Nuclear Power by Country | Kilowatt-Hours-kWh 

there are a lots of mistakes in video like czechia and many more countries were shown before their existence.

@@game_maniac2404 Actually Czechia did already exist before it (kingdom) and after but in this era it was Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) (in WWII there was some months Slovenský štát-slovakia)

@French& Scottish I doubt that the Chinese could buy something from the Americans without asking the prices in Rosatom.

Тут и другого треша достаточно. Здесь, к примеру, Чехия и Словакия сначала идут как разные страны, но 90-х годов вдруг становятся одной - Чехословакией. На самом деле, всё совсем наоборот.

This clip is full of mistakes! Noob creator!

Nuclear energy is indeed one of the cleanest energies. But if an incident occurs the loss is enormous. That's why many countries have started to abandon nuclear energy

@@rezaardiansyah434 what incident and what enormous loss? Show me one. Wind energy claimed already thousands of lives, so did fossil fuel and even solar!... while nuclear energy even with catastrophic issues did only few dozens and many of those are questionable. My friend's grandfather lives close to Chernobyl. He left for 2 months and returned and lives thee since...the guy is almost 100 years old fishing hunting and eating the food there the last 35 years, no cancer and so on...so there are lot more things going on than we are informed of. - Nuclear energy endangers fossil fuel business and with it dollar as well. Why the Saudis acquired large percentage of world media? 2+2=4

@@thetruthalwaysscary Apart from the examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima does nuclear energy require for its waste to be taken care of for thousands of years as it continues to be lethally toxic for many centuries. No it's not sustainable and no it's not cleaner than wind energy. Uranium is not a limitless resource and requires massive amounts of energy to be sourced and prepared. SO no, it's not the energy solution for tomorrow, it's yesterday's answer.

@@lorofcb3 В России уже применяется безотходный цикл атомной энергетики, когда отходы реакторов на быстрых нейтронах становятся топливом для реакторов на медленных нейтронах, и наоборот.

@@lorofcb3 The issue of nuclear waste can be solved have a look at the deep storage bunker built in the Netherlands. The USA planned one but the perfect place for it and some people kept complaining over bullshit. Keep in mind the amount of waste is very small in actual size, you can fit an entire nuclear power plant waste in a few tucks. It is really small quantity, just he spent fuel rods and cooling water for the rods and stuff like that, have a look at videos on the subject.

Yeah, Olympic Dam SA and Yeleerie W.A. between them have about 30% of the world's uranium deposits, we are not prolific in production, we just have a lot of it. Lucas Heights in Sydney is the only nuclear reactor in Australia, and it a "research" reactor opened in 1958. It was replaced by the "OPAL" reactor in 2007. Importantly, a lot of radioisotopes required in cancer treatment is produced in Lucas Heights. I know "Twiigy" Forrest recently pegged out a very large area in W.A's Pilbara and parts of the Kimberly , iu think with the view to constructing solar power farms.

That surprises me as I always thought of Australia as very technology-forward and sophisticated with that. Of course, I'm a Yank, and I may have just gotten that stereotype in my head from Beyond 2000. Loved that show.

I assume in the past cheap coal, requiring less capital investment, is a reason. In the future "green hydrogen" may be a way to get all that sun into a form that can be exported.

all our countrys none renewables are sold o/s

Omg no way I have kWh

And then your foolish president wants to talk about safety environment and amazon forest... common, first do your home lesson

@@valkiriachila2032 Yes, nuclear energy is a clean energy: it emits almost no CO2 and all the nuclear waste produced by all the French nuclear power plants since they exist can be stored in the equivalent of an Olympic swimming pool. And the fact that France has chosen nuclear energy has greatly reduced the share of energies such as coal or oil in France, contrary to the United States for example where it is a real ecological masquerade. So yes, France has done well to choose nuclear energy and I think it will stay like that for years to come. So yes, our president (even if you hate him and I don't approve of all these political reforms) can afford to criticize other countries in terms of ecology. 😉 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷

@@valkiriachila2032 And moreover, in terms of economy, nuclear energy has been a real asset for France: first of all, nuclear energy is not very expensive to produce and then, above all, in France we produce so much electricity thanks to nuclear energy that we can afford to export it abroad, for example to Germany, Belgium, Spain or even Italy, which brings money back to France because the countries buying electricity from France are partly dependent on our electricity.

A single accident will cause the whole Europe to suffer.

@@vedants.vispute77 Yes but there will be no accident, for example compared to Chernobyl, our nuclear power plants are much safer and much more modern with much stricter safety standards. In fact there is much more chance that a nuclear missile will be launched in Europe than a French nuclear power plant will explode. And compared to Fukushima there is no tsunami in France, and the most violent earthquakes we had in France were not even 6 on the Richter scale. 😁🇫🇷❤️☢️

Indian boiiiiii

@@manyabavishi5728 ?

Nuclear energy that the Russians apparently do not master. The first major nuclear disaster took place in Chernobyl in 1986, then part of the Soviet Union if I'm not mistaken

😂Чем же она превзошла, тем, что потребность страны очень маленькая была, вот и 2% или то, что она сама не строит атомные станции? 😂

​@@lol12974 não é pequena não, é porque não precisamos, temos várias hidroelétricas,

Qual o nome do rapaz da foto

Sentir orgulloso de tener una energía nuclear es desconocer la realidad La unión europea está quitando la energía nuclear por la energía renovables , que son limpias y seguras , eso sí es un orgullo

@@juanolivaraes9830 União Europeia é União Europeia, Brasil é Brasil.

@@juanolivaraes9830 La energía nuclear no supone ningún riesgo para el medio ambiente, no es renovable, pero es limpia.

@@caninon7570 la energía nuclear es lo que más contamina el subsuelo durante centenas de años , aparte del riesgo que conlleva , solo hay que ver chernobyl o Japón

19193 !!!

Entre los 20 primeros. Pero Argentina tambien tiene y creo fue primero en Latinoamerica.

@@elviomail si, mira el gráfico

Да это как росстат нам про наше благополучие брешит, так и источник world bank американский преукрашает. Сейчас смотри появится какая-нибудь статистика по полетам в космос и будут тоже ***дёж

I don’t believe this statistic. I was pretty sure that china is by far number one! And then i see this… ?

@@marcstein2510 When I first came upon this chart, I thought China was going to make that big push by 2000-02, and make that monster move by 2010. Surprising that they hardly utilize nuclear power. But then again, did those smokestacks (where one of the Olympic winter events took place) belong to a nuclear power plant?

@@CookyMonzta maybe the numbers are based on official communist government data. They are very trustworthy you know (like covid-data from china)… 😂

@@CookyMonzta ,в Китае больше половины электроэнергии вырабатывается с помощью ископаемого угля.

Many have been shut down and toren down here in Oregon and washington USA

For fukushima accident

The third, at the end, is China not Japan. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8VAO2BrrakM.html

it doesn't show because the production slow down was very short lived.

Тут и Чехия со Словакией нарисованы как разные страны, хотя до 93-го года это была одно государство. Зато здесь вдруг появляется Чехословакия уже в 90-х годах и по сей день. Что за бредятина? И Украина с Россией возникают уже в 90-м году, хотя разделились в 91-м

Espero que não, além de ser um projeto custoso, fornecerá a energia mais cara do Brasil. Prefiria que esse dinheiro fosse aplicado em outras fontes de energia mais baratas.

@@edneydenis7856 energias renováveis e com impacto zero no meio ambiente. Aqui em Portugal quando em 2007 se discutia sobre a energia nuclear, acabaram por abandonar a ideia e construir torres eólicas. O pior foi que esse valor, na época exorbitante foi pago em taxas pelo coitado de sempre, o povo, e a companhia elétrica ficou a ganhar e bem. Mas pelo memos é energia limpa.

@@Claudio-et2tw Entendo, só que essa usina de Angra 3 que foi citada vai custar um fortuna maior do que qualquer grande hidrelétrica que o Brasil já tenha feito, fora que vai fornecer uma energia bem mais cara que das eolicas, solares, térmicas a gás e hidrelétricas. Inclusive teve reportagens recentes falando disso, por isso que sou contra, não vale a pena muito pelo custo altíssimo de contrução e o preço final da energia.

@@edneydenis7856 - Ainda bem que não é você que decide essas coisa no Brasil, porque senão, estariam phudidos.

@@Claudio-et2tw - Para o tamanho de Portugal, pode até funcionar. Mas para o tamanho do Brasil, não é possível.

угу, а еще РФ вырабатывает не 16 ГВт, а 30

СОБРАЛСЯ НАПИСАТЬ ОБ ЭТОМ ЖЕ,НО ВЫ МЕНЯ ОПЕРЕДИЛИ.ПРИСОЕДИНЯЮСЬ.

And us my friend, they by a lot of nuclear electricity in the end. But Greta Thunberg's cosplay are very powerful in this country, so to keap the power big ass Merkel had to do some compromise.

old technology. Only renewable energy can save the planet. Also: nuclear power is by far more expensive than windfarming. To expensive, dangerous, old...

@@m.c9146 If we maintain our current consumption of energy, even the green one can't save us.

@@m.c9146 expensive, sure. But dangerous no. Newer plants are much safer and even older plants are pretty safe.

@@m.c9146 the new generation of nuclear centrales aren't old technology in any way, at least not if you compare them to renewable energe, also, nuclear power don't cause nearly as much environnemental issues than the other constant power alternatives, (which are either not renewable or hydrolic, but hydrolic can only be built in rivers and do come with it's own environnemental problems) And doing enough batteries for the grid to support the consommation for more than a few minutes is also incredibly costy and not exactly clean.

I applaud France for it's nuclear program, while other countries are afraid to improve the technology because of Chernobyl and Fukushima, the French seem to understand the necessity of better nuclear plants as part of the overall strategy in reducing reliance on fossil fuels and that better designs mean less chance of accidents in future!

Então a Rússia era pra tá em 1°.

@@TheSaoPauloNews Por que acha isto?

A energia nuclear nos EUA não é usada só nisso, também é usada para abastecer cidades.

@@pudim7613 Por isto falei "é uma boa fatia da energia nuclear daquele país".

@@Angel-th4mi porque a Rússia e a maior potência nuclear do mundo!! São mais 6850 armas nucleares, o EUA tem aproximadamente 6453.!

Miskine R.I.P

@@sosobel5843 😭

Hej tiež nechápem, prečo to nedali spolu, by sme boli vyššie v rebríčku :)

Agente tem energia nuclear

Não o suficiente.

we make NPP for more than 20 countries now

Im so glad we got Russia to build new power plant to Finland later this year. 🥳 France fucked up last Nuclear project so bad.... Lets hope Daughter company of Rosatom does better.

Они должны заменить все устаревшие реакторы в мире новые - экологически безопасные !

В США больше всего АЭС и реакторов в мире, если не ошибаюсь

@@Alex-ck5pz , не знаю больше их у них или нет, я знаю точно, что обслуживать большую часть из них они больше не могут. Производство электричества никак не могло расти- за счёт чего? Новых они не строят. Компетенции в этом вопросе они почти растеряли.

@@user-ij8mw8rb3d с чего это они их обслуживать не могут? Резко забыли, как надо?

@@Alex-ck5pz , нет, не сразу.

reactor effiiency

Tmb acredito.

Energia nuclear é cara, requer funcionários altamente especializados, há risco de acidentes e produz lixo radioativo que demora séculos para se neutralizar. Nesse país bagunçado chamado Brasil é muito perigoso. O futuro é da energia solar;.

@@adrianoabruno2243 energia solar é cara é requer espaço, não é tão eficiente quanto a energia nuclear, os riscos de acidentes são muito maior em usinas de combustível fóssil do que nas nucleares, além de requerer pouquíssimo espaço, manutenção é básica e o ganho já garante a manutenção diferente da solar q o ganho é pouco para um espaço muito grande, por ser bastante rentável, lixo radioativo é prático em se guardar e não polui o meio ambiente, diferente das usinas de combustível fóssil q libera gases do efeito estufa para a atmosfera, qualquer usina precisa de funcionários especializados, as maiores potências do mundo utiliza a energia nuclear como captação de energia, e acidentes acontecem nesses países??? Muito raramente.

@@adrianoabruno2243 Energia nuclear é cara? Quantas fazendas de painéis solares precisariam pra gerar a quantidade de energia que uma usina nuclear geraria? As maiores potência do mundo estão atrás da fusão nuclear incluindo a China, acho que por alguma razão 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@marcoscaetano3069 Sol e vento o Brasil tem a vontade. E há cada vez mais fazendas solares. Energia nuclear é caríssima e perigosíssima. Há que se realizar investimentos de bilhões de dólares e manter depósitos especiais de rejeitos radioativos por séculos. Se ocorrer acidentes como o de Fukushima e Chernobyl os custos serão imensos. O Japão gastou US$ 300 bilhões para reconstruir o distrito de Fukushima.

Fake

Ya no , es argentina

@@carlosalbertohoferek3737 KKKKK Brasil Produz 3x mais que a Argentina, olhe no site da Associação de energia nuclear mundial. E com Nosso Novo Submarino NUCLEAR, vamos ir para o 5 lugar mundial. Cuidado com a inveja

@@ZekRyan invenja??...4 anos de Macri...

Las dos centrales nucleares que tiene brasil son Angra I y Angra II, que producen el 3% de la energía de ese país. En Argentina hay tres centrales nucleares (Atucha I, Atucha II y Embalse) que producen el 6% del consumo nacional. Por lo tanto, la Argentina está más avanzada.

Capacity removed and permanent shutdowns. Thirteen reactors with a total capacity of 10196 MW(e) were permanently shut down globally. Some 47% of the capacity reduction resulting from permanent shutdowns came from five reactors in Japan that had been idle since 2011: Genkai-2 (529 MW(e)), Fukushima-Daini-1 (1067 MW(e)), Fukushima-Daini-2 (1067 MW(e)), www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data-on-nuclear-power-plants-operating-experience

Você nem sabe o maléfiçios da energia núclear, Um deles é o bem pra população mais os políticos não gostam disso

@@cremoso6401 E também economia de dinheiro,

Nossos políticos são uns demônios

Energia nuclear é não pra países q não tem fontes renováveis de energia como a solar e eólica

@@melhorestutoriais3286 A manutenção da energia nuclear libera menos carbono por kilowatt que eólica e solar. Além de custar pelo incrível que pareça menos vidas, para cada kwh de energia eólica e solar 1 pessoa morre a cada 10 anos em acidentes, enquanto a cada kwh na usina nuclear 1 pessoa morre a cada 14 anos. Alguns países cometeram um erro fatal em desligar suas usinas nucleares, como a Alemanha que pensando em um futuro totalmente renovável desligou e destruiu suas diversas usinas nucleares e substituiu por carvão, onde vários morrem nas minas e libera mais de 170 gramas de CO2 por kwh. Além disso países com maioria da energia proveniente da energia nuclear liberam menos carbono por kwh como a França, que tem mais 80% da energia proveniente e energia nuclear e tem a menor emissão de carbono por kilowatt no mundo inteiro. Menor até mesmo que em países que têm energia quase 100%da energia proveniente de fontes eólicas e solar

Será publicado nesse canal: ru-vid.com 👍

@@CityGlobeTour Ok, já me inscrevi..

Sorvete e picolé caicó

All power plants are restarted (except Fukushima...)

И перерабатывать отработанное тоже, да и со стройкой новых АЭС проблемы, старым будут продлевать сроки до талого.

Gk bisa bahasa Inggris

Of all the countries, ONLY Russia has a full range of nuclear energy services. It is Russia that has built and is building new nuclear power plants in most of these countries. In addition, Russian nuclear reactors are the most reliable and productive, and they have the most different power that the consumer needs.

@@HelenaRey what about USA?

@@user-bn1ob5rd9i , в США самое большое колличество АЭС и производимой на них электроэнергии. И построили их не русские. Снабжают твелами и хоронят отработку сами амиго . Как то так.

We in the UK are promised many things, but most of those things that are actually delivered tend to be of the negative variety e.g. periods of austerity.

не за все время а за год , то есть это счетчик производимой в год а не за все время статистика идет по годам а не за весь период ,

It was Czechoslovakia

Это какие-то усредненные месячные данные, причем только по летним месяцам)).

Globalement la consommation électrique augmente... je sais pas si c'est la seule explication

La production d’électricité a augmenté. La part du nucléaire est passée de 80 à 70%.

да

Ну типа да

Надо было начинать с 30-х годов, там наверху была бы одна строка советский союз.

Тут еще и хрень с Японией . Они после фукусимы , остановили чуть ли не все реакторы . И что то тут не заметно этого . Украина то же растет , а она если память не изменяет несколько блоков остановила . Ну и с немцами какая то хрень , те вроде все реакторы заглушили .

@@_Sergey.S. Да тут сплошная хрень

Bcuz of the owners of the nuclear plants is their MASTER Aka USA.

Japan didn't stop generating nuclear powers. Most of their power plants are running at this moment. They just have a plan to reduce nuclear powers and it will take few decades.

Japan nuclear generation fall from 280 Tw in 2010 to 0 Tw in 2015. Now in 2020 its 43 Tw. Quality of data is an issue here.

Where are you from?

Bomba nuclear não podemos ter devido ao acordo de não ploriferação de armas nucleares, o Brasil já tem capacidade de ter bambas nucleares, mas se construirmos nossa economia seria boicotada.

@@user-bn1ob5rd9i isn't it obvious? He uses a brazilian flag, so......

@@caninon7570 tem dó velho o problema do br é pensar a curto prazo e ser sempre medroso, seriam boicotes ridículos que não afetariam quase porra nenhuma a curto prazo más a longo prazo tu pode ter certeza que a falta de armamento nuclear vai fazer falta

Bonjour🇧🇷🤝🇪🇸

@@iwejjddjsj9740 viva el Brasil 🇧🇷

@@ruvchiquito2237 VIVA🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

El toro

@@richardpalacio1753 ese soy yo

Per year obvisoly, kwh is kW

@@CookieMonster-hz5ry Hmm..not sure cause comparing the other sources is more like a monthly.

KWh = Kilo Watts *PER* Hour

@@CubiT0X That's not how it works. kWh is the total amount of power produced/consumed. If your heater draws 1 kW and it runs continuously for an hour, it will have consumed 1 kWh. If it runs for 24 hours it will consume 24 kWh. You get kWh by multiplying power with time, not by dividing.

@@enemixius " kWh is the total amount of power *produced* / consumed. " Is the MAX OUTPUT a power generator can produce in one hour (potentially) It cannot be consumed beyond the maximum total energy output. So, you can measure the energy produced by a power generator and the energy consumed by heater/s, which can be equal to or less (Powered by Google Translator) XD

1954 году

❤️India🇮🇳❤️ Japan🇯🇵❤️France❤️Brazil🇧🇷❤️ Israel 🇮🇱❤️

Easy... adding more reactor in every plant or some...

Modular Odyssey - Laetitia Frenod 👍

Certeza? Eu pesquisei e era outra musica

@BrKBruno uma do mesmo nome, mas no fim era ouytra musica

Fun fact: 70% of france electricity is generated from nuclear energy

🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷

Argentina pionero

¡?¡?¡?¡?¡? ARG !

@@leanbrzz2275 Si argentina pionera , tiene tres centrales y una en construccion de ingenieria propia

Solo de cachaza.

@@carlosalbertohoferek3737 no sabes que es ser pionero, ignorante? el primer reactor nuclear en operar en latinoamerica fue construido en brasil

Slovakia exists from 1.1.1993