Why You’re Wrong About Nuclear Power 

Will do

Trying to work out what is on The Facility screens is a fun game. I can see Stargate SG1 and Atlantis screens, as well as a few variations of the LCARS from Star Trek. I don't recognise them all though.

You forgot the key argument, though. What to do with the burned out nuclear material? It has to be stored somewhere and exactly that's the issue many people have with it. So, informative video, but it lacked that little detail.

How far do you think we are of fusion reactors?

Btw... what happened in Sector 61 of the facility... there's just a big scarlet blob of pulsating mass in the corridor that leads into Sector 61... We need to know Kyle... for the safety of every staff member

Unfortunately, there were probably a lot of other people he has said that to that now believe him. a lot of people are indeed idiots.

All you need to know about the fate of humanity is in the fact that there are two seasons of “cosmos” and ten of “keeping up with the kardashians”.

@@fordprefect1587 and the fact that a show about people driving on ice has 11 seasons on the history channel despite it having nothing to do with history

I lived on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier for 2 years. I do believe during those 2 years I received less radiation than most Americans did because the amount of radiation I received from the reactor was less than what the average received from the ground.

@@jfast8256 A sailor on a target! 😆. Yeah, nuke sub guy here. Lived 30 feet from our reactor, sampled coolant every day for analysis. Without other sources of radiation, I got basically nothing. The sun is a big source, and so is your basement. The dosimeter I have in my basement gets more radiation in a month than what I would get underwater, next to a reactor, for a year. And it's more than I get working at my commercial power plant each year. Yes I have a radon mitigation system.

While talking about nuclear power

+

I would just assume he was a Democrat getting a ballot from the dead gold-fish that was buried there.

I'd think ''ha, classic kyle''

@@innocentbystander3317 oh boy. Somebody call MENSA, we got big brain time going on here

Nuclear power is the MOST expensive way to produce electrical power

@@clarkkent9080 while also the safest and cheap coal power plant like in the video is well kill us human and earth if you want to find out how bad it is go simulated overpopulation you'll see how bad it can get if we still use cheap coal power plant

@@unknowngod8221 I don't comment to push an agenda of wind turbines, solar, natural gas, or coal. I simply provide facts and reality that in the U.S. , given that recent failures in new nuclear projects, no utility is even considering them and given the 16 years to build one and old nuclear plants shutting down every year, nuclear's contribution to the U.S. electrical grid WILL decrease over at least the next 20-25 years. Hopes, wants, and dreams will not change reality

​@@clarkkent9080 the French pay nothing for their electricity in comparison to coal burning countries. The investment is high yes but it pays off over time.

@@ryanwarner5006 French reactors are reaching their end of life. If they build new units, that will no longer be true

But what an awesome way of boiling water😉

Only on BWR's...The steam plant is considered "conventional."

@@WarpFactor999 doesn't the LWR also boil water?

@@bdasaw On the secondary plant side using a steam generator. When I wrote that, I was thinking in terms of PWR vs. BWR.

I hope you heat salt and CO2. Put the "Tin Lizzy" PWR to bed.

That made me crack up

Same how human ranged weapons tech is basically throwing a rock faster, harder, and more efficiently, human power tech is basically boiling water more efficiently(except for stirling engines, solar panels, wind power, etc.)

at the end of the day all energy methods (beside solar) is about turning a turbine in some ways

@@gohunt001-5 similar to how most calculation tools are just using stones to count to literally teaching a rock to think for us. From the abacus to the computer we humans can use rocks in astounding ways haha

@@mrcoolize Fusion too?

Yessss sir

actually facts lmao just sent this video backing my argument to my friends lmaooooo

Same bro imagine regressing 300 years bc you are afraid of the most advanced way of energy production

@@silasweitmann3103 Facts we were just having a discussion and Chernobyl came up and how it was horrible yea that was bad but nuclear meltdowns happen way less than mining accidents and pollution killing people lmao this just backed our outlook on things lol

This is the way it should be

If the oil companies were smart, they would be leading the way in creating and producing modern nuclear plants. Or, at least be heavily invested in the organizations that are doing so. We will still need petroleum products for a long time as they have so many uses outside of producing electricity and powering vehicles. One example is that SpaceX uses kerosene as the main propellant in their spacecraft rocket engines, as do other rocket engines produced elsewhere. However, if we were to eliminate the use of coal and petroleum products for electrical energy production around the world it would reduce carbon output drastically.

Wind and solar are not competitors to oil, there aren't really any oil power stations. Nuclear cannot compete because of economics.

Thumbs up for a NICE quantity of thumbs up!

Get your story straight. It is important to remember that the same utilities that are promoting nuclear also are heavily invested in fossil fuels energy production with only a smattering of investments in renewables for PR purposes. They are browbeating, intimidating and bribing legislators to increase already massive subsidies to the nuclear industry and restrict energy conservation and use of renewables or they will burn more coal. They also spend a ton of money on puff pieces like this to trash the competition and soak the taxpayers.

yeah also inconstant renewables like solar need fossil fuel back-up to transport energy at night

Now I'm thinking about replying on a nuclear plant to boil water so I can get the electricity to run my stove top so I can boil water too.

And funnily enough, boiling water (which is also serving as a moderator and a coolant) is arguably the worst way to do nuclear power. It was already obsolete technology before Calder hall, the first commercial nuclear power plant, came online in 1956.

@@jsn1252 The water that acts as a coolant and moderator is not the same water that is heated into steam for the turbines. If you have a better way of harnessing nuclear power, I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it :)

@@jsn1252 I would actually love to learn about other currently viable ways to harness nuclear, could you tell me what the method is?

@@jsn1252 Do tell

no, but you are using the very basis, the very essence, of life itself. I think that's pretty metal

@@eastdakota6954 Very metal indeed!

LOL

@@eastdakota6954 I have absorbed the essence of the life that lived millions of years ago so that I could drive my car to work

Something I learned recently that lead to me learning that fossil fuel is an incorrect term. Is that the deepest fossil ever found of any organism was only 2,500 feet deep. But oil can be found as deep as 38,000 feet and sometimes even further.

Hahahaha! Nice!

I work in power plants and can attest to this fact

@@Dodgerific but what if it’s too cold out to swim in regular pools. I wanna swim in the same bath water as the fuel rods. They’re not special-er than me.

Randall Munroe!

@@stewartyates4510 gamer fuel rod bath water

Government propaganda and sensationalized media has made nuclear energy look like a deadly monster waiting to spring, when in reality it will save us from the growling beasts that are currently tearing our planet to shreds.

Why

@@thedevilsadvocate5210 Why not? state your case please....

@@litltoosee Because the radiation from the nuclear waste lasts 10,000 years What are you doing with that nuclear waste for 10,000 years? How much of that clean energy are you storing in your backyard?

@@thedevilsadvocate5210 And where exactly did you get that number? Most of the waste that's being stored today has long since become safe, like lean-against-the-barrel-for-days type of safe. It's fallout that lasts millenia, not waste (and by fallout I mean that thing in the ruined reactor, not the miniscule amount of radiation everywhere around). And If nuclear gets the investment it deserves, and especially if Thorium plants kick off, there won't be a Chernobyl ever again. The truly dangerous waste that does last long can be stored in at most 2-3 barrels per entire life cycle of a plant. Also nuclear waste is solid, so it's not some green goo that can bite through the barrel and leak out; it's a solid piece of rock, encased in a ton of concrete, in a barrel, 400 meters underground.

Bruh I didn't think of that till now what the fuck they owe him an apology before he dies

@@denvetta pretty sure that man is immortal sooo... they got time

I think it was the dumping of the nuclear waste is where he went wrong.

@@SlamminRytch Yeah he would literally drop it into the town lake lmao

Yeah, he may be a bad guy but he is a lawful bad guy. So much for Lisa craziness

Kyle is right on ... nuclear is the smart way to go. Now how do we get that to happen?

Maybe Kyle lives in the Stranger Things universe

Its because he caused Chernobyl

I'd like to imagine that the Department of Justice owed the Department of Energy a favour.

I bet this will be so much funnier when he explains how Thorium reactors are good

I can picture it, Chris gets paid by the owner of a nuclear power plant to dress up as Thor and go around providing Public Service Announcements around social media and the like.

Haha

I mean, the God of Thunder should know about different forms of electricity.

@@Badenhawk Wouldn't the most efficient way just be to summon a bunch of lightning and collect it?

While I wouldn’t want a greenhorn or a roughneck operating a nuclear facility, I’m sure there would be plenty of jobs available to them in such places they could do without a degree in nuclear physics or chemistry and still make good money.

@@dr.floridamanphdPeople still gotta build and supply the nuclear facilities. There'll always be jobs for all people in that field

and without your families efforts, we would still be in the dark ages. technical progress is linear.. god bless you miners for the results of your labors that we all benefit from. But we must transition to clean, renewable, safe, affordable energy, and LFTR's offer a path to that goal. By the way, the mining process for coal produces a huge surplus of thorium rich ore, which currently we discard as waste. The transition is doable, and profitable. I feel your concern for your kids.. this is the path..help us illuminate it..and they will bless and thank you for your foresight and love...

I like our fusion reactor 93 nillion miles away that has been providing free energy to us for billions of years.

@@dr.floridamanphd Security, general maintenance, supply chain, etc.. Plenty of jobs.

I too was on an aircraft carrier and found out from the Reactor officer that the people maintaining the reactor receive more radiation from sun exposure than they do from the reactor.

@@whiskey_icarus @benny carpenter-deason True, topsiders got more than us nukes.

I have a nuke plant in my backyard and have no fear of it

@@duckface81 sorry no i only have the one and i am using it

@@JMD501 xD

Lola: Godzilla is my grandma.

666th like lol

666 likes 😂

Long live the king

😭😭💀

Still worse than geothermal energy

People using any Apple products generally look silly to me.

@@TheofficialDropthatbeat posting it multiple times doesn't make you more right

@@TheofficialDropthatbeat Geothermal Energy is dependent on the geography of the area though.

They‘re comfy and don‘t fall out when working out and jogging.

I take it that plant wasn't Chernobyl or Fukushima. Also, do a little research and get an understanding of how many "scrams" or near misses that plant had. Once you start looking into it, it's an eye opener.

@@ChrisR-xs9wp I started looking into it and didn't find any "scrams" or other noteworthy incidents with that nuclear plant.

@@ChrisR-xs9wp SCRAM is usually part of the shutdown process so the plant probably had a lot of "scrams" also what do you mean by "near misses"

​@ChrisR-xs9wp I'm a nuclear electrician's mate in the U.S. Navy. Both naval and civilian reactors are designed with multiple layers of automatic protective features that trigger well before something could be considered a "near miss." Automatic scrams during reactor operation occur well before there is any risk of core damage. I would encourage you to better educate yourself on reactor physics and operations before commenting on a topic you have no understanding of.

@@TheWhoFan4 Ever ask yourself WHY nuclear plants have multiple layers of protective features? Do you think they put them there for entertainment? Those protective features are there because nuclear plants are inherently dangerous. About the dumbest thing you can do is take hundreds of kilograms of highly radioactive material and put it in a pressure cooker. But that's essentially what a thermal nuclear plant is. No matter what you do, all those complex, expensive features can fail. And when they do, it makes a massive fucking mess that can permanently pollute huge areas. We don't need the risk. And I don't need the lecture.

A professor?

I think that's Sam o' Nella

@@reahs4815 *Kirk Sorensen* ?

I miss Sam :(

Ah, professor sam, he was great.

Saaaaaaaame

should probably clarify you mean that your on the nuclear energy side before some guy thinks you're not

@@JustBizmuth I mean...it's pretty clear from the context.

Same

Same.

He's fighting for greed, one of the most powerful human emotions, given explicit power by capitalism.

Texas Rattlesnek commies have - amount of iq

@Texas Rattlesnek Stop being such a gestapo thug. Nukes are pushed because they are the best option for profits for the already wealthy.

@@markhackett2302 so would you rather have the wealthy profiting ruining the environment or profiting and ruining the environment a lot less pretty easy choice if you ask me

@@markhackett2302 Nuclear power in the long run is one of the lost cost effective methods of power generation and will only improve with time. As a socialist it is by far one of the best options we have currently and a state-controlled nuclear energy system would work wonders.

No radiation does not escape the water. Make sure you are actually saying facts than what you want to be true

Ikr, it is very surprising the mass ignorance of the benefits of nuclear energy.

Is that another Nuke I see?

@@southerncyan4098 Not really. People in general are confused, misguided, ignorant, and fear what they don't understand. Stupidity and willing ignorance are the true plagues of humanity

@@IkeDDeluxe It is indeed. I imagine there are many of us tuning in to this video, and probably many of Kyle's videos. This channel is made for us.

Add yet another nuke here 😂

Then you're RIGHT about nuclear power!

ME TOO!

Yeah I feel like titles that automatically think they know your stance have a special spot in hell reserved

@@RageQuitRQ well the thing is the numbers don't lie and >1:2 people think that its bad he is speaking to the masses not the minority. Surely you understand such caveats and are being facetious.

@@Handles_Are_Bad.Phuk-them-off you're right about the special place in hell remark being for funnies but it is actually a small pet peeve of mine there's no really playing down the fact that he was doing it to get people to click but it's very widely accepted now as a thing that's normal i guess

@UCQ7XDwlPJ68u2WfEeAbh6mw yeah but the problem is corruption, oligarchs, coal mine and coal power plant owner, rule Indonesia. When government made big project, mark-up and corruption always happened and the quality of the project is bad, stalled or even abandoned before it finish. That's why people afraid nuke meltdown like Fukushima might happen cause Ring of Fire crossing our country. But we have 40% world geothermal potential and we used less than 9% of them. Wind and sun potential also pretty high in rural region.

@@chimergo6501 (edit: this was originally in Indonesian, but I translated it to English on Chimergo's suggestion) Hi. Due to Indonesia's size, although Indonesia is within the Ring of Fire, there are still places that are classified as low risk zones. That's why NPP proposals tend to focus on certain provinces. Because those provinces are the low risk zones. Besides, we don't plan on using outdated NPP designs like Fukushima Daiichi's which were designed in the '60s and built in the '70s. We'll use modern designs. Geothermal will still be used as best as we can, but for Indonesia we need to use a mix of new and renewable energies appropriate for our situation. Otherwise, well, our coal usage will be super huge.

@@tonychen76 Can we use English so foreigners understand our comment or at least the essence of it 😅 Yeah you were right and i'm fully aware with that. And i heard that if Indonesia want to build nuke plant, Borneo is the most suitable place for it or maybe floating nuke plant. And i heard that Thorcon proposed for floating thorium molten salt reactor. And they'll build it for Bangka Belitung, Borneo and Sumatera.

True. But nuclear is not an option...

@@eagle1de227 Oh, why not?

But compared to planes, it's not so conclusive based on statistics that it's the safest anyway (nuclear power)

​@@igvc1876 Thats not true Even at both 3 mile island And fukashina Not a single person died

@garyslayton8340 but each one had the potential to be much worse. And deaths isn't the only measure of danger. Adding chernobyl to this you get quite a big number relative to the number of reactors that have been in operation

@@igvc1876 They had the potentional too be But good training and proper saftey prociders ment that they wernt There are 412 reactors currently in the world Out of the 4 major disators Only 1 resulted in quantifiable death Now a few minor reacters have resuleted in death (Notably the US SL1 reactor) But few have caused any mojor issues The only severe disater of cherynoble Was caused by poor reactor design Extremely poor matineince And lack of training

@@garyslayton8340 But that's the thing - human factors, such as poor training, misuse, terrorism are all factors just like the actual technology is - a large % of aircraft crashes are caused by human factors, except here the impact is far more global from each disaster. My point is that statistically, we can't claim it's as safe as airplanes because the scale of the numbers is so different. 4 out of 412 is very high, especially most importantly considering that 412 is a very small number by itself - 4/412 may seem like a small number, but the variance of that % is huge since the sample size is so small. That's my point about this NOT being the same like comparing airplane safety where the sample size is orders of magnitudes higher, and thus certainty about safety rate is much higher. That's like the claim often made that the Russian IL-86 is the safest airliner in the world since it had 0 crashes, and thus a 0% disaster rate, compared to a higher % of say a 767. But that's almost certainly not true - simply because the sample sizes are so different

As usual it doesn't have anything to say about the technical labor requirements, geographic no go zones, geopolitcal no go zones, or the fact that even basic storage hasn't been done right even though it's easy bc we're an incompetent species.

Also it justify why Kyle is storing tons and tons of nuclear material for not-a-weapon in the Facility

@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ There has always been resistance to adopting new technologies. People whom are content with creating problems from solutions, inevitably these people lose out and progress begins again. It only takes time.

@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ Teaching about how nuclear energy works is tough. People understand burning stuff by instinct so it's very easy to accept burning a lot of coal to get energy out. Making people understand nuclear energy is a lot more complicated

Wide spread nuclear power will never happen until we have a plan that the majority agrees to for containment or disposal of the nuclear waste.. Because no one wants that crap sitting in "their backyard" so to speak =(

wait independent from whom?

@@pvic6959 he used to be host for bechause science and maybe nerdist if i recall correctly

@@ALLNevada oh I know about because science (thats where I found him). I didnt know he was "dependent" on anything though

@@pvic6959 if i recall correctly they did not give him freedom to make content as he would have liked to. Maybe some other stuff too.

@@pvic6959 he used to mainly make these kinds of videos on “Because Science”, at least as far as I know, but now that he doesn’t seem to work there anymore he’s able to do whatever he wants here which is cool

Even the Fukushima accident could’ve been prevented. The backup generators that were used to do something with the control rods probably hadn’t been up to code and were also located underneath the complex making it more susceptible to flooding.

@@pewpew3377 An excellent point

@@johnmcconnell7052 they also never actually melted down..fukashima was the closest to a meltdown of one reactor. Chernobyl is a metldown but isn't. 3 mile island wasn't a meltdown either or well it's a partial meltdown similar to fukashima. These days as well thorium is used instead of uranium for reactors. Thorium is also insane in its energy density and output while being much safer than uranium and near impossible to meltdown as well. It's nuclear waste is still similar in output being around 2-3% which is very low. There's been some strides with nuclear fusion but that'll be another 20 years haha more like probably 30-40 years.

@@yulfine1688 AFAIK, didn't one of the Fukushima cores melt through the first reactor wall?

And even with them very rarely breaking down, the fact is that the deaths from nuclear power is way less than fossil fuels per capita

You resumed most arguments against Nuclear Fission power in a beautiful way

I mean that is an air tight argument.

Leftists hate nuclear energy. Cheap abundant energy will destroy their narrative and agenda to control society via energy.

@@ywsx6489 Its not leftist. Its the uneducated. Political view doesnt really matter in this, just that people are still unaware of the benefits of nuclear.

@@wongzehang2506 ask yourself why people are uneducated about nuclear ? Why do people think a meltdown results in a nuclear explosion? Why people think China syndrome is still a risk (when chernobyl core hasn’t come even close to water table after all this time) The answer is two fold 1.) massive disinformation campaign in 60s and 70s led by Ralph Nader that discounted experts by claiming they were lying because they worked for the power companies 2.) Hollywood and media using the horrific scenarios as the fear sold movies and news reports

Not only that, some of the most enthusiastic proponents of civilian nuclear have worked and lived on these vessels.

Problem is single incidents that cause a lot of deaths. Its active damage but very little compared to coals which is passively killing of many more people

@@barbonson_richards Not only that but the biggest nuclear disaster ever at Chernobyl happened because the reactors was poorly designed to save on costs, as long as short cuts not taken in building these reactors it is fine. France has been running problem free on mostly nuclear power for decades.

​@@barbonson_richardsa chemical plant in bophal India killed over 3,800 and unprecedented numbers of affected peoples, a nuclear accident in Fukushima Japan however, there were no deaths.

Glad for support of nuclear power production; HOWEVER, IMHO, nuclear power engineers, and the generators they develop, need very much to get away from the expense and extreme complications of "Uranium" powered generators with the accompanying expense to build and operate and to deal with the massive long-lived wastes associated with Uranium!! Previous operating Thorium reactors and generators have been ignored in favor of Uranium!! Thorium is FAR less expensive, as a fuel, as a source of power, without the massive waste problems, is easier to build, to operate as a generator, and Thorium cannot be made to produce bomb-making materials!! NOW IS THE TIME TO POUR FUNDING INTO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF Thorium GENERATOR TECHNOLOGIES!!

I havent watched simpsons for years, but wasnt there literally an episode that ended in homer causing a meltdown and literally the whole town dying?

@@thephantom2man doesn’t sound familiar but it’s possible 🤷‍♂️

@@thephantom2man That sounds like a Treehouse of Horror episode.

@@thephantom2man it

@@darkbeetlebot it was

When I was a kid, I was so glad and proud that New Zealand refused US nuclear submarines and warships anywhere near our beautiful country.

Heres hoping you can.

visit zwentendorf in austria! you can do that there

Done it. Not as cool as you think it is with other people staring at you

If you are an engineering student at NC State, you get to tour the little reactor they have there, basically a blue light under 20 feet of water.

Grammar and punctuation definitely weren't your goal, that much I can tell.

The effects of nuclear disaster are more apparent and seen more quickly, where as the Effect of fossil fuels goes relatively unnoticed, truly a silent killer. I am absolutely for Nuclear power, we should be using a lot more of it.

@@R0GU351GN4L every physicist, biologist, and chemist teachers/prof I've had, always told me(the class) that nuclear energy is the safest/most efficient energy we can use.

Its smelly hippies blocking nuclear power.

pathetic toothless blaming "hippies" you must be eighty years old and have wasted your ignorant life. Wake up to the REAL world.

@@deevnn he's not that far off, every time I ask someone with a liberal view point what kind of power should replace fossil fuels they always go with wind or solar, 2 of the most inefficient ways of producing energy, when I suggest nuclear power they always spew the same old line of "bUt WhAT AbOUt tHE NuCLEaR WaSTE!?!"

Oof

And the French pay an average of 18 cents per kWh while we Germans pay 30... Fuck our politicians... Truly fuck them.

The brilliance of Nuclear Power is that it is pollutant free, the smoke coming out of the stacks is just steam. Also, while we use this for nuclear fission, this will eventually allow us to master nuclear fusion which is way more efficient as it releases more energy and uses the most abundant element in the world, hydrogen.

@@PheonixRising2988 Meanwhile our so-called green party is against nuclear power full stop. They even specified that they include both fission and fusion. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that view.

@@mephistovonfaust Meanwhile here in quebec we pay 7 cents per kWh. Hydro is awesome :D but if you dont have the right environment for it, as most dont, nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient way to go about it.

Pro nuclear won't change reality. Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

GBM is spontaneous most of the time 😢

And it's because of heroes like your father that we can make it safer for people in the industry every day.

Sorry about your father. That is very sad. 😢

only because you preach it doesn't make it true. Maybe they also understand it just value some things different than you or not on.y understand nuclear but also renewable energies.

@@paullinden6090 Like it was stated in the video nuclear alongside renewable energies could literally power the entire world and it wouldn't be a massive undertaking, furthermore modular reactors could be used to more easily power small and remote regions where renewable power would require a lot of infrastructure to establish.

@@paullinden6090 nuclear and renewable energy aren’t mutually exclusive. They have very good synergy as there’s no competition for energy sources, unlike fossil fuels and renewable that have bad synergy because companies want to sell fossil fuel so badly and hate both nuclear and renewable energy.

I fear things i understand and i understand people that will build nucelar power plant in my country, and they are not trustworthy at all. You know, that kind of people called mafia.

Just show them NASA's aerosol maps and explain how the purple/green toxic cloud going from China to California is burning coal. 80% of power in China is still from coal.

I have been praising Nuclear for years, happy to see this video

You’re not too observant if you don’t realize that most people think nuclear power plants are incredibly dangerous. It probably has to do with the media overblowing isolated incidents of destruction related to those scary “nukular” silos becuase it gets viewers and makes them money. Same reason why they loved the nuclear dumpster fire that was Trump. The moral of the story? We should nuke the big media companies!

Ikr, most people I know are fine with nuclear even if they aren't ardent supporters. (Mostly because 60% of the power in my province comes from nuclear)

@@trippmoore Of course, it could be the RWNJ media trying to downplay the problems and shift them off onto "eco terrorists" and "government interference".

agreed. however the biggest polluter right now is the third world countries. if we can find a way to help them switch from coal or oil for power to nuclear or even renewable energy. that would be great.

@@fadlinugraha347 more nuclear in third wordl countries....what a security nightmare...... but renewable would be nice.

@@fadlinugraha347 the only problem is you are doing the opposite

@@fadlinugraha347 the us wants to put their military to work put the army corps of engineers on building an African power grid and a highway system. If we wanna get to space as a species we need to try and have everything here to at least the bare minimums

agreed, i would say lung cancer is a less painful way to die than radiation poisoning..

As an experienced nuclear engineer and worker do you think we should replace 100% of fossil fuel power stations with nuclear? What do you think are the biggest obstacles or disadvantages to going full nuclear? From the little research I've done so far I can't understand why nuclear isn't more prevalent or pushed for by governments or big corporations, the benefits seem to greatly outweigh any disadvantages but I figure there must be disadvantages that aren't mentioned by pro nuclear groups. I want to get a full understanding of both sides of the argument and I figure someone with 35 years experience in the industry would have a pretty broad understanding of the real situation.

@@some_doofus I'm not involved in the energy industry at all, just an interested citizen. From the extensive research I've done, it comes down to public perception and lobby groups from big oil and gas companies that want to make literal truckloads of money. They are willing to spend literally billions of dollars on lobbying governments - and do, every year - because by doing so they make trillions of dollars in profits selling fossil fuels and fossil fuel technologies around the world. Solar and wind power became more cost-effective than nuclear power at producing energy about 20 years ago. The only reason I've been able to find as to why we haven't changed is because of the trillions of dollars the big oil and coal companies would stand to lose if that happened. There's also the fact that most people really don't do much research into topics like this and simply believe all the stories and hearsay they hear about Fukushima and Chernobyl and nuclear waste products and inflate the impact of nuclear power beyond all reasonable proportions. My parents do exactly that.

oh yes but all we need to do is just to cut down like 10,000 trees and clear all the rocks away, and then it would be PERFECT for energy gathering... hey sun, hey, can i have some wind over here. oh, i just ruined the environment for nothing, but at least Germany likes me.

@@some_doofus I don't believe we should go to 100% nuke. The most stable grid has diversity. The diversity will help make up for time when plants are shutdown for changing out of fuel every 18 to 24 months. 'This should be a source that can handle baseload which fossil is proven at doing. The resulting carbon will be minimal by comparison to today. We would also need to start reprocessing the fuel. This would greatly reduce the amount of waste that will need to be stored. That reprocessed waste will be down to the radioactive levels of the uranium that was pulled out of the ground after 1000 years. The reason nuclear power hasn't been more widespread is political and economic. There is a lot of fear of unknown and the industry has not done a very good job of putting out the statistics that were in this video. The newest generation of plants should be cheaper to build than the previous, so there is hope in that regard.

@@scottconn62 Fearmongering "climate activists" pushing for solar and wind while dismissing the safest and least polluting method of energy because it's actually a solution rather then a platform to push a political agenda

crazy how this comment made me care more about nuclear energy than any data I've read. Your dad knows what's up deep inside him.

@Mr. Meeseekes I hope this is satirical and it just flew right over my head because I’m tired.

@Mr. Meeseekes hope that's a joke }:-(

Like he said, airplane and cars and other vehicles crash and you lose your.. like family. But no one stops using theese

@Mr. Meeseekes ok what do you suggest exactly nuclear has so many advantages that can be very obviously noted from this guys video and from actual nuclear physicist

This is new to me. I think nuclear waste is the biggest problem about nuclear energy, so is this already possible or still just a theory?

@@paladinplayer About a dozen different low pressure molten salt reactor designs are currently being researched and deployed across the world, some of which can indeed use nuclear waste as fuel. We're well past the theoretical phase but the buildout is slow, in part due to the incredibly strict regulatory blocks for any nuclear reactor as you might imagine, and in part due to a general lack of political will... perhaps because unlike the older reactor designs, the thorium used in molten salt reactors isn't just safer but it also can't be exploited for nuclear weapons.

From what I understand, high pressure reactors stuck around for so long without developing MSRs due primarily to the fact that you can't make weapons from the output of an MSR. Even when they were first developed and a prototype was built, they proved to be a superior design for a reactor by far, but also at the time everyone was all about building bigger and bigger bombs.

Holy shit

i like the information you guys give me here. if it is true. i just wonder why ppl dont talk about it.. so either it has a big downside to it or (wouldnt surprise me) there are ppl with influence who wouldnt make as much money anymore or lose money. but if you can use nuclear waste to make even more energy thats just fcking awesome. it has been a problem for so long and one of the biggest arguments against nuclear power what to do with the waste. these kind of information should be talked about from all sides. and not nonsense like how many deaths we get from what energy source -.-

You can find this information easily on the internet

Agreed, I think many Video Essayists could benefit from this

@Muzikgod You could just research his claims and find the evidence that way. The problem with flat Earthers is more of a personal problem than evidence issue. Some believe the Bible by heart so that’s the first issue, others are narcissists who believe they’re smarter than everyone else because they did their “research” and don’t believe every word their government feeds them like sheep and others believe the Earth is a special celestial body that’s different to every other planet. But I do agree he should’ve included links just to make research easier

@Muzikgod you're not too bright are you?

Just simply look these up and you’ll find them

This is the part I'm most unclear about.

I was wondering about that too. I agree with the points made in the video. But the fact that this was funded by the United States Department of Energy, and didn't mention waste disposal, or Three Mile Island is not lost on me. Concerns about nuclear energy were not addressed, so much as they were dismissed. I get that this is a commercial, and they're trying to accentuate the positive. But multiple mentions of Chernobyl and Fukushima with no discussion of more local disasters makes it sound like all the "bad" nuclear energy is far away. Also, I know that it's sort of a tangential issue, but another concern that goes hand in hand with nuclear power, is nuclear weapons. At a time where the US and Russia are ignoring parts of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Iran deal hasn't been repaired, and North Korea is still rattling their sabre at every chance they get, it is not a trivial concern. For what does it benefit mankind that they gain abundant clean energy, but live under constant threat of annihilation?

@@MrKyltpzyxm Step one. Dig hole. Step two. Fill with concrete. Oh man I'm glad I was able to figure out the obvious answer to a simple question. But seriously, as I asked someone else, do you give a damn about wind and solar waste, which is of exponentially higher volume and contains toxic materials that can't be recycled and doesn't naturally decay? If you don't fear those things, just stop and consider your biases.

@@shinigamiwolfen Ok. So dig a bigger hole and toss the old turbine blades in there. Then dig another hole and toss the old solar panels in that one. Then dig another hole, and chuck all the spent storage batteries in that one. No power source is perfect. But wind solar and nuclear are much better than fossil fuels. I was trying to express my feeling that this was a commercial, more than a "Kyle Explains." Kinda one sided. A persuasive presentation. Which, again, I understand has its purpose. But I would have liked a more comprehensive discussion. If the solutions for the challenges that come with nuclear energy are so simple and straightforward, then it would be nice to have them presented here with the same informative and entertaining style that I've come to enjoy from our resident (ex)supervillain. I noticed that the downsides weren't mentioned at all, and that it was sponsored by USDoE. So the bias of the video is clear. And, again, again, that's fine. I'd rather have the bias stated up front than attempt to conceal it. And nothing in the video, as far as I can tell, is false, or even misleading. Just call me greedy, I wanted more.

@@MrKyltpzyxm Yeah, it definitely would've been nice if he went over it because most of the time when I see people opposing nuclear power, they don't actually understand how nuclear waste disposal works and just assume that it says buried in the ground forever.

Imagine if planes never got developed because of the first plane crashes when it was just getting started. That’s nuclear power in my eyes

Thats actually the case.

Man's never seen any of the Sharknado movies I guess.

Let me tell you of a shark called Chernobyl and an exclusion zone that should´ve been 200 km instead of 30.

Let me tell you of a city called Chernobyl, which had a reactor using 30 year old technology that hadn't had a safety update since its inception, crewed by men who had very little idea what they were dealing with.

No

People are incredibly bad at telling that they are lied to. Just think were is the most money at and then think who wants to influence you. Yep usually following the money leads you right back and fossil fuel has a gigaton of money and is incredibly scared to lose out. They lobby as hard as they can are the major reason why nuclear has fallen out of favor. It is called propaganda and it works very very well...

I stopped watching matpat a while ago for that reason. How’s he doing how?

@@ObsidianMadness could you tell me more about it please?

@@ObsidianMadness he has a new channel called Food Theory

@@ObsidianMadness He just got over his Diet Coke addiction

@@nomasan nope, he just got a new one

3 million people a year die from complications caused by outdoor air pollution from fossil fuels and no one talks about it

@@rustyshacklford245 we are really only good at recognizing direct causality. We see nuke plant go boom and trees die and we get it, but if the stuff directly coming out of the coal plants are not causing people to choke and die, we are like 'cool, it disappears'. This is why we are having such a hard time with climate change, too many factors causing it and the effects are very subtle and over a long period of time.

Who isnt talking about BP? In Louisiana thats all people talked about for years. Many of our citizens were directly affected. So idk how you think it isnt or wasnt talked about

@@MrAsullivan12 Australian here, I only heard about the BP oil spill in the last few years, and it's very rarely talked about here. Chernobyl and Fukushima are talked about much more often despite being much less damaging.

@@MrAsullivan12 never heard about it here in germany

@Yard Sale Dale stfu man

Hell Yeah.

It's a completely one sided video. It was created to sell a product not to educate. It's something an MBA could be proud of, but an engineer or scientist shouldn't. Yes, many of the safety concerns are overblown. But nuclear energy isn't failing because of NIMBY. It is failing because current designs are hopelessly complicated and prohibitively expensive. New nuclear power plants, like most megaprojects, are routinely over budget and behind schedule. That is, if they are completed at all. Nuclear energy, as it exists now, simply does not scale enough to act as a solution to climate change. Smaller modular reactors will certainly have their niche uses. They _might_ be a significant fraction of the power mix at some point, but they probably won't. Solar is just dirt cheap and it will probably make investing into any other forms of energy generation unnecessary. Especially after the biggest consumers change their demand patterns to take advantage of cheap prices during daytime, rather than expecting constant pricing.

He should’ve done a video on the Drumpf administration

@@effortless35 you arent necessarily wrong, but I think its important to consider how investing in nuclear power might negate many of those concerns. Would there be any comparison at all if we spent a few years investing into nuclear the same way we invest into fossil fuels? Technology gets better over time but we have to invest in it first, and where we’ve hit the upper limits of fossil fuels we might just be scratching the surface of nuclear. Either way diversity in power is a goos thing, I’m not saying we shouldnt also invest in solar etc

Unfortunately the byproduct of WW2 is that Germany is incredibly hypersensitive now and feels the need to compensate by being as liberal and as green as possible. And I'm saying this all the while being an overall fan of German culture. We legitimately cut off their balls, ngl.

@@fructosecornsyrup5759 WW2 is over, but the adverse effects still are well and alive today, in some countries more than in others - in Germany certainly the most. I'm German, and wearing my Bundeswehr parka and having short hair is enough for people to regularly assume I am some sort of right-wing extremist, it's insane. So insane in fact, that until very recently, rampant anti-semitism held and expressed was usually tolerated without repercussions beyond an awkward silence, if the bigot wasn't or didn't look German. At least now, that's mildly frowned upon. Hell, even Communism is widely accepted, because back then the Commies fought against the Nazis, so they can't be that bad, right? Honestly, being a sensible German in Germany is enough to drive you to drink.

As a German, I wish it was true, but we have strong and thriving populations of idiots in this country. Many of our politicians across the political spectrum are idiots or idiot-handlers. Every country has idiots but each country has different strategies to keep them in check, make more useful than harmful. We're not doing a good job right now.

and Fukushima since its more recent...

@@btogkas1 yeah, but Chernobyl is the big one y'know, maybe also Hiroshima though, not because it was a nuclear power plant but because some people still think a reactor is a bomb

Well yeah let’s be real the people that own these nuclear power plants don’t care about human cost and want to maximise profits as much as they can including cutting corners

@@wandiledlamini2591 you are wrong on many levels, please never move into a position of power

@@wandiledlamini2591 oh please the cost of an accident like Chernobyl is just too much to pay for rather then making things safer, pls learn more next time before dipping your head in conspiracies

Go where?

@@UnlimitedGreenWorks To me house

@@davisdf3064 seems legit

Go BOOOOM!

Yea... humans need a more efficient heat conversion method.

Well, since you are in the industry. One of the things I did not hear him mention is that we still have no way of disposing of the radioactive waste and all we can do as of this moment is to just bury them in concrete shelters for the next 100,000 years before it is safe for anyone to be around them. That is the only fear of nuclear energy that I have. That eventually will will run out of room to store it or there is a containment failure in just one of the containers and it ends up in the ground water.

@@Hec2240 He talks briefly about it in the "credits"

@@Hec2240 I'm my mind, that is actually the biggest draw back of nuclear. There are various methods of storage utilized, and a lot of it is in dry cask storage on site. Energy companies, and by extension us, were paying for a geologically stable warehousing solution at Yucca Mountain for years, but a NIMBY mentality prevailed, stonewalling it. Our (US) lack of widespread recycling that still has a greatly reduced waste element is also silly to me. It would still be a band aid to the problem, but any bit helps. I see it as something that needs to be solved, but we should not write the nuclear power option off because it is not 100% ideal. A conversion of all fossil to nuclear power (even with the waste and accidents) would reduce population harm to near 0 compared to current levels.

@@Hec2240 My best justification is that Nucleur still generates significantly less waste overall. So it's a lot easier to contend with than the mountains of waste generated by alternatives.

@@Hec2240 amd that's EXACTLY why nuclear power has been abandoned. It's a terrible way to create power in regards to the safety and well being of the planet.. And it does way to much damage for WAY to long.

😂burn....

@@joshgrace3018 eh more like a boil than a burn

@@connormcgrath5800 sick boil, my guy

Safest, not cleanest - a hydro-electric plant made with the same generators and concrete would be cleaner over time. The big solar focusing plants (like the Ivanpah plant in California/Nevada), might also be cleaner. I know that photovoltaics don't have enough lifespan to compete, and I don't know enough about the lifespan of a wind generator to honestly compare them. If they have enough lifespan, "zero waste" techs will beat nuclear on being clean the 1st time the nuclear reactor replaces a gram of spent fuel. Nuclear IS safer, cheaper (per KwH over entire lifespan), and not location dependant. The frustrating part is that the technology can't advance because reactor R&D has been nearly completely scuttled, which leaves us with ancient designs that were made to create weapons material and produced electricity as a side effect instead of the cleanest, safest, most efficient reactors we *could* be making.

Well it's easier to write a story of how dangerous it is than to actually tell people about how it works.

​@@muninrob Solar creates millions of tons more waste, contributes to deforestation and destroys ecosystems. The fuel may be cleaner than nuclear but solar is far from clean. You talk about zero waste, nuclear will accomplish that long before solar. Wind is just a joke (killing birds and "impossible" to recycle). No one wants hydro in their back yard though. When it breaks you're gone.

@@muninrob Up to what point cleanest? Or "greener"? Hydroelectric plants have a pretty big impact on the ecosystem, and solar focusing plants/solar fields and wind turbines take lots of space that's also dangerous for animals that fly.

It is really frustrating, every country should be building more nuclear power plants and instead they have been dismantling them, the fear of nuclear is really making things way way worse for climate change

Supposedly the waste can get scrubbed and reused, but the process Is too energy intensive right now

Yeah, great video but big bummer that there was little to none talk about them. no: how much waste is produced and new ways to deal with that...

There are ways to handle the waste but they arnt profitable so bot used. There should be stricter laws regarding this I think

Thorium creates little to no waste and the half life is 300 years not over 10000

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a good video. It talks a lot about how nuclear energy is safe and better for the environment, but it completely ignores the fact that it does have it's impact. "Nuclear waste is trivial to deal with" sure, that's why we haven't figured out what to do with it in 50+ years.... (And there are other arguments that aren't great either, like linking Germany shutting down nuclear energy to more death because of coal, when in reality Germany is going renewable and also shutting down power production with coal)

YEAAAAHHHH GO NUCLEARRRRRRRR

Thought for a second he might give us a "slow down" on nuclear. Nah, just that nuclear is everything I've read and hoped it could do.

Yup. And nuclear arms as they are arms and as such covered by the 2nd. No exemptions for former fellons, the "mentaly ill" or anything, either. When they had muskets, the citicenry needed canons and battleships. Now that they have fighterjets and tanks...

@@rtg5881 did I just read someone make the argument that private citizens, or should I say citicens, need access to nuclear weapons, the power to literally reduce cities to ruble?

@@josephfishman9825 Yeah. If you are smart enough to buiild nukes you are also smart enough not to use them and not to sell them to someone that has any chance of not being smart enough not to use them. MAD worked pretty well between nations so far, didnt it?

I hope he's alright if not I'm sorry that poor guy 😞 but the guys in the control room 👺 I tried to warn them about pulling back up the darned control rods once they are inserted they can't be raised for 48hours those dunderheads in the control room pulled the control rods up anyway then everything went insanely haywire when they lowered the control rods the next thing I noticed was an powersurge then two explosions they both hurt a lot the molten fuel burned through my lower biological shield while I was still alive it took 9-10 days

that's because a lot of people in the west are looking for some kind of crusade to fight or moral high ground to stand on, but these same people are also too vapid to try and go against the sentiment of a majority or to think about the causes themselves. This leads to the worst aspects of publication, but without free information, more people would fall into this trap.

@@henrypaleveda7760 "Yeah instead of this substance Cocain let's try this Crack, wayyyy more bang for your buck"

That's actually an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

@@XUndergroundRap that wasn't the point I was making, it was one part criticism of people's tendency to follow what everyone else says, another part comment on media (in passing) and the rest was me being autistic, but the actual point is already made in the video so I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion, apart from lower carbon footprint and rate of storage of waste being less harmful than mining for material for batteries (and battery waste management).

a better waste storage system would be using thorium instead of uranium to generate the power, because the waste thorium generates is not dangerous

@@winstonoverwatch thorium generates more power, safer and also difficult to weaponize and mining thorium isnt life threatening for miners, thorium is op

you can just recycle the waste as its still uranium fuel but not bothered to be put back into the reactor

The problem of nuclear waste is a political problem. The truth is that once nuclear fuel is spent it is usually processed with silica (sand), and turn into glass (vitrified). In this state it’s very stable and presents very little danger. However, if the desire is to actually be rid of the waste permanently, it would be fairly easy to transport the vitrified waste to ships, which would then take it out to the deep oceans, above subduction zones, dump the already contained waste overboard, and let it sink to the bottom where it’ll be subsumed back into the earth’s mantel.

@@kingofwarfare1730 the waste product of using U235 is U238. Uranium is only useful as a power source in its U235 form, and very little of it is used. A rod is considered spent when somewhere less than 1% of the U235 is used. The rest, mostly U238, is the waste product. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (you'll see abbreviated LFTR) suffer no such issues as the U235 reactors. A runaway reaction (like a core meltdown in a U235 reactor) in a LFTR is *almost* physically impossible.

im on board, the only issue is that governments need to get on board, without governments it is going to be incredibly difficult to implement lots of nuclear

We did give it a chance. Many other countries as well. Nuclear power is still heavily used outside the usa.

@@nickscurvy8635 Germany seems to be the only one seeking to denuclearize their power grid even while relying heavily on neighbors that have kept theirs, such as France. Basically, they want it to stay a domestic issue while fully knowing that they can rely on others nuclear power plants.

It's better to not give people a chance to give nuclear power a chance. Just implement nuclear power and let the tree-huggers panic until they go extinct.

@@deusexaethera I don't think it's the tree hugers, but stupid tree hugers! Because, I'm very much an environmentalist and all for nuclear with safer reactors! Even after learning about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, as well as Fukushima (which happened after I became an adult!). I blame their designs not their power source!

Security will probably end up being one of the big limiters of small reactors like that, especially mobile ones. But, I could certainly imagine a military one. The kind of thing that gets used for humanitarian aide while no major conflicts are going on, like a hospital ship. (Which could actually be a decent way to keep people from messing with it).

But I think the power is still gonna be charged at some ridiculous price tho

@Jack Luck Soviets/Russians powered some small remote area city with the parked nuclear sub in a harbor, they also recently developed floating power plants, with Russian safety levels who would argue about floating nuclear power???

Yes just ship it to Syria of Afghanistan they'll have plenty of applications for it...

Yeah, you are wrong yo, the video title said it

Same boat. I was thinking... does it come short. Nah, it rocks the shit out of everything else we currently know about power development clean or otherwise.

Considering the Aus gov is run by dinosaurs your think they would be anti fossil fuels (and yes I know now that it's not dinosaur fossils but since our gov doesn't care about facts it's appropriate)

You'd think that in a place with ranked choice voting, you'd have better politicians. Are y'all just really insistent on voting in terrible politicians, or is there something else preventing you from getting in good politicians?

If we keep using coal for power, what is Santa going to give naughty children, a nasty note? Is it time to get Krampus involved? Christmas joke aside, nuclear power is much cleaner, and reliable until it fails spectacularly.

Rupert Murdoch owning 70% of all print media in Australia is why we keep voting in shit politicians

Correction: To any corrupt government

I have a dime hidden in my phone case because it helps me pick up girls by making the jukebox play rock n roll which I deeply appreciate the novelty in being able to do. Unfortunately in Australia we have Bluetooth and spotify. ItAll CostsMoney is a funny name.

@@austinlockwood8818 images of cooling towers releasing water vapor out the top XD

@@MrPruske Lol I didn't mean to make that comment a reply

@@austinlockwood8818 what diff

@@benedwards5323 Idk it didn't make sense as a reply to this comment. It was meant to be a reply to the part where he says 1 kilo of carbon could be used to charge your vape pen and immediately followed by saying 25 million joules of chemical energy (or maybe he was using Juuls as a unit of energy lol)

Probably because fossil fuels kills people indirectly, and far away from the source. Radiation gets a bad rep because it kills directly, and relatively quickly compared to fossil fuel emissions. "Oh Greg died? Lung cancer? Eh probably his time was up anyway, and all those smokes he took" "Oh Steve died? NUCLEAR ACCIDENT??!? SHUT IT DOWN!1! SHUT IT ALL DOWN NOW NUCLEAR BAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!1!!!1!

Hydro: killed over a million in one go (banquio) and everyone's still happy to use it

@@gohunt001-5 funny you should mention smoking..... Did you know there's pololnium in cigarette smoke and the single largest radiation exposure group of any individuals are cgarette smokers?

@Luise Herpich There no recorded deaths attributed to the radiation from nuclear storage as of yet. Coal waste itself is also radioactive and is just buried in a hole or even used in building materials! There are a multitude of incidents of such waste piles contaminating surrounding water and giving people cancer.

I would say that one consideration is because a nuclear accident has side effects that last thousands of years whereas a coal accident can be recovered, relatively speaking, immediately.

I've read that more radiation actually comes from coal plants than from nuclear power. This is because coal from the ground traps some of that natural radiation, and the coal plants make no attempt to filter it out, while nuclear power plants only release water vapor.

@@headgames3115 that's honestly impressive and mildly intimidating to think about radioactive smoke being real but from the wrong fuel source.

@@xero1134 Yep. And as I type this, I am only a few miles away from a coal plant...

@@headgames3115 irradiated! Soak up all that potential radiation! But in all honesty it's got to suck living near a coal plant

People are not educated on these sorts of systems. Hard to explain what a cooling tower does and how it works I had to explain how a cooling tower worked to a co-worker the other day, be has been doing maintenance to it for decades and didn't know the actual operation (air conditioning system).

Nuclear waste is still exist

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 And it's completely safe if stored properly.

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 better than greenhouse gases

@@anironfarm6056 pick your poison I suppose

Nuclear waste isn’t even a poison when it’s stored properly bro

I just don't see why someone would advocate Nuclear over Solar. It's easily half the cost of nuclear and solar energy sites can be made within a year, whereas there has only been a single nuclear site opened in the last 30 years, and every single one of the sites under construction are over budget and taking longer to complete than initially thought. I get that Kyle is comparing nuclear to coal, but that just doesn't make sense here. Coal is on it's way out. If we're talking about what we should be investing into in the future, it doesn't seem to makes sense to go Nuclear, unless you live in an area that doesn't get a lot of sun or wind.

@@oijnoijnoijnoijnoijn Solar has a whole host of issues Producing the actual panels produces a ton of pollution, its reliance on the sun makes it relatively unreliable, producing the capacitors to store the energy for when its actually needed is currently unfeasible. These issues somewhat apply to wind, and they have there own unique problems as well

because studying history ensures we dont repeat it. because of events like the Chernobyl Disaster, we know now that we absolutely need absolute professionals in those nuclear plants. professionals on the level of nobel prize winning brain surgeons. the most careful, decisive, diligent, hard working, the absolute fucking best people.

so if we want to put nuclear power into practice, we have to increase literacy and education and discipline and decrease ignorance about certain facts.

​@@orb4688 Thanks for your reply! Do you have sources that I could read? I'm coming from the perspective of someone who USED to work for a solar company. Assuming you had some kind of battery storage, the "unreliability"(cloudy days/Winter months) of the panels would basically be solved with good planning. How it worked in the business is that we'd install enough panels that the energy production averaged out over the course of a year to produce what was needed. We would use net-metering to "store" the excess energy on the grid and then later pull from it, but in this case that would just be solved through battery storage. Is that what you mean when you say "capacitors"? Is there not the possibility of producing enough batteries? Electric cars will soon start being recycled, couldn't old EV batteries be used to store power on a grid? So solve the storage problem, and you solve the reliability problem. Which only leaves your pollution point, and to that I'm not sure what you mean. Almost all of a panel can be recycled, and surely any emissions made in a panels construction would be offset over the course of it's 25 year lifespan(it actually could function for longer, but that's as long as it was warrantied at my old job) Again, I'm willing to read whatever you send my way. Thank you!

Those ones are the safest, btw. The ones at most colleges used for training are almost impossible to cause a big incident with, they're designed such that even in the worst case oopsie scenario possible, the reaction won't sustain itself and the core essentially SCRAMs itself by design.

that sounds awesome lol, tho if were in your position i would probably only think "oh damn"

A nuclear reactor in your college? That's extracurriculariffic!

If it's purdue, theres allegedly some student who stole the warning sign on the reactors room awhile back, fun trivia

M.I.T.? your college that is?

Uranium 235 is finite. There is about a 200 year supply on earth, if we increase the reactors by 200% we will run out in 50 years. Thorium could work tho.

@@brentvanleeuwen5253 fast breeder reactors maybe?

@@brentvanleeuwen5253 Yeah, Thorium. Literally a direct upgrade to Uranium.

@Waylen Edge Kyle's hair seem safe enough tbh

France got it right, so much of Europe is running or 3rd generation modern nuclear plants. The U.S. is so outdated...

This sounds weird to say, but the worst energy-related disaster is probably dam failures in China. Killed way more people than Chernobyl did.

I agree, even though nuclear energy still makes me nervous. Coal, natural gas and oil definitely need to be phased out asap🌎 I would love to see more investment in solar, hydro and wind power as well!

Every other power source kills more people than nuclear power does. And The Power plant accidents that happened (chernobyl, etc) Are human errors, so it's not even the fault of the plant. Nowadays we have safety measures anyway

If I remember no one (or very small amount) died from Hukushima REACTOR (not from Earthquake and Tsunami)

It maybe safe to run but the waste will be a massive problem for the future. We just don't have a safe way to store the waste for the 100s of thousands year to come.

It's actually extremely limited and if we completely moved over to nuclear we would run out of uranium in 50 years

@@andrewa9064 Really, that's it? Is Uranium always going to be required?

@@longplaylegends more or less but, the concept remains the same. We'll be switching on dependency on non renewable energy

@@andrewa9064 and where did you get this value of 50 years? People thought we would run out of petroleum by 2000 in the 1950 but here we are.

The shortcoming are with humanity, not the power source. We are all idiots. Sure, there are a lot of exception humans out there, but, well... They're outnumbered significantly. Some one is gonna fk it up and a town is going to get deleted.

Soul yes but they have a super duper high tech shielding that keeps them safe and lets them look right into the core - water.

@@simonphoenix3789 water do be good for controlled nuclear fission

Penn State University has one too. Look up Breazeale Reactor vids on YT. Pretty cool.

So does McMaster University in Toronto

Its not MIT, all higher educational and research institute tends to have their own reactor. Even my Ohio university has one. Its really common for educational institute to have one so that they can train students who are pursuing degree on it

Not exactly. You still have to preform basic maintenance and monitoring the reactors systems . Which has nothing to do with screwing with the reactor. It's checking the output and making sure computer systems are working properly. Because remember Nuclear power is essentially using steam to turn a Turbine to produce power. Those are moving parts which wear out over time.

@@John2r1 When I say walk away safe I don't mean it will continue to run unsupervised, I mean that because of the way a Molten salt reactor works it can never go critical like traditional nuclear reactor does when it looses power or something else goes wrong.

@@SamsTopBarBees Now we just have to get them built. So we can attach 6ft and 6ft tall artificially for a Spartan can you just 6yaaaour reliance on fosil fuels for our electricity system which is the largest consumer of fosil fuels.

@@John2r1 RU-vid has a real problem with bots I see... wow

I would wait for a MSR or Thorium reactor to be built in the U.S. to our standards before claiming any advantages.. Terrapower is trying to build a MSR but things are not going so well

I actually heard a couple years ago they were figuring out how to repurpose spent reactor fuel to be new fuel any validity to that? That you know of, of course.. outside of making things like depleted uranium shells and what not

Ayy I used to live in the tri-cities area, Lived in all 3 cities at one point when I was younger!

This and talking contemporary reactor designs

He should also talk about coal tar and the radioactivity of coal ash just being ejected everywhere

Some 4th gen Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) designs (still in pre prototype form) can run from nuclear waste from old reactors. Another group of MSR designs run on Thorium and have about 98% LESS WASTE than todays traditional (high pressure water / solid fuel) reactors. MSRs run at virtually atmospheric pressure and are ‘walk away safe’, so they don’t need huge snd impossibly expensive containment vessels and billions of dollars of ‘active safety systems’, which by the way is why even traditional nuclear has an almost unbelievable safety record compared to fossil fuel based energy. ... China is leading the investment in MSRs based on the USA’s original proof of concept MSRE (molten salt reactor experiment) at Oak Ridge in the sixties.

What's your solution to the nuclear waste management problem? You know, the problem that we cause and our offspring have to deal with for millions of years.

Submarines, like birds, are fake

@@whatsgoingon71 read more into the nuclear waste. With new technology not only do we get less waste, we can reuse more of it...and with Thorium it is even radioactive for shorter times (30-100yrs). To put it into comparison: solar and wind require batteries, various parts are not recyclable and produce waste that is permanent. Yes, that is >forever

@@koffiegast yeah i keep hearing about the miracles of thorium for 30 years. Must be hitting the market any momeent now... oh, btw, nice iof you for criticising something that clearly happened in the video. you're going to call out Kyli Hill too? I know from my professional experience about the footprints of both nuclear and wind energy. If we are comparing time scales, things look bleak for nuclear as it is right now.

@@whatsgoingon71 Not coming after you, but I would love to know what your professional experience is and the science/ documentation behind your claims so I may also learn why the future for nuclear looks bleak.

I thought you guys would be killing it with geothermal.

@@y0uCantHandle in Rotorua maybe... :D

@@davidcallahan8710 I’ve been there. Steam literally leaking out the ground. Also didn’t need to wear deodorant whilst there.

@@y0uCantHandle Hah, strong smell of sulphur there alright. The whole town is like, "pork n beans for dinner again tonight?"

David you schould know why ...

yes

Green fission. Nailed it.

It isn't Nuclear its Green power known as STEAM POWER lets live a steam punklife (powered by U-235) The CLEANIST POWER in the World

Some have suggested calling it Thorium power because of the plants that can run on the waste of older reactors.

As a nuclear engineering student, we’re recommended to call it “Atomic energy” when talking to the public, which really isn’t much different, but even the little things help.

Scary because of general ignorance about the subject. Check statistics about casualties caused by nuclear compared to other energy producing systems.

@@vadinhopsc, how about you provide statistics to a conversation instead of demanding people just do it randomly wtf?

@@ryanbolson23 In case you didn't notice, Kyle himself talked about in this same video. You can watch it again. And he wasn't lying.... If you do not believe, its your burden to get more info, right? And I didn't demand anything. I just suggested.

@@vadinhopsc I’m on Kyle’s side. I watched the video. I saw the same thing you saw then. Then why are you trying to insinuate I’m ignorant and uninformed when I’m literally describing why we haven’t got to having nuclear as a more common source of power? My entire premise is the ignorant say they want clean energy but are scared of a completely viable alternative, and you come in here demanding I do better research. Do you not see how that doesn’t contribute to a conversation but instead hinders it?

@@vadinhopsc also it is not MY burden to prove YOUR point. You replied to me that there are statistics that exist, and instead of providing even an arbitrary number or link, you demand I google it. What? That’s the complete opposite of how this works. I’m more than willing to believe anything you say as long as YOU provide evidence. I’m not going to take your statement I didn’t ask for, and then research it myself without reason.

energy is not a scam. The best humanity can do is what we do. Information and methods are not filtered and withheld. NO sirry-bob. There's no conspiracy at all. Boiling water is the best that we have. a duuuuuhhhhh.

@@blaynestaleypro If you know of a better way and can prove it then share it with us smart guy.

@@egatnavda6786 and get Clintoned? Great idea.

@@egatnavda6786 it's already been proven. The fact you don't know show you don't know shit. You dont know what you dont know

@@blaynestaleypro ....are you a child.

My misgivings are less about nuclear power and more about the politicians who are likely to turn a blind eye to the necessary regulation of a privately owned nuclear energy industry. Isn't that what happened in Texas? State/local politicians deregulated to protect the wallets of energy producers who then under invested in common sense measures to protect the production and distribution systems. How much worse would that be with poorly regulated nuclear power plants? 😬😬

What about the waste

@@fdm2155 eek! Don't even remind me of that disaster. I'm still dreaming about snow ❄

I did a seventh grade project on the three mile island accident. Turns out, nuclear energy is the best energy ever! The steam out the top of the towers is just that, steam. It’s actually revolutionary

not me, I think nuclear power is suuper cool. People keep looking at Chernobyl but they forget how many people die in coal mines, how many coal plants have failed and killed people. This video just made me like nuclear power even more

Nuclear waste will be a problem for the next million years.

@Peter Shoemake I guess he didn't mean that just by mentioning nuclear waste he isn't supporting coal power plants. Coal is the worst option out of all of it. I thing we can agree to that. And yet nuclear waste is a topic many don't think or talk about. So we actually need to give it a thought how to make that save for a loong time. Same thing with the production of magnets and conducters etc, used in wind energy.

As entering space becomes more efficient, I think just blasting the waste into the sun is probably the best way to deal with it

@@woolaba thorium reactors can run on "spent" uranium from the current uranium reactors, lowering the length of time it would take for uranium to completely decay from something like dozens of thousands of years down to a couple hundred (still sounds long, but it's much, MUCH more manageable than whatever is going on today). and the best part is, thorium reactors, as their name suggests, run on thorium, which is far more abundant, lowering operating costs, generally safer (also remaining radioactive for relatively short periods of time compared to uranium today), and by design (which is significantly different to uranium reactors) practically cannot have a massive meltdown/explosion type of disaster happen. and there are some already built and being tested, meaning they should appear in use soon.

and one thing i forgot to mention, thorium can't be weaponized afterwards (or in general, i think). so, the big shot countries won't have fears over everyone having nuclear weapons if every country built their own reactors.