The Anti-Nuclear Movement and its Consequences 

or like all the people that saw 911 happen and never rode a plane again (even though cars are exponentially more dangerous)

Reminds me of the time scurvy was reintroduced cause the British used a copper lines container to hold their lemons and it sucked away whatever prevents scurvy, so rather then acknowledging it as a one time thing the British just assumed fruits weren't the solution and reintroduced scurvy to their fleet.

@@speedy01247 It's vitamin C, scurvy is vitamin c deficiency.

@@a-ramenartist9734how is that not a false equivalence considering you control the car you drive, but not the plane of which you ride?

​@@GingeryGingeryou don't control the car responsible for half of the accidents you end up in.

Trump warned them of that and they scoffed at him.

​@@HomelessOldMan9000 Pfp checks out

@@HomelessOldMan9000 Username checks out

​@@julioaurelioHows Biden workin out?

It's an intelligence test. Wind and solar will always require supplemental power plants that use fossil fuels. Nuclear and hydro don't require supplemental power plants and we've been moving away from them for decades. "Oops we need coal again"

The reactor going "critical" is called "functioning", because critical just means the fuel's neutron output is equal(ish) to neutron consumption.

@@mister_bomb7777 hmm, might have to change my scenario to make the engineer the butt of the joke

@@mister_bomb7777 and what does it call when it's going supercritical? The same word as is? Nvm, I already found my answer

they would be called the shift supervisor

@@redacted8983 There's also prompt critical which may have happened in chernobyl but probably didn't. Prompt critical is what you ususally see in fission reaction illustrations where the neutrons from the fissions are enough for the chain reaction and is what leads to a bomb. Reactors a tuned so that these prompt neutrons are not enough to sustain the reaction and for neurons from the fission products and their radiactive decay to also be required for the reaction to be critical. Basically in prompt criticality the reactivity changes too fast for people or even the machanics of the reactor to respond to so they do that instead which gives them the time. Reactors are designed so that they can't reach prompt critical even if all the safety systes fail, the very wrose you get is a steam explosion and liquified reactor.

Probably the only reason Germany was able to even entertain the fantasy of "let's phase out coal AND nuclear - at the SAME time!"

63% actually and it used to be about 70%

@@XazamasGermany is evolving, just backwards.

@@KiiXii really hope they don't devolve back to the 30s and 40s 💀

@@xyzgaming450 afd party, which is rebranded nazi party, has been getting very popular. so sadly, it does seem like they're going that way.

“B-but Chernobyl and 3 mile island!” Those were 40 years ago. Comparing reactor technology from then to today would be like putting an original Apple II against a modern desktop. We also gained a lot of valuable experience on containing meltdowns between then and now, especially after these two incidents

@@haramsaddam238 3 Mile island didn't even have any permanent effects on the local surroundings. There is literally no evidence that *anyone* even got cancer from it

​@@haramsaddam238Not to mention both of those invedent happened because the staff running the reactors f'ed up astronomically for the meltdowns to happen in the first place

​@@haramsaddam238also, didn't one of the dudes working at 3 mile island frequently showed up drunk to work? The fact that he didn't instantly blow up the reactor on his first day shows that nuclear reactor safety is grossely underexaggerated to the public by the media

literally 90% of power generation humans have made is just boil water its great

Sold my Cad I bought me a Jeep I've got that bug and i cant sleep

URANIUM FEVER HAS DONE AND GOT ME DOWN

URANIUM FEVER'S SPREADIN' ALL AROUND

With a Geiger counter in my hand

I'm goin off to stake me some government land

Which in fact glows green

@@lechatrelou6393 Which in fact doesn't emit any glow. radium and cobalt emit small amounts of light but uranium is just a grey, dull metal.

@@MonkeyMakerMakesThings doesn't it emit green ligh when exposed to uv or is that just uranium compounds?

@@jamjam-sp3he No.

@@jamjam-sp3he to uv? im not sure. but plenty of things glow under UV. neon clothes, bed sheet stains, platypus fur, etc.

ANGRY rock lashes out at some water, the water gets heated and runs away, when it runs away it spins a revolving door that gives us power

The fact that the people that get into politics usually have no science background or even education is baffling.

It's practically the same concept as a sauna, but instead of making heat, it makes power. Water on hot rock go fwooossh

​@@cewla3348you just made a description of nuclear power that a caveman would understand.

Might I add, the fins have been excelling at both for decades

if the voting age was lowered they would start to care a lot more

fr 😔

Same dude, like what is the future gonna be like with all of this chaos?

true

​@@user-gi7vi9gm4t I think voting age (and age for becoming a politician) should have an upper limit instead

That is a pretty apt description. Chernobyl was devastating and horrifying, but only happened due to cartoonish levels of corruption and incompetence.

@@YourLocalMairaaboo no government is immune against "cartoonish levels of corruption and incompetence" I'm not gonna trust my government with giant nuclear reactors upwind from my village no matter how much you swear they'll never do an oopsie again

@@underarmbowlingincidentof1981 the US Navy has been operating reactors since nuclear power was conceived and have had zero accidents ever and who runs the US Navy again

@@elapidpython4378 humans? or is this some ULTRA PATRIOTIC HOO RAAH AMERICA IS THE BEST NATION OF ALL TIME I LOVE WAR stuff?

​@@cewla3348 seeing as the person my comment was replying to deleted there comment I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't see it however at that point you should have at least had the comen sence to not make a snarky remark to a comment without seeing the full context however if you did see the comment then it was pretty obvious why I brought up the navy's spotless record of nuclear operation please give your reply more than 2 seconds of thought next time or you'll endup looking like a retard again

Yeah.... seriously. And "the left" party is now just a crippled pro Russia shell after its redfash elements ejected themselves into founding the second n*zi party, third if you life in the south. And the last remaining party even pretending to be left wing is just the car lobbies corrupt mouthpiece. Why DO parties run by intellectuals and teachers keep self destructing, but parties by barely sentient mouth breathing reactionaries are run like a well oiled machine....

most green parties dont build coal mines

^This guy politics

false.

Brother, politics is about the management of a system, wether that be national politics or book club politics, it’s all management of resources.

@@Alexthegrandest1900 ideally, yes, in practice? Nah

@@olhoTron no shit Sherlock

Hot rocks make water turn bug fan

@@matthiuskoenig3378 bug fan :3

​@@matthiuskoenig3378"angry rocks close to eachother boil water with a heated argument" is my favourite way of explaining it

@@brunogamesbr1 if we could use twitter as the heated argument source it would be infinite energy

Not unless you're talking about a nuclear salt water rocket, or an Orion Drive.

UUuhhhh.... green evil goo that gives you extra fingers when you touch it

slag, loose rock and very muddy water. either that or a smouldering pile of molten junk like you see at Chernobyl, but that's really the 100% worst case situation

Nuclear has the explicit benefit of not being vulnerable to a cloud going overhead. It can also produce at scale.

I think it is about having a problem without a realistic solution.

They're being paid by oil and coal companies to slander nuclear

In Germany the anti nuklear movement has been supported on a large scale by russia who wanted to sell us gas.

@@Matzu-Music and you can CONTROL its output.

pretty much

"Green Party" is just Big Fossil all along.

Oh no, the Green parties of the world know. They just hate the very thought of the "lower people" having cheap access to energy.

Green is literally big oil.

No it is too expensive and takes to long to build so they dont likr it

Only some

Multiple from what i heard

@@historiesweiss4785 usually 2 but I did hear a story about one that had up to 4 as a bit of a fuck you to congress who didn’t think nuclear power was a good idea

@@wyatthermens2866 lol navy said fuck you to congress then proceeds to build whole fleet of nuclear powered subs

@@historiesweiss4785 pretty much. The nuke who did it was bad shit insane in the best way. From what i remember of the story basically when congress was debating on wether to use nuclear power or not the main argument against it was they thought a carrier would need at least 4 to power it he basically said bet and built it despite it only needing 2. Another thing he did was when he learned there was going to be an inspection on his ship he ordered his men to hide 3 dead rats around the ship. The inspectors came to him and said he failed because they found two dead rats. He told them that they failed at there jobs because they failed to find the third rat. From what I hear he’s a legend at the nuke school

nuclear power further oversimplified hot rock make roundy roundy

Horror beyond human comprehension

WOAAAAAH!!!

@@mellowneutronas we navy nukes say it: “hot rock make boat go.”

@@certifiedfreeaboo3790 hail rickover

(Water boils) “Gordon get away from there!” “Attempting shut down! It’s! It’s! It’s shutting down!” (Nuclear energy be like)

@@PsychoticGirl2023 The accident was contained within safe perimeters, due to extensive operator training and decades of lessons learned.

@@derpcade Gordon doesn’t need to hear all this. He’s a highly trained professional!

*laser 'Lazer' is just wrong and I don't care what Mr Webster thinks

@@I_Stole_A_BTR-80 I see. I can offer you a battle you have no chance of winning. Rather an anticlimax after the sh*t you’ve just posted.

You would know if you looked up cancer density around them. 90 percent of nuclear reactors in the USA alone are leaking.

Oh, they look at numbers very well. Gouvernment's goal just not about making people happy. It is about allowing people to reproduce to create fresh work power. When robots became cheaper than living man, they ll replace us instantly.

Interesting thanks I'll use these numbers if I ever need them So fossil fuels are essentially 10 Chernobyls anually

⁠@@kamprouristheoharis8458annually? 4.2 million divided by 4000 and something is between 3 and 4 daily (over 1000 annually) also, another fun fact: coal has little amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium in it. when it is burned, that is released with the microparticles released from burning it (like the acid stuff that causes acid rain or the stuff that blackens snow and accelerates rust), which means that living near a coal power plant, when scaled to the energy produced (as in per TWh, in which nuclear is better when looking at radiation effects, but ignoring climate change), coal does more radiation than nuclear power plants

@@gonozal8_962 yes anually it's in the post. From what I've seen online the numbers line up Although I can't find numbers regarding worldwide deaths for the recent years, I've mostly found about the USA

1 guy died from radiation at Fukushima

That is the power of political fear mongering. Remember it well.

And they give off more radioactive waste in the entirety of nuclear lifetime, a lot of the smoke contains radioactive isotopes of carbon and other trace elements that were around the dig site

It's not just the education system. It was corruption. The former German chancellor got a VP position at a Russian energy company after this term ended. He's living now in Moscow.

They didn't, the coal production didn't went up after the nuclear shutdown

@@workinprogress2742 The coal consumption and imports did.

Nuclear reactor meltdown hot particles are also in your lungs.

@@DASLAKILL a reactor meltdown is just a big water boiler melting itself Even if the pressure vessel blows up that shit isnt gonna stay up there long Dont make stuff up

@@DASLAKILL Not only is coal smoke constantly emitted, but it also has trace amounts of radiation - so you're still getting irradiated either way.

@@someguy1900 It's filtered in the US

@@DASLAKILL That's like complaining of eating stuff with radioactive Carbon 14, or because a star exploded million of years ago, or being worried because Bananas have radioactive Potassium inside It's just a non factor

It actually melted down because they refused to flood the reactor, because it was expensive to replace...

@@mrfigaloopierre9610 and because the coolant pumps ran out of power

@@cewla3348 They could have flooded it with a fire truck or with seawater, they had options, but they chose to put corporate interest before safety.

@@mrfigaloopierre9610 It's a nuclear reactor, dummy. You need to keep the water cycling, which is where the coolant pumps came in.

@@mrfigaloopierre9610no they couldn’t immediately do it even id they wanted to because the earthquake destroyed all the infrastructure and roads, no fire trucks could arrive fast enough. That’s why now in nuclear safety analysis we also consider these factors such a combination of events outside the plant.

Yeah but it uses a really spicy rock so it’s bad now I guess

its very complicated, and its a lot more than just "boiling water"

@@blueskiestechofficial The nuclear part sure, but the power generation part is almost exactly the same as coal, natural gas, or biomass. It is just heat water, make thing spin. Make thing spin is what most electricity generation is.

Always has been, all along

​@@blueskiestechofficial Nuclear fission is throw a neutron, split an atom, get a bit of energy. Not really hard. Then you use that energy to boil water and use it to generate electricity.

Same in Italy brother🙄

My home state of Michigan decommissioned a nuclear power plant in the city of Grand Rapids due to safety concerns regarding the reactor chamber. So instead of getting the money to replace and repair the reactor vessel, they instead spent a similar amount of money "investing" in "green" alternatives like solar and wind... in a state that is covered in snow for half of the year. Now there is "Peak Hour" rates set up, where electricity is double its price between 2pm and 7pm during the summer, something that wasn't a thing when the Grand Rapids plant was still online.

IN the grand scheme of things the main reason why building nuclear plants in germany will fail and is a bad idea is not safety, but cost. Other new nuclear plants in europe drasticly overshoot on budget and deadlines. As our Gov is unwilling to take on new debt, i highly doubt that anyone will like the proposal to dumb billions in new nuclear plants, despite the fact that the nuclear industry in europe is pretty dead. We wont even have the proper Fachkräfte to build the plants. also the statement that green energy provides little electricity is just false. Green energy is vastly more cost effective than nuclear. All the nuclear states like France or Korea have a huge pile of debt since they use government subsidieze to keep the plants running.

call it something else ,then

name something different like how MRI machines dont have nuclear in their name

@@noone-mz1cd Alright, let's brain storm,... how about Plasma Heated Steam Reactor

Well people already protest in front of ITER...

​@@user-gi7vi9gm4t or maybe the average person should stop being so utterly stupid? Maybe use your brain for once.

And I've heard you get more radiation living near a coal plant than a nuke plant! Where I'm from we call something like that bass-ackwards!

@@travissmith2848 I found this on Quora: "In fact, the coal ash emitted by a power plant-a by-product from burning coal for electricity-carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements." TL:DR 100x more radioactive; Confirmed

That and the fact a couple of specific countries wouldn't want us to start utilising nuclear material

Eh, nuclear reactors don’t make much sense for Australia, we have plenty of sun for panels, plenty of space for wind turbines, and plenty of mountains for pumped hydro. Getting nuclear reactors up here would be a decade long problem getting them legalised both federally and in the states and territories, and then it’s another 2 decades to get them up and running. Nuclear reactors are great, but there’s no real point for them here.

@@Coliflower185 Here in Montana, USA we don't have the population to need such but they'd make sense. We have mountains, but far too steep for hydro storage to be at max efficiency. Days are kinda short during the winter so solar is iffy. Lots of wind (and many wind farms) but sometimes it blows too hard. We do have a fair number of dams for hydroelectric as well. Sadly, most of our generation is contracted out of state and we end up buying power from elsewhere...... Question is what do you plan on doing with the sails when they need to be replaced in 10-20 years? Fiberglass recycling is far from proven let alone any real capacity.

in my opinion, nuclear love should be shared to the entire political compass, because aside from building costs, nuclear power plants do nothing wrong

They really be citing disasters that dislocated a town's worth of people by reactors that were built in the declining USSR or in one of the most earthquake and tsunami prone countries on the planet. Then there's Three Mile Island which was entirely inconsequential and can still never happen again due to modern safety regulations.

And that is why nuclear power in the west is more costly unless we deregulate safety and construction like they did in the USSR.

​@@fablearchitect7645it isn't that expensive, sure it costs a bit, but the savings on fuel are big, **also milions of people don't die every year due to it**

fukushima, in a bubble, worked exactly as it was intended to work, apart from backup generators being placed in the stupidest place possible, fukushima did EVERYTHING to not blow up, but it just couldn't prevent the explosions after loosing grid power

fukushima is especially stupid, because there was another plant CLOSER to the tsunami source that was just fine after getting hit. it was literally just that they also half assed it and didnt listen when people told them how to build it

They're politicians after all

they need their moneeeeee

​@@v1_ultrakill_real They need their greens.

As with any political party, it's about them getting the ability to control us rather than another party

Sincr the german greens got in power coal decreased nominally and percentage and renewables share increased from 40% to 60%. I don't know aht their motivations are but they are definitely helping

As a German i am realy sad about this. We Had some of the safest and Most modern reactors in the world Like Isar 2 now we are Back to coal nice. In my Home City i can See 5 different coal plants. There onces was a Plan to build a nuclear reactor there but the green Party portested and now Dortmund ( my Home town) is Stuck on coal. What a shame.

@@_kampfkartoffel2195 Also German, I knew the situation was dire, but I didn't knew that it was THAT dire. The monk was protesting for the right thing.

No environmental impact? Where do they dig up the stuff? Maybe, if you are german you should watch the recent Terra X video about Nuclear

Ah yes, terra x, because german state media has been so impartial and objective lately. Might as well ask pravda about what happened in ukraine in 1932

We use less coal than ever nominally and in percentage terms than ever in Germany since phasing out nuvlear while our renwable share increased frok 40 to 60%. Plrase stop repeating the same "Germany bad" talking points.

A better fun fact: nuclear energy is better for the environment and has a smaller carbon footprint per unit energy than most renewables. Anti-nuclear folks don't care if we compare nuclear with coal. They obviously hate coal, too. What's more important to argue with them is that nuclear power is as great or greater than renewables in almost every conceivable manner.

@@Paraselene_Tao I agree, however... when Germany decommissioned their nuclear power plants, what did they replace them with? Coal. Green energy folks can claim they're anti-coal all they want, but in practice they seem to hate nuclear more than coal.

@@augustday9483 Yeah, that sounds like a joke to me. What else did they think would happen? I really wish the Green Party would wake tf up and stop being anti-nuclear. They get a lot of topics well figured out, but then they eff up what should be an obvious win. Nuclear power is an OBVIOUS win for all of humanity. I have considered contacting my local Green Party about this very topic (them being anti-nuclear (it's one of their main planks of their political platform)). Unfortunately, the Green Party and the people who like to be in it tend to be chemophobic and radiophobic and electromagnetically hypersensitive. This and other irrational fears keep them from being a truly great political party. I don't know how to cure their mental problems. It is very frustrating. I live in a place where the average person is very educated, but they still have irrational fears of chemicals, radiation, and EM fields. This is extremely frustrating for me.

@@augustday9483 I agree. I made a long response, but youtube hid it.

Quora says 100 times more. I've already googled it for a comment further up

recycled fuel has a host of engineering issues tragically. it works best when used in conjunction with fresh fuel. so the earlier we start using it, the better.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't those reactors invented in the 60's? Like we've known how to use nuclear waste as fuel for a long time now, we just have to implement it.

i’m no expert but i’m also gonna assume that you’re eventually gonna have to to throw some waste out what i do know is we have figured that out

​@@sandcat2383yes, France developed "Super Phenix" a expérimental reactor wich use recycled nuclear waste to work, it was able to produce energy on an industrial scale. But.... Guess what ... "Ecologist" décided to turn it down 😅

​@@valian8985 Of course they do, it's Fr*nce, it's awful there

That's the first time I agree with a socialist... That proves your point

Coal fire power plants are steam engines. I think you specifically mean for vehciles steam vs ice powerplants

For wide scale, infrastructural purposes, nuclear is the obvious choice compared to something like a coal power plant, since they both supply exactly the same thing, electricity. But for individual scale things like cars or generators, internal combustion engines will probably remain the most optimal option since they don't need to be hooked up to a grid to work, and things like batteries are way too bulky and harmful to create in comparison for a usually subpar result.

I also agree with this, yes you have to be more careful with nuclear power, but the amount of terror we have over it is out of proportion, especially considering how many benefits it has. I end up on the conservative side of the isle, and a lot (though obviously not all) of people over here aren't so refusing to believe that climate change is happening, but just skeptical of the solutions that are being proposed. A lot of times it seems more idealistic than practical, but the practicality of nuclear power is something both sides should be able to get behind.

A socialist saying something normal and agreeable? What has the world come to?

nuclear is not that expencive the cost comes from dealing with all the legal bullshit not building the actual plants themselves

one thing these all have in common: japan can't do any of them

@@a-ramenartist9734 XD

Hydro fucks up the aquatic ecosystem, not exactly perfect. Geo-thermal requires the right local geology to be viable but when it is it can be the most efficient form of power generation (it also has a high up front cost)

Hydro power hurts the environment as well I think. I don't get the point of why some countries shouldn't have nuclear power though? I mean nuclear power plants aren't bombs, new reactors would just SCRAM before melting down.

Hopefully but the old heads in power are too stuck on their ways.

Nice, when I was in school lin 2019 they were still on the nuclear hate wagon.

Are you an O level or A level student? Because when I was studying for my O levels our physics textbook taught us about all the types of energy generation and the prospect of clean energy. The conclusion was that most other renewables are very limited in use and should be used as supplemental sources while nuclear power can be used as the main source of energy, like what France does!

@@Mag_ladroth solar and wind are good for homes, but bad elsewhere hydro is very hard if not impossible to setup en masse coal is.. coal gas is.. gas nuclear is really good

@@Mag_ladroth O levels? what a throwback nowadays (in the uk) we're generating a lot more energy from renewables and the proportion is only increasing every year. we're getting ever closer to viable fusion as well

Yup France and many other countries do that and produce little to no waste

They are still radioactive, there is still potential for usage. Generation 3 Nuclear Power Plants don't do that if I rememebr correctly, but Gen 4 NPP which are still in their alfa state can.

Rocks, but they become spicy when you polish them really really hard.

Nuclear energy = good. Nuclear weapons = bad.

I forget if it's due to being addicted to Chinese coal or not.

​@@Blackgriffonphoenixg Australia is run by Oil Companies and the mafia.

Something about Australia gov is completely backwards.

Australian government sounds like an immense joke seriously whenever I hear about it

Point of information, the reactors NASA uses on spacecraft are RTG's and use a method of power production different than "hot rock make steam make turbine roundy-roundy" and is only suitable for niche things (such as spacecraft where the reliability of a power supply is of utmost importance) due to its exceptionally low output and efficiency. Though I think you're talking about small/modular reactors, which are pretty neat.

You should have said Submarines. And they are trying to develop them. Small scale ones have the same high costs from permanent installation because of insurance and lawsuits. Mirco reactors in semi trailers that can directly replace diesel generators are pretty good and are in active development and don't have the same issues because they are mobile.

@@gljames24 Mobile means it can be stolen. I'd rather not add the capability of being stolen to a nuclear reactor.

There is a company called NuScale in Oregon making small reactors the size of cargo containers. Three of their reactors can power a small town.

Bro you aren't passing a bill why u saying point of information 😂😂​@@MrKillerMichael

IT'S POWERED BY FREEDOM!!!

@@mrfigaloopierre9610 aircraft carrier immediately looses all power

@@user-gi7vi9gm4t It requires more S A C R I F I C E S

@@user-gi7vi9gm4t "Wake up honey, time to go work your 45 hour a week job to pay your student loans!"

Cherenkov radiation i think

​@@Something_From_Outer_Space Only when it's in water though.

@@unorthodoxpickle7014 Oh yeah, you are right

​@@unorthodoxpickle7014, no it happens everywhere. Cherenkov radiation happens when radiation excites particles in the air (or water) those excitations cause the particles to release photons to return to the ground state, and those photons usually have a wavelength that corresponds to blue. It's just that you can really only see Cherenkov radiation when there's a high amount of radiation. You rarely see highly radioactive objects exposed in the open air (because that would be very dangerous ofc)

​@@Something_From_Outer_Space If you see the blue glow you've probably received a lethal dose of radiation

filthy centrist!

That’s a really good point

Fun fact The Carbon Footprint was made up by the fossil fuels industry

This just made me think, does co2 output increase the larger a collection of people forms?

How exactly does a single person get a personal co2 impact higher than taylor swift.

Nuclear is literally green energy. The grift you're referring to is the astroturfed advocacies that only exist to _muddy the waters_ and complicate things.

nobody talks about the oil spill like the bp horizon which had just as bad and long lasting eviromental affact

Code Lyoko goated show. Istarted looking into nuclear power after watching that episode too!

bro china bitching about japan's power plant water is hilarious considering their lack of any control on their fishing industry (apparently large government btw) has obliterated so many ecosystems, for the past few years the ling population in american coasts have plummeted because of illegal dredging operations, then they're also pretty much solely responsible for decimating shark populations which has cascading negative effects on every ocean ecosystem, not to mention the shit ton of coal they still use (the worst fossil fuel in terms of emissions) which all runs into the ocean, and their trash problem is as bad as americas despite being so called "communists"

"Your coastal waters are also our *legal* fishing spots too, so please don't polluting it or where else we're able to get healthy fish?" Said China regarding Japan's own right to use their coastal waters.

I miss Code Lyoko

The idea that only China and "muh Chinese propaganda" has a problem with Japan releasing filtered nuclear water into the sea is ludicrous and straight up propaganda and misinformation. What about South Korea? What about the Pacific islands?

Did you bring up how most nuclear waste is cleared of radiation pretty fast while harmful waste is buried multiple kilometres underground?

​@starhammer5247 or how solar panels of equal power will produce dozens times of poisonous waste into soil since solar batteries naturally degraded

@@Yeet-eq7ve Solar Panels are way too inefficient to be viable.

@@starhammer5247 I know, I am part of nuclear gang

@@Yeet-eq7ve I figured as much. Not really any downsides for nuclear generators, even Aircraft Carriers use them and they don't suffer any issues.

gotta be lol

It's not friendly fire. It's deliberate due to the unholy alliance of fossil fuel lobby and emotion-based green fantatics with a tiny dash of military interests (the safest reactor designs can't produce weapons-grade material)

It's not friendly fire, green energy is just a red herring.

No, it wastes time and is to expensive compared to solar/wind.

​"wastes time" what? ​@@dererik9070

@@dererik9070 its arguably cheaper than wind/solar.

it was actully 9.1 which makes it more impresive that fukushima would have withstood if they didnt have there backup in such a dumb spot but to befair no one expects to be hit by an earthquake of that scale

A thing that most people don't really realize is how STURDY those power plants are. 9.1 earthquake was not even close to giving it issues structurally. People flee there for their own lives. To destroy a Nuclear power plants you need nuclear level weapons. If a NPP is destroyed, nothing else remains because everything else falls down first.

Renewables are undesirable compared to nuclear, with the exception of hydro. Most Renewables are worse for the enviroment than nuclear and are way more expensive per kilowatt hour. Renewables are only good because of the activists pushing against nuclear, but since those the same activists pushing for Renewables if they just pushed for nuclear instead everyone would be better off.

@@fablearchitect7645 Source?

Unfortunately modern (as in the ones that are being used in most places) nuclear reactors aren't that great at scaling power up and down. They are really good at providing a constant baseline of power but increasing the power quickly up or down is an issue for them. It's unfortunate since all the people trying to transfer over to renewable power sources need something that can scale quickly, but current nuclear power doesn't play that well with the variability of renewable energy sources. I do think they were trying to get the newer reactors to scale up and down more quickly, but I haven't heard what progress they've made on that.

​@whoiam5838 Which is simply a lack of technology in the private sector. Nuclear submarines and ships scale their power out puts up and down in mere minutes without issue. While technically different reactors and smaller it is possible.

batteries could solve a lot of those problems but nobody has come up with good energy storage solutions that aren't stupidly expensive and terrible for the environment

fuck germany's nuclear policy (or rather, anti-nuclear policy) fr

Just ignore the turks

as a german, I apologize for the behavior of the FRG. there really only was one german state that didn’t do these BS decisions or do useless wars, like crusades or world ones, or bombed yugoslawia for no fucking reason, and it sadly doesn’t exist today. also, the EU mainly is a project to force countries to privatize and deregulate markets to the point that more companies, countries even, can be bought up to extract wealth by investment banks operating just like blackrock basically

@@weirdguylol lol, 2024 Germans aint beating them WW era Hun accusations.

yea we here in germany are pissed as well because of the energy prices *AHEM*

Ikr? Everyone who I talk to who talks about entire continents sinking into the ocean and us burning alive in the next 20 years always seethe at the notion of nuclear.

It's a solved problem and they don't wanna use the solution, so why should I give a damn?

We literally found out a way to split molecules of atoms for energy before we harnessed the sun

That is dishonest. It is as if I would say "A nuclear bomb is just air heated by special rocks really fast".

@@entcraft44 You know what you are right. I missed a step. Special rocks heat special water, then the special water circulates through tubes to boil regular water, and the steam of the regular water spins turbines.

​​@@adrianvulpes9509Spécial water? The water that comes in contact is different than normal water? Is it something like heavy water

​@@entcraft44tbh, a nuclear fission bomb is mostly that. Big angry rocks goes very very very hot as release lotta energy, ie go boom! Sure, the complexity is in how to control said rock to become angry when we want, but after rock is angry it is quite simple.

Disgusting

​@@theALTF4 why u here then

​@@theALTF4 i am secretly gay (Not really i just really want to make people like you mad)

@@theALTF4 skill issue

​@@theALTF4womp womp

or more gameplay

​@@user-gi7vi9gm4tless is better

Idk. It seems to work for him and until i make content like that i personally wouldnt critisize

​@@drago6568i think is fine a little of polite critisize

I remember one time I saw someone say something that goes along the lines of "Arguing against a stupid person is like playing chess against a pigeon, you put pawn to e4, while the pigeon knocks all of the pieces down, shits all over the board and tells his friends how he won"

Calling them stupid is too easy of a cop out for them, they are malevolent. Or the places they get their info and inspiration from, are malevolent.

It sucks that really the only way to combat this is to not let people believe in the hysteria in the first place. Make sure the uninformed get better education that stops this irrational fear from festering. In the mean time, we can't really do anything about the people who've accepted this rhetoric other than waiting for them to cease or pray they come to realize the error in their ways themselves.

I work in nuclear power Anyone worried about it is stupid

yeah, and people who advocate against it often ALSO pretend to know how it works even more than pro nuclear people, and claim to know all its dangers and downsides

Fission already works pretty well. Especially if we start using more thorium reactors instead of Uranium.

@@anotherfriendlyshikikan6960 but fusion cool

@@anotherfriendlyshikikan6960 we can't use thorium because negative ion products guzzle most of it

All the cost problems of fission reactors are going to be 10 times worse with fusion, and fusion reactors might still produce some amount of radioactive waste. A government that wont accept fission reactors wont accept fusion reactors in a million years.

When fusion is viable in 30 years we will still have to deal with "But fusion reactors are so expensive and will take too long to build, and there are so many jobs in coal mining." Probably from the same people saying "don't build nuclear power plants, just wait for fusion, it'll be fine."

Nuclear has the highest LCOE. It's not controversial, pretty much all sources agree on this.

Nuclear power does have a profit problem, a short term profit problem. They are heavy investments that could fail before profits are made, and in western countries have a habit of being delayed in the most expensive period raising costs of investment.

From a Libertarian Perspective that is a general problem as Goverments Increase Time Preference. ​@@matthiuskoenig3378

Nuclear is only less profitable for billionaires that already have all of their assets in fossil fuels and politicians who get "donations" from said billionaires.

@@soupcake3092 Yeah like the Green Party in Germany

Solar panels also produce a metric shitton of E-waste since they degrade and have to be replaced every 5 years or so

@@haramsaddam238 you missed a 2 before the 5, dude. it's 25 years per replace of industrial panels.

B sounds like fusion, surely instead of "staggering" you mean "massive"? also nuclear fusion should be, like, good before we get cheap travel of good from the moon because it takes moon sand as fuel [there are no downsides to nuclear fusion on the moon]

​@@cewla3348There are no downsides to ANY industry of energy except fossil if it was properly thought out.

​@@cewla3348We just successfully created a functioning fusion generator, but it's still in the prototype stages and under the ownership of NASA.

its more like steam train the fuel uses neutron induced fission to produce heat which makes really hot water which makes steam and the steam is what goes on to spin the turbine

No