Abundant, Clean, and Safe

  Үзсэн тоо 2,922,574


15 өдрийн өмнө

If you truly want to save the planet from global warming, there’s one energy source that can do it. It’s not wind or solar. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either. So what is it? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, has the answer in this important video.
Facebook: 👉 prageru
Twitter: 👉 prageru
Instagram: 👉 prageru
SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a new video! 👉 www.prageru.com/join/
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit www.prageru.com/video/abundant-clean-and-safe
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
France gets 70% of its power from one carbon-free source. Sweden 40%. Switzerland 36%. The United States 20%.
For those who wish to create a world free of carbon emissions, France is clearly the role model.
That source of energy, by the way, is not solar or wind. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either.
It’s nuclear.
Nuclear energy is not only cleaner than all other forms of energy. It’s also cheaper to create, abundant and safe.
Yes, safe.
So, if the world is going to end in a few years because of global warming due to rising CO2 levels, why aren’t we going all out to produce this abundant, clean and safe form of energy? Why aren’t there dozens of nuclear power plants in development all over the world?
Well, we all know the answer, right? Nuclear energy is just too risky… too dangerous.
So, even though we’re told we’re facing an “existential crisis”-which means humans may cease to exist; even though we might all wither away in unbearable heat; or starve because of world-wide droughts; or drown in rising seas; or be killed in Mad Max-style riots...
Nuclear energy is off the table… because… it’s too darn risky.
I want to be sure I have this right. The goal is to save humanity…There’s a way to save humanity…And we won’t take it. Because we’re afraid, there might be a bad accident… or something.
Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn’t to me.
But maybe I’m not giving enough weight to the safety argument, so let’s take a closer look at that since no one, not even the most radical environmentalist, disputes that nuclear power produces massive amounts of energy cleanly and efficiently.
Safety, like everything else, is a matter of context. So, here’s some context. 1.4 million people die worldwide every year in traffic accidents, 2.3 million in work-related accidents, 4.2 million from air pollution. Deaths directly related to nuclear power? Under 200-not annually but in the entire history of the nuclear power industry.
But what about those famous nuclear disasters we’ve all heard so much about? Didn’t they poison untold thousands? Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.
Okay, let’s deal with each one.
Three Mile Island:
There was an accident at the plant, yes, but the amount of radiation that leaked was no more than one might receive taking a chest x-ray. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged as much four weeks after the initial media hysteria died down. “We goofed,” the commission told Congress. “There was no danger of any hydrogen explosion.'' But that didn’t grab the headlines.
The accident developed into a catastrophe only because of pitiful safety procedures unique to the Soviet Union. It would never have occured in the West. Even so, initial reports of radiation leakage turned out to be grossly exaggerated. According to the World Health Organization, “As of mid-2005”-that’s 19 years after the explosion-“fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster.”
In 2011, as a result of an earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant was destroyed, and nuclear radiation was released. Yet, despite the media hysteria, not one person at the power plant died because of radiation leaks. The deaths that occurred in the area were the result of the tsunami.
Well, what about nuclear waste? Surely that’s terribly harmful.
Actually, no. All the nuclear waste ever generated in the US can fit on a single football field stacked less than seventy feet high. It’s easily and safely buried in steel canisters encased in concrete.
For the complete script visit www.prageru.com/video/abundant-clean-and-safe

Toms Zirnis
Toms Zirnis 2 цагийн өмнө
Chernobyl was much worse than described in this video... I do agree that the reason for it was the soviet regime, and that the it would most likely not occur in the western world, but with that said, there are people who to this day suffer from the Chernobyl disaster. I grew up in Latvia, which is very close to Pripyat and Chernobyl, and we had family and friends who , as young men, volunteered or were forced by the soviet government to aide in the cleanup effort. Most of them died in pain, fighting illnesses related to the few days they spent in ground zero. The initial explosion may have killed less than 50 people, but man more died years following, and many more are still suffering to this day. I am not against nuclear energy, but saying that only 50 people died when in reality the death toll is in the thousands and keeps rising is wrong. It is a descrie to all who died due to the disaster. This is the first time I disagree with anything in a PragerU video.
TehFerretGam3r 7 цагийн өмнө
but what if its a terrorist target
Raul Cantu
Raul Cantu 7 цагийн өмнө
I’m definitely on the left and I never understood why we as a country haven’t really gotten on board with nuclear it seems like the best energy source
Raul Cantu
Raul Cantu 14 минутын өмнө
@Francisco Araujo yeah I guess it’s about time they made a good video
Francisco Araujo
Francisco Araujo 31 минутын өмнө
Me too. As a leftist, this is the first PragerU video I agree with
Marius Zaharie B
Marius Zaharie B 10 цагийн өмнө
Yes, saying that nuclear is not renewable is pointlessly correct but not a Good Point
julon krutor
julon krutor 14 цагийн өмнө
here is the problem with nuclear power: The waste! Show me a plan how to handel that in the long term and i am in. And no, storing it under ground is NOT a long term plan ... not for nuclear waste. Edit (since i watched the end ^^): Not hot air, since i don´t have a better soulution then "green energy" + nuclear. I would love to say "lets go fusion!" ... but that is not ready and may never be.
Finley 17 цагийн өмнө
That 200 hundred deaths total he threw out is only a result of the initial disasters. Over 4000 people have died of cancers related to the Chernobyl disaster alone. Still a relatively small number, but he’s probably made more lies I haven’t caught
Jeffrey Willis
Jeffrey Willis 17 цагийн өмнө
Since when is nuclear waste considered clean?
Andrew Wilson
Andrew Wilson 18 цагийн өмнө
As much as I hate PragerU for how stupid it can be, they are right about this. Like, very right Good job
Daniel Gaxiola Lugo
Daniel Gaxiola Lugo 19 цагийн өмнө
As long we dont use argent energy or stroyent, fine by me.😂
George Williams
George Williams 19 цагийн өмнө
I hate you PragerU, but I agree with you for this one
andre 20 цагийн өмнө
Everything should be run on Coal and Diesel. F electricity and nuclear garbage
ThaumaturgeRaikoh 22 цагийн өмнө
People who want nothing but power power and aim to get it by promising to fix your problems will never actually fix them, since then you don't "need" to give them power.
Tjaard van Löben Sels
Tjaard van Löben Sels 22 цагийн өмнө
Nuclear is a great alternative, but no power source is carbon free. Nuclear plants have a very low lifespan, meaning that they have to be rebuilt all the time, requiring massive emissions, capital, and time. Mention pros and cons!
Koopa Da Quick
Koopa Da Quick 22 цагийн өмнө
Nuclear is a great as a temporary solution, but it's not effective for the long term. The amount of nuclear waste produced by a 100% nuclear world would be astronomical.
Elijah Selvin
Elijah Selvin 22 цагийн өмнө
This video is really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really stupid
BonsaY 23 цагийн өмнө
Who pays for nuclear waste till the end of hmm the end of - earth? Do we really have a save place were we could store nuclear waste safely?! Nope. "Everyone who thinks different is 'full of hot air', that sounds really tolerant to me... WTF" This video is so full of double standard... when it is so "save" why Iran can't have it? ^^ see, why did they build a huge concrete wall around Chernobyl when it is not that dangerous?! Do you think it's a great idea to build one in an area were tornadoes appear every year? :-D Nuclear pollution is not that dangerous, you just refering to deaths, you're not talking about gene-defects that appear generations after exposion, you're not talking about the costs, to guard that waste, etc. such a complex topic, you made up your mind in 5:27, sure you went through all that need to be said ... you should be ashamed of yourself for being that arrogant.
BonsaY 23 цагийн өмнө
Just to add: A newer source 88.000tons... mnpost.info/zone/js28sLXZoM6hgKQ/video, And here a little bit more .... mnpost.info/zone/j92_aaqSoM15q4Y/video
Stewart Read
Stewart Read Өдрийн өмнө
Fukushima deaths from nuclear radiation=0
Bucky Dee
Bucky Dee Өдрийн өмнө
PragerU: We hate the left and we are Republican Also PragerU: We need to save the Earth, we should have freedom of speech, we are positive people, and we reject racism
ItsJedu 4 цагийн өмнө
You know Republicans aren't the crazy war mongering racist imperialists you think they are
Dominic John Maca
Dominic John Maca Өдрийн өмнө
I see. So both the left and the right, promoting green and nuclear respectively, has their work-to-dos now. That's great. To the left, they need to cut the cost and raise the efficiency of green energy to the level where everyone can draw power from it 100% of the time they want or need it. The right needs to make nuclear safer and easier to clean up should an accident happen.
Tina Gallagher
Tina Gallagher Өдрийн өмнө
The problem is this. Nuclear plants are built by and run by people. People are NOT perfect and nothing built by people is perfect. I'm one of millions exposed by the chernobyl "accident." What about fukishima? Still poisoning the sea, with fish being found with tumors far above a natural rate. Numbers can be fixed and controlled, just like the covid numbers. What about Karen Silkwood and the plant she worked at? You are welcome to your opinion about nuclear power. I'm keeping mine.
zeebo Өдрийн өмнө
Legit the military has a nuclear plant in SD.
Ben Dover
Ben Dover Өдрийн өмнө
First of atomic energy is very dangerous, there have been many known incidents at atom power plants which nearly caused an apocalyptic scenario. The second and maybe most important thing problem ist the atomic waste. Where do you put all this tons of radioactive material ? There is no safe way to handle the waste.
eldar karsanov
eldar karsanov Өдрийн өмнө
Chernobyl was also a result of an experiment went wrong
Archie Scriven
Archie Scriven Өдрийн өмнө
I agree with you, but you can't mess around with it, no corners at all can be cut.
Nathan Johnson
Nathan Johnson 2 өдрийн өмнө
Because lobbyists. "Green" democrats get kickbacks from the anti-nuclear group...who is funded by fossil fuels. As opposed to the republicans who get direct funding from the fossil fuel lobbyists.
Bimi 2 өдрийн өмнө
Lets look at what the *actual* facts about Nuclear are. Nuclear is an opportunity cost; it actively harms decarbonization given the same investment in wind or solar would offset more CO2. "In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss. pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract It is too slow for the timescale we need to decarbonize on. “Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow, it meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.” www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J The industry is showing signs of decline in non-totalitarian countries. "We find that an eroding actor base, shrinking opportunities in liberalized electricity markets, the break-up of existing networks, loss of legitimacy, increasing cost and time overruns, and abandoned projects are clear indications of decline. Also, increasingly fierce competition from natural gas, solar PV, wind, and energy-storage technologies speaks against nuclear in the electricity sector. We conclude that, while there might be a future for nuclear in state-controlled ‘niches’ such as Russia or China, new nuclear power plants do not seem likely to become a core element in the struggle against climate change." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221462962030089X Renewable energy is growing faster now than nuclear ever has "Contrary to a persistent myth based on erroneous methods, global data show that renewable electricity adds output and saves carbon faster than nuclear power does or ever has." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629618300598 There is no business case for it. "The economic history and financial analyses carried out at DIW Berlin show that nuclear energy has always been unprofitable in the private economy and will remain so in the future. Between 1951 and 2017, none of the 674 nuclear reactors built was done so with private capital under competitive conditions. Large state subsidies were used in the cases where private capital flowed into financing the nuclear industry.... Financial investment calculations confirmed the trend: investing in a new nuclear power plant leads to average losses of around five billion euros." www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.670581.de/dwr-19-30-1.pdf Another, more recent example: www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-21/cheap-gas-is-killing-nuclear-green-power-may-finish-the-job?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business The nuclear industry can't even exist without legal structures that privatize gains and socialize losses. If the owners and operators of nuclear reactors had to face the full liability of a Fukushima-style nuclear accident or go head-to-head with alternatives in a truly competitive marketplace, unfettered by subsidies, no one would have built a nuclear reactor in the past, no one would build one today, and anyone who owns a reactor would exit the nuclear business as quickly as possible. www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#3c8acf0a3c5d The CEO of one of the US's largest nuclear power companies said it best: "I'm the nuclear guy," Rowe said. "And you won't get better results with nuclear. It just isn't economic, and it's not economic within a foreseeable time frame." www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/29/exelons-nuclear-guy-no-new-nukes/#5d841aa23c5d And don't even get me started with the waste.
jacob holland
jacob holland 2 өдрийн өмнө
One time I actually agree with PragerU????? What world do we live in?
Semi-automatic door opened
Semi-automatic door opened 2 өдрийн өмнө
Wait wait, wasnt prageru for co2? How come changing directions so quickly?
Alec Master
Alec Master 2 өдрийн өмнө
The dumb thing is: In my country (Germany) people are celebrating shutting down the last nuclear power plant in our country. But were still importing nuclear energy from Poland and checoslovakia, which have safety standarts way lower than in germany. So it eventually leads nowhere.
Semi-automatic door opened
Semi-automatic door opened 2 өдрийн өмнө
Wait are they really? Damn that sucks
Impulse 2 өдрийн өмнө
The real problem is that if we use nuclear power, everyone else wants it to. With nuclear power comes more and more countries getting nuclear weapons and more and more nuclear weapon proliferation. With more nukes, higher and higher chance of mutually assured destruction. The threat of global or even regional nuclear war is a big, even existential, problem. That is why you cannot have nuclear power; nuclear war is too risky.
Ethan Montgomery
Ethan Montgomery 2 өдрийн өмнө
Uh oh, PragerU just lost their sponsorship.
Justin McCann
Justin McCann 3 өдрийн өмнө
It is still a finite resource, I remember reading somewhere that the raw materials used in Nuclear power could maybe last only a few hundred years. So no it is not a solution, it is a band aid, but it is better than anything else we have right now.
Falcon Heavy
Falcon Heavy Өдрийн өмнө
But there is also fuel on the Moon and asteroids like Helium 3 which can be used to power future nuclear fusion reactors. Space mining will definitely become a real thing within a few centuries.
x4SHOXxPandaXx 3 өдрийн өмнө
I’m all for nuclear energy but the Chernobyl one is a joke. Less than 50? People directly effected? If they mean 50 people directly had their skin rot off & die horribly from radiation poison instead of dying slowly from it then... okay? Literally there is a bridge in Pripyat called the Bridge of Death because practically everyone standing on it during the meltdown died. I support nuclear energy because it will not lead to Chernobyl but this is just false history to make the appeal of nuclear energy sound better.
Green Achers
Green Achers 3 өдрийн өмнө
The Lobbyist aren't buying the Government Lawmakers for Nuclear Power, and the news media aren't leading the sheeple to want this clean power source.
『᥅ꪊᦓꫀ』 3 өдрийн өмнө
there's a Much easier carbON-free and risK-frEe way to save the environment.
Cali Red
Cali Red 3 өдрийн өмнө
What are we going to do with an increase in toxic nuclear waste if that's the route advocates want to go? Aren't we currently storing it in pools in remote locations? It feels like we're children hiding our mess under our beds. The mess is still there.
Louis Gagnon
Louis Gagnon 3 өдрийн өмнө
France is on top of the world! What are we waiting for?
John rockwell
John rockwell 3 өдрийн өмнө
Nuclear waste is 90-99% unused nuclear fuel. So why are we still wasting this resource?
Lea Hozhan Tortune
Lea Hozhan Tortune 3 өдрийн өмнө
Where are we gonna get the Uranium though? Supply and Demand amirite? If we go nuclear, there will be high demand for uranium and other nuclear elements that will inflate the prices. The only reason why nuclear power is cheap is because the demand only comes from countries who have the money to make nuclear plants. How about the countries that can't? If they suddenly demanded the U, they still won't have the money to use it.
Dr Vinson
Dr Vinson 3 өдрийн өмнө
What’s wrong with hydro?
Nerdlantis 3 өдрийн өмнө
I do not like that I am agreeing with a Prager u video but a broken clock is right twice a day or something
Chris G.
Chris G. 4 өдрийн өмнө
Calculate the cost of permanently destroying the great lakes and you quickly see that nuclear is not worth it. Period. No technology is fail safe in all cases.
Chris G.
Chris G. 4 өдрийн өмнө
One accident in the great lakes ruins the system permanently. One terrorist attack destroys a region. One waste spill contaminates an area for thousands of years. I'd like to see who is funding this video. I bet it would be very informative as to the motivation which caused you to produce this video.
Chris G.
Chris G. 4 өдрийн өмнө
www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ ding ding ding. If only these people who claim to be free thinkers were actually capable of thinking we'd be a lot better off. This is an embarrassing attempt of passing a viewpoint that you financially benefit from off as an indisputable fact. Pathetic.
BereanJenn 4 өдрийн өмнө
This is completely and utterly false. All I'll say is that he says "they want to cut out nuclear energy because there MAY be an attack?!? Obviously they're not teaching about Fukushima in colleges now. Smh. You've all been totally lied to in school, much as we were too, but in different ways. We need to bridge these gaps before it ruins us.
Aubatron 4 өдрийн өмнө
It was never about saving the planet. Just like everything the socialist progressives do, they only say they want to save the planet because it gives them social points. Virtue signaling.
TrippyDuck 4 өдрийн өмнө
PragerU is really good at taking a complicated topic and oversimplifying it. Their points were mostly correct, though the storage in the us is only temporary and still has some risks involved, but they are implying that is entirely the fault of the idiotic anti-nuclear environmentalists for why nuclear isn't more widespread. Culturally, they are right, but economically it is because nuclear costs more time and money to set up, so most power companies go fossil for more short-term profits to show to investors. I guess it is easier to blame a group of people rather than addressing the issues of capitalism with relation to short-term gain over sustainability.
Mark and Pam Angelo
Mark and Pam Angelo 4 өдрийн өмнө
This is the worst and most dishonest video I have seen in my life. Use of Nuclear energy will eventually destroy all life on earth. Please read this book. wikischool.org/book/atomic%20suicide
Legos1819 4 өдрийн өмнө
One day we will never have space to store our nuclear waste underground also it's contaminating our groundwater.
RichformO4/Richwheels 4 өдрийн өмнө
Because lack trust in of other in corrupted system do to politics which is actually killing us. Nucellar energy isn't the problem it's us.
Harold Saxon
Harold Saxon 4 өдрийн өмнө
I'm pro nuclear, but you are making the wrong arguments dude. Some plant designs are intrinsically safer than others. And nuclear waste is an issue, but this is why reprocessing exists. tell people about closing that loop, not burying it for later
Ankmamma 4 өдрийн өмнө
wow an actual good video from them
Adrian Tween
Adrian Tween 4 өдрийн өмнө
I think your argument is misleading, when you say nuclear energy is “safe” you neglect to say that we still don’t have a proper way to dispose of its waste. You say it’s safe, but historically we dumped nuclear waste off new york bay. I am not saying don’t use nuclear energy, but it’s not a catch-all solution when the “safest” disposal mechanism we have are concrete blocks. Yes the concrete stops the radiation from leaking, but digging up uranium resources and accelerating their release into the environment need to be done carefully. As far as I recall, radioactive elements remain in the US drinking water supply. So before I’m ready to say do it, the government could spend some money building a bunker for proper disposal that could contain all of it long-term, rather than thinking about it later and having concrete blocks as our only safety measure. So summary: use current nuclear weapons to convert to usable reactors and get better disposal facilities, AND invest in other energy sources as well.
Thomas Owens
Thomas Owens 4 өдрийн өмнө
Damn Hippies They're ruining everything. Name one thing Just One Thing They have been right about! Sincerely, I despise them.
Jeff McDonald
Jeff McDonald 4 өдрийн өмнө
Test Proves MSM Is Enemy of the People. You may have heard, that Obama signed a law granting journalists the right to use propaganda on US citizens. You dont trust who said that because you never heard that from TV or anywhere else. So you decide to a search for yourself to see if its true or not. Go ahead type this into Google " Obama approves Propaganda Against US Citizens" and see what comes up. Pay close attention to the headlines and who published it, these are Traitors to the USA, and will be punished accordingly. If the headline reads: Obama did not sign a law allowing propaganda, you now have Proof that the MSM is the Enemy of the People or at least that particular publisher. In 2012 Barak Obama signed the Defense Authorization Act and tucked into the act was H.R.5736 - Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This Act allowed for Journalists to use propaganda on its own citizens, essentially, giving them a license to deceive. This had never been done before in USA history, but the MSM didnt think it was newsworth enough to tell you! (please share everywhere) www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736
Scott Walker
Scott Walker 4 өдрийн өмнө
What an important message.
Dorkmax 4 өдрийн өмнө
PragerU will talk about climate change being a myth in one video and promote nuclear energy in the next because PragerU doesn't stand for anything except being opposed to whatever it thinks liberals like. In this case, they'll be disappointed to know that most liberals *love* nuclear power for exactly these reasons, myself included.
CWSC RADicAL 4 өдрийн өмнө
actually up to 4000 people might have died from the chernobyl accident in fukishima 2129 people died no one died in three mile island
Slyscale Slick
Slyscale Slick 4 өдрийн өмнө
The association with PragerU alone makes me skeptical of anything i hear in vids like this. It's a highly politically skewed entity aligned with the party known for making corporation-first choices often even when it means breaking laws. :c
Ethan Clarke
Ethan Clarke 4 өдрийн өмнө
They had to put this into an ad like really?
The Technical Trading Lab
The Technical Trading Lab 4 өдрийн өмнө
Lmao you guys totally leave out solar and wind. Your numbers are way off as well.
crouching spider
crouching spider 4 өдрийн өмнө
Did we forget Hiroshima!!!!!!🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
crouching spider
crouching spider 4 өдрийн өмнө
Maybe you should look up the melt down at mare island in Vallejo I think you dont kno much about this stuff because when that meltdown happened my Sifu was a worker on the nuclear reactors and he has been BATTLING CANCER FOR YEAR'S !!!!! So you think it's safe ask the people who now battle cancer because of the work they did on nuclear reactors............🖕
Safelanding 4 өдрийн өмнө
What about in germany where they stored nuclear waste in an underground mine the mine eventually collapsed and all that nuclear waste started leaking and is still leaking and it can very well get into ground water, it is not an easy process to permanently store nuclear waste and there is a reason why there is only one place in the world where you can store it permanently in Finland and construction in that isn't completely finished yet not to mention who will buy into nuclear power based in the fact that nuclear plants are very expensive to build what about all of those nuclear power plants left abandoned that never got built because the investors thought they were too expensive to make and if a nuclear plant goes critical there may not be that much loss of life but the impact of wildlife and the fact that they have to close off that area because it is unsafe to live in from express.co.uk they state that experts say that it will be safe to live In chernobyl in as little as 20 years or up to several hundred years not to mention in fukushima they plan to put nuclear waste water in the ocean which greenpeace says could alter human DNA so the problem with nuclear energy is not the short term affects it is the absurd long term consequences that people have to deal with and sure maybe right now not many people died from chernobyl or fukushima but scienceblog states that Chernobyl could result in 4000 cancer related deaths in the 600000 people exposed to the highest levels or radiation and the UN backs up this claim too.
RinRin Sparkles
RinRin Sparkles 4 өдрийн өмнө
And Andrew yang was the only Democrat who supported Nuclear energy 😞
Dr. Coomer
Dr. Coomer 5 өдрийн өмнө
PragerU 4 years ago: guys the global warning is ok we dont need to worry about it PragerU now: We should stop global warning with non-polluting energy lol
Jason Correia
Jason Correia 5 өдрийн өмнө
Nuclear is where the magic of E=mc^2 happens. The documentary "Pandora's Promise" is on Amazon Prime and can be searched for on youtube as well. Check it out.
Thierry Levy
Thierry Levy 5 өдрийн өмнө
I am French and the leftists here are trying to destroy our nuclear energy sector. They forced the government to shut down a perfectly safe nuclear plant in Alsace in 2020. Guess what? It was replaced by a coal-fired power plant in Germany and now we are buying super dirty electricity from it. One KwH of electricity is twice as expensive in Germany than in France since they decided to kill their nuclear plants in 2011 and to top it off, the Germans emit a lot more CO2 per capita than the French. Do not let environmental fascists fool you into believing that we can fix global warming with renewable energy alone.
milimacha the strange
milimacha the strange 5 өдрийн өмнө
I'm in shock that prager u was right about something for once.
elevenvolt 5 өдрийн өмнө
As of now, new nuclear costs 15c/kwh in the US, and new wind and solar (without storage) cost 4c/kwh in the US. Assuming a cost of $150/kwh and a lifetime of 1000 cycles, and half of energy stored for nighttime usage, this will add 7.5c/kwh to the price of renewables. That is a total cost of 11.5c/kwh to go 90% renewables, which is expensive, but cheaper than nuclear as of now. The lifespan of batteries is quickly increasing, and their costs rapidly falling, meaning the price for renewables and storage is rapidly falling. Not saying it isn't possible, but how much potential does nuclear have to get cheaper? I've seen estimates of 7.5c/kwh for Gen IV nuclear.
smith palacios
smith palacios 5 өдрийн өмнө
We as conservatives need to be pro nuclear in order to save the American dream.
The Paradigm
The Paradigm 5 өдрийн өмнө
I believe that the future of energy should be nuclear ☢️ and natural gas 💨. Or course, we should also focus on safer practices when handling these things...
elevenvolt 2 өдрийн өмнө
@Semi-automatic door opened Yes it certainly is but it is at least 10 years before we can get breakeven, let alone actually produce electricity economically. In the mean time, a clean mix of solar, wind, and ccs is the cheapest way to go.
Semi-automatic door opened
Semi-automatic door opened 2 өдрийн өмнө
Fusions better
elevenvolt 5 өдрийн өмнө
But make sure the natural gas is CCS. Net power has a design that makes that super cheap and efficient.
Thomas George
Thomas George 5 өдрийн өмнө
I wich I could remember the name of a book wich I read in middle school that talk about a world where only source of power was nuclear. Every one else was back at pre industral age
Nobody 5 өдрийн өмнө
Prager U, I may strongly disagree with you most of the time but I think regardless of political affiliations we can all agree the nuclear energy is amazing!
Magnus Clausing
Magnus Clausing 5 өдрийн өмнө
Solar and Wind energy is an attempt to replace the nuclear energy sector. Not the fossil fuel sector.
Dwayne 73
Dwayne 73 5 өдрийн өмнө
Airline pilots get more radiation exposure than nuclear plant workers. No a word about flying as being dangerous.
seeWemm 5 өдрийн өмнө
Why doesn't it sink in with Michael Schellenberger that we live in a ('Western') world that has but one driving force - Capitalism, with the profit motive and its laws of supply and demand. The one pro-nuclear campaigner with the media presence to actually move forward the widespread adoption of nuclear power and he's putting all his effort and belief into thinking 'educating' the general public and talking to politicians will have any significant effect. In terms of mass deployment - it won't, Michael! You need to apply your skills and resources by going after the money: The green fund and bank managers, along with: "...Cities and regions with a carbon footprint greater than the emissions of the US, and companies with a combined revenue of over $11.4 trillion..........are now pursuing net zero emissions by the end of the century...". Advanced nuclear power plants (NPPs), due to be operational before the end of this decade, have build programmes down to 2 years; no different to that of wind and solar plants (WASPs). The cost-of-capital burden that has plagued the nuclear power industry for decades and drained all investment in low-carbon electricity generation into WASPs, is utterly negated. Leading the charge is GE Hitachi's BWRX-300 small modular reactor (SMR). The build of the first of these 300 MW NPP starts in 2024, to commence operation in the USA in 2027. The second one will be operational in Canada in 2028; Fermi Energia, an energy provider in Estonia will be operating one this decade; Michal Solowow, a Polish industrialist will be ‘buying’ one this decade, to supply his energy-intensive businesses and ‘green’ his image. Considering all of the other significant costs - OCC; O&M; fuel; decommissioning; waste handling and storage - every $1.00 invested in a BWRX-300 NPP will 'earn' multiple times more than $1.00 invested in any form of WASP. Advanced NPPs will undoubtedly turn the green energy investment market on its head within the next few years: 7.2X more than onshore wind: bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/2020/05/fund-managers-with-320-million-to.html 12X more than offshore wind: bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/2020/05/invest-90-billion-in-offshore-wind.html 17.3X more than utility scale solar: bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/2020/05/fund-managers-with-424-million-to.html Michael should be hammering the investment community to tell them that the time to invest is now! Then - as has been the case for hundreds of years of capitalism - politics will simply follow the money. The 99.66% (299 out of 300) of the disinterested; uninterested; indifferent general public will be told: You're getting nuclear power; it's safe; your energy bills will be reduced [substantially]. The shoulder shrugging will be palpable. The other 1s out of every 300 will make a bit of noise for a while, but all will eventually sit back and enjoy a pollution-free world in the knowledge that the children of today can have safe and secure supplies of energy, with microscopic impact on their environment.
Ryan Macdonald
Ryan Macdonald 5 өдрийн өмнө
The concern about Nuclear accidents like at Chernobyl is that the land becomes unlivable for Humans for tens of thousands of years, maybe more plus various health problems arose amongst large numbers of people throughout Europe and the USSR due to the radioactive fallout. Granted, the Soviets were horribly inept with the handling of the nuclear reactor and in trying to keep it from blowing up but there's also the concern that companies that own nuclear power plants will cut money for safety procedures and failsafes for the sake of making money like on "The Simpsons". I agree that nuclear energy if handling properly and with the right tech upgrades can be a solution to global warming and in reducing CO2 emissions, I'm just concerned about the risks and consequences if there's a nuclear accident.
DietrichGarbo 4 өдрийн өмнө
You can take a two day vacation to the exclusion zone.
Andro V
Andro V 5 өдрийн өмнө
Searc for documentary: children of chernobly. So much for safe. And yes official # of death re low but who really trusts official sources?
Zoran Vucenovic
Zoran Vucenovic 5 өдрийн өмнө
A solution that creates a problem is a problem. The only solution to the problem is not to create new a problem. Burying nuclear waste in concrete doesn't make the problem go away. Bury the problem? It is just out of sight...the problem is still there.
La Wabbit
La Wabbit 5 өдрийн өмнө
Lmao remember a few weeks ago when you said the exact same thing about oil
NMI 5 өдрийн өмнө
The statistics reported about Fukushima is correct, however the statistics about Chernobyl were not. As many as 60,000 died as a result of high radiation, low radiation cases were not counted. ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima
Emppu T.
Emppu T. 5 өдрийн өмнө
What was the thing about leaking reactors, i heard. There needs to be more funding and science to be done, because i do think there's still a lot to get from nuclear, to better it and even advance into fusion.
VelcroPockets 5 өдрийн өмнө
i can’t believe i’m agreeing with praguer u on something. 🤦‍♂️
TNT Storms
TNT Storms 6 өдрийн өмнө
"Death directly related to nuclear power... under 200 - not annually but in the entire history of the nuclear power industry". The left's brain explodes.
Magwa Magwa
Magwa Magwa 6 өдрийн өмнө
Hmmmm safe, Fukushima, 3 mile Island Chernobyl, yes safe sign me up...you are just talking about human deaths do you have any idea of the effect on the pacific ocean from radiation the effect of salmon, steelhead, and many other fish we get radiation in the fish here on the west coast..... NO it is not safe yet.... it might be one day but it is not now safe to the environment That water, specifically 1.2 million tons of it, is still radioactive.
christian chellis
christian chellis 6 өдрийн өмнө
Hey Prager. I thought you don’t care about carbon emmissions. Didn’t you say fossil fuels are good???
Lionel Whiskerknot
Lionel Whiskerknot 6 өдрийн өмнө
I agree that nuclear is the future but more so when fusion energy becomes available. Current nuclear power is definitely risky in the wrong hands or in countries with poor safety procedures. Not only can the local area be contaminated but contaminated particles can be carried by wind or water considerable distance. That and.... Do you really believe the Feds when they say something is safe and to trust them? Yeah right. Will feel better when they get clean fusion power but who knows when that will happen if ever. Don't buy that it is safe nonsense. It is only as safe as the safety standards and maintenance put in place. Also, regardless of safety standards a reactor is still vulnerable to natural disasters such as an earthquake or in Fukushima's case a tsunami. Chernobyl is still a hot zone two decades later and that is even with layers and tons of concrete poured over the ground zero site. Wildlife with jacked up genes from mutation such as birds migrate and can cause other issues. Not saying oil is much better and it does more than a little poisoning but I don't think we are near safe nuclear energy except on a small scale such as military subs.
david crag
david crag 6 өдрийн өмнө
Wow amazing! As soon as Dennis lives next to one, preferably one built 30 years ago. You first
david crag
david crag 5 өдрийн өмнө
@Ian McMath I'm sure the people who lived in Pripyat felt the same way.
Ian McMath
Ian McMath 5 өдрийн өмнө
I live near Arkansas Nuclear One which was built in 1974 and it has been working great for us! I also know the lead engineer who has been working there for decades and he does not have extra limbs and neither do his children.
John Doe
John Doe 6 өдрийн өмнө
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" -Joe Biden. mnpost.info/zone/mMCbgpi2hbeAnWE/video watch at 3:30.
I don't believe anything prager u says. Gotta wait till vaush debunks this.
『᥅ꪊᦓꫀ』 3 өдрийн өмнө
loodwig 6 өдрийн өмнө
I'll start by saying that I disagree with the lion's share of these videos, seeing them as little more than anti intellectual propaganda where I count down the 5 seconds until I can skip the ad. But this video caught my eye enough to not only watch to the end, but then to go find it and leave this comment. I'll say as an avowed environmentalist, I agree with most of the points made. The deaths associated with fossil fuel energy and the existential danger posed by climate change are felt now in a variety of ways. Compared with nuclear pollution, well, there is no comparison. I don't have hard evidence, but I'd wager that with the abundant power produced by nuclear power, we could electrify transportation and infrastructure while nigh completely removing the need for coal, oil, and gas as electrical energy sources. That would also mean an end to corn ethanol as fuel, and end to many farm subsidies, an end to coal subsidies, which ultimately is a smaller bill to Joe taxpayer (me). Win win, right? Well, there's a few things that are problematic about nuclear power, and the related. First, as much as I wish it weren't the case, the technology for electrical energy storage is not there. Just because we can generate a ton of power doesn't help us if we can't use it immediately. This is further complicated by the difficulty in battery manufacturing. Electric cars essentially have a shelf life of a decade or so until the very expensive battery in them ends up in a landfill. Lithium is also not as common or plentiful, so it means mining the hell out of china to get there. Why am I even talking about electric cars? Well, the infrastructure in the US is not in a tight grid, but is a large expanse of land. Products need to be shipped and people need to commute, and therefore need gasoline or diesel. That right there is a huge part of energy consumption. If we cannot solve that problem, nuclear power will be a drop in the bucket in terms of solving ecological and economic energy issues. But suppose we do solve the battery problem (and I think we will). There is still the issue of storing the waste. The video touched on the fact that waste accumulation has been relatively small. But if we ramp up nuclear power in the US, that waste will ramp up too. And while the waste itself is small, the facility to store it safely for tens of thousands of years won't be. This stuff is very bad news if it leeches into the water table or any land for agricultural or municipal use. Really, we'll need a solution to deal with reducing the waste. There are options there, but they are not well developed and not without risk. I'm confident we can get there, but we certainly should have our eyes open about the economic and human cost. Finally there's the proliferation issue. Where do get the raw materials? Where do you build the plants? Where do you store the waste? Can we ship stuff to and from the third world? What if an accident happens while shipping? What... if it wasn't an accident? Would we let a terrorist sponsor have a nuclear plant? How about storing waste for cheap? How about their neighbor storing waste for cheap? How about just a uranium mine in Iraq, would that be safe? I'm bringing up a lot of problems, because a short video is by nature going to lack nuance. Again, I'm still in favor of nuclear power, because in spite of all of this, it's overwhelmingly a superior solution to coal, oil, and gas. But a giant wind turbine south of Pueblo, CO doesn't have these problems. Of course, it produces a comically low amount of power by comparison too. From that I'd say there are two conversations to have. First, can we scale renewables to the point where nuclear power wouldn't matter? Second, can we address the issues that nuclear brings while using it as a transition away from fossil fuels? I think the answer to both is, "probably," and I for one would really like to do my part in making that happen.
SmpKnght 6 өдрийн өмнө
Is anti-nuclear even a leftist position though? All my left friends are already on board it's just old congress people on both sides that disagree.
Duophile 6 өдрийн өмнө
I don’t think so. All the communists I know are the people most fervently pro-nuclear, and against things like meddling in Iran to prevent them from building nuclear power plants.
فوز 6 өдрийн өмнө
Honestly, who believes this propaganda? You have to be some kind of toddler mentally. People thought nuclear was the future since the 50's and I guess you also believe we'll have flying cars powered by nuclear reactors. lmao
Lucas Maghirang
Lucas Maghirang 6 өдрийн өмнө
As someone that lives not too far from Hanford, the safety and clean aspect of nuclear power is a hard one to agree with.
Some Guy
Some Guy 6 өдрийн өмнө
Can a power plant withstand an F5 tornado?
santhosh d
santhosh d 6 өдрийн өмнө
It's all business.
THE OTHERGUY 6 өдрийн өмнө
NASA is looking into nuclear energy for future space missions to provide sustainable power for moon or mars bases with their new Kilopower reactor with a reactor core the size of a role of paper towel. NASA also looking into nuclear propulsion for spacecraft which could cut transit times in half.
Google Is-shit
Google Is-shit 6 өдрийн өмнө
The Fukishima power plant is still spilling it's radioactive poison in the Pacific ocean even after all these years, out of sight, out of mind right?
THE OTHERGUY 6 өдрийн өмнө
Some people fear that if we build more nuclear plants, countries will use the spent fuel to make nuclear weapons. From a technical standpoint, this is not the case. If you want weapons grade material then you need a high concentration of U-235, U-233, or Pu-239. You can take Natural Uranium and concentrate Uranium-235 at 90% through isotopic separation also called enrichment which many developed countries are capable of doing though is expensive. You can also make Pu-239 from U-238 in a reactor. The commercial reactors used for power generation around the world are not very good at doing this, however. They do make Plutonium-239 but they also make a bit of Pu-240, Pu-241, and Pu-242. All this Plutonium will not make a bomb. Before you can make a bomb, you will have to separate the fissile Pu-239 from the rest of the Plutonium through isotopic separation, the same process you needed to separate the Uranium-235 from the U-238 in the first place. If you have the ability to do isotopic separation then you don't need this Plutonium when can just obtain Uranium. Reactors that DO predominantly make Pu-239 that doesn't require enrichment are generally military ones that are soly designed to make weapons grade Plutonium where the fuel rods in the reactor are frequently removed and replaced which is not necessary if you just want to produce electricity. Nuclear Proliferation is not a technical issue. It's a political issue.
jpk190988 6 өдрийн өмнө
Nuclear energy might be safe but it leaves us with nuclear waste with no place to store it.
Is Voter Fraud Real?
Үзсэн тоо 2,9сая
World's Lightest Solid!
Үзсэн тоо 24сая
Trump administration allows Biden transition to begin
CBS Evening News
Үзсэн тоо 1,5сая
Dua Lipa - ‘Levitating’ at the AMAs 2020
Dua Lipa
Үзсэн тоо 1,7сая
Dhar Mann Holiday Special: 4 Stories That Will Change Your Life
Why do prime numbers make these spirals?
Үзсэн тоо 2,6сая
Marty Lobdell - Study Less Study Smart
Үзсэн тоо 8сая
The Insane Biology of: The Octopus
Real Science
Үзсэн тоо 1,8сая
How To Speak by Patrick Winston
MIT OpenCourseWare
Үзсэн тоо 2,6сая
How Large Can a Bacteria get? Life & Size 3
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Үзсэн тоо 3,6сая
Defining Liberty
Үзсэн тоо 852мянга.
Tesla Valve | The complete physics
Learn Engineering
Үзсэн тоо 10сая
The Largest Star in the Universe - Size Comparison
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Үзсэн тоо 10сая
Trump administration allows Biden transition to begin
CBS Evening News
Үзсэн тоо 1,5сая
Dua Lipa - ‘Levitating’ at the AMAs 2020
Dua Lipa
Үзсэн тоо 1,7сая
Dhar Mann Holiday Special: 4 Stories That Will Change Your Life
Reviewing Memes With KSI
Үзсэн тоо 7сая
DaBaby - Gucci Peacoat (Official Video)
Үзсэн тоо 3,1сая
Surprising FaZe Jarvis With 24 Gifts In 24 Hours
FaZe Kay
Үзсэн тоо 2,8сая
My New Favorite Bad Movie
Drew Gooden
Үзсэн тоо 1,2сая