".
18:31 hmmmmmmmm whr did i heard tht before? Sounds so familiar ....... (looks at French Revolution, Nazism, Communism, and basically any genocidal events)
Too many orgs are on the Susan G Komen grift. In the USA nothing goes into R&D, cleaning up pollution, streamlining cleaner equipment, it just gets turned into another slush fund for corporate rats and politicians. If the USA disbanded its military tomorrow and put all of that money into climate change, we all know nothing would happen.
You are literally commenting on a video, which got into detail about good technological and social progress. Please stop spreading doomerism and actually listen to the video, thanks.
Problem with us humans is that we know the way to improve and stop this global warming right now but we don't want to put pressure on it, just like for a person to wake up early everyday to reach his/her target and snoozing the alarm due to their laziness
Nuclear power is fine in my opinion atleast keep current plants going, but the waste is a real problem. I hope we can figure out a way to use the waste for power generation.
Building with wood and therefor sequestering carbon in houses is a great solution that if we focus on it can actually help us a lot, but only if we start building with more wood.
@@vergil8833 I mean, honestly, transhumanism is kind of inevitable, in the sense that, well somebody is at least going to try to become one with a machine:/
@@rimantssiupienis1380 I think thats videogames talking. Not regarding the "becoming one with a machine" because people have already done that for the sake of survival, but the idea that it will be a desirable alternative. Gene modification I think is a far more realistic alternative for desired evolution. Movies and so on have made robot arms and stuff seem cool but the realistic idea of it falls flat when questions of power management and strength is to make sense.
@@vergil8833 fair enough, I also think genes are more likely, just wanted to clarify that at least someone's gonna try the whole machine mirging thing in the future
"democracy has fallen in the last few years in america and i blame trump for it" Trump needs to apologise for winning electoral college in 2016 >:( - tommykay
Tommy, you talk about the environment and yet YOU DRIVE A CAR, IN GERMANY (where public transit is one of the best on the planet). A car free lifestyle is the second most carbon reducing thing you can do except NOT having children (that's the worst thing btw, but obviously unavoidable for civilisation)
18:28 If you think nuclear is good for the environment, then the AFD is actually a good thing(as they support nuclear)(regarding environmental policy) Edit: It is up to you to decide whether or not their climate policy makes them worth voting for despite their other policies or not(this is presuming you disagree with their other policies)
The Whole party doesnt become good just because of one good policy 🤦♂️ instead what should happen is that the other parties should also support nuclear power aswell so that people who want nuclear power don’t have to vote for the AFD to get nuclear in germany
Big issue I see is that can you even prove it’s happening? Let me phrase that better, is human activity and exactly what human activity is contributing to it and even so how much of it is it really? The number one argument I always present is the fact that beach front property is still the most valuable. You would think the rich and powerful who own or fund the research on such matters would live in Kansas and base their operations there as well but it’s all on the coasts of the world That’s not to say the theory of human activity being a large contributor can’t be real but you also can’t ignore human behavior. Far too much money is involved here, I’ll just spell it out. Money laundering Money that YOU have to give away and for what? Solutions that probably, no, definitely don’t work. It’s just an invisible tax you pay so the rich stay richer and the middle class gets poorer so they can keep bums and useless idiots as their vanguard towards anyone who simply said what I just did We have seen over the past 10 years institutions get corrupted with woke ideology. You see it in the military, pharma, sports, education. Why thing climate science would be different especially when they rely on funding? I don’t doubt we do contribute but again, how much and why should I or anyone have to foot the bill when there isn’t even a solution it seems?
