Nuclear Energy: Abundant, Clean, and Safe

  Үзсэн тоо 3,159,462

PragerU

2 сарын 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.
FOLLOW us!
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.
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
Script:
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.
Hmmm.
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.
Chernobyl:
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.”
Fukushima:
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

Сэтгэгдлүүд
John 14:24
John 14:24 23 цагийн өмнө
m.mnpost.info/zone/oNWuj7_QiNqLqKQ/video
Anakin Skywalker
Anakin Skywalker 3 өдрийн өмнө
I’m a liberal (not democrat) and I love nuclear power it’s great and so clean but it’s also quite complicated and requires lots of care a monitoring which is fine but we all know when people get lazy and make a mistake (Chernobyl) but at the same time a disaster is quite rare and we should definitely build more nuclear plants.
Allen Bryant
Allen Bryant 3 өдрийн өмнө
I too was part of the US Navy's nuclear power program. The minimizing of the Chernobyl accident is drastic in this video as well as that of the Fukushima disaster. The biggest problem with nuclear power is the disposal of the nuclear waste. This is because it has to be stored for an astounding amount of time. If we really what a clean source of energy that can power a modern society, we need to go all in on nuclear fusion reactors.
Ashley Silva
Ashley Silva 5 өдрийн өмнө
mnpost.info/zone/hJPRmd_Ij92oiXo/video
Thomas K.
Thomas K. 6 өдрийн өмнө
You guys are getting some of the arguments right and i am in strong support for nuclear energy but you are devaluing your points by manipulating data even more in your favour (200 dead by nuclear accidents total, really?). There is no need for this.
Vonluchestein
Vonluchestein 6 өдрийн өмнө
broken clocks are right twice a day
Gage Cody R
Gage Cody R Өдрийн өмнө
I think this is one of the only times prageru has been right ever
Chapter 4 Travels
Chapter 4 Travels 6 өдрийн өмнө
Waste is a selling feature for nuclear, not a reason to be against it. The little bit of waste generated from massive amounts of energy produced is all contained and safely stored for future energy use in the new breeder reactors coming out.
MS Paint Pro
MS Paint Pro 6 өдрийн өмнө
Isn't it pragerU's funders y'know oil barons that prevent nuclear power from becoming a prevalent energy source
R J
R J 7 өдрийн өмнө
LFTR - Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors - even safer, cheaper, and smaller.The fuel (thorium) is cheaper, more abundant, and currently being thrown away and buried as trash from other mining. But, cheaper, cleaner, more abundant energy would destroy the crisis narrative and lead toward prosperity and stability. They don’t want that!
Brandon Wilson
Brandon Wilson 7 өдрийн өмнө
The argument I most often hear is not about how safe nuclear is, although that was the champion argument for a long time. Now the argument my friends will make against nuclear is about how it is not cost-effective, and what to do with all the long-term waste. They completely ignore the fact that without the subsidies, solar and wind is completely unsustainable financially. They also ignore the fact that solarr panels only have a 20-year life cycle and we're about to see the first round of waste globally from those solar cells. Not to mention the enormous fiberglass Blades of wind turbines and all the waste that just gets buried from those. Anyhow, I think the older generation is still clutching their pearls over safety thanks to Jane Fonda, but the younger folks seem convinced that it's not financially feasible. And just in case it's not clear, I think nukes are definitely the way to go. I'm just trying to point out the more prevalent counter-arguments.
A
A 12 өдрийн өмнө
Renewable nuclear energy E = mc2 What I will present in this research paper in this field is a great honor for me and it is the fruit of my dedication to myself and for whom I love and desire to use renewable nuclear energy as an alternative to the excessive consumption of the planet's resources and for the environment that the atomic nucleus contains a mass and its components contain The mass is more than the nucleus and because of the difference in these masses, energy is produced, and the nucleus of the atom is interconnected, and this energy is released in two methods of nuclear fusion or fission of the atom, and this is through the collision of the nucleus of atoms and there is a method by the action of chemical and physical reactions using nanotechnology technology, which I hope to put the effectiveness More in energy production First, we see a chemical reaction before fission between two atoms, and we prepare the two atoms using the technique of nanoparticles that have chemical and physical properties. For two dimensional atoms, methods of elemental analysis or X-rays, and the electrical barrier between the two atoms must be overcome by using an electrostatic accelerator and a special accelerator. The electron to accelerate the protons is high energy, so that it will not repel the nucleus, and we will connect the two nuclei using nanotubes from a neutron buffer and the fusion of the two atoms in physical constants, the standard gravitational coefficient and the static energy, and the two atoms are fused and split, creating enormous energy
dohmin konoha
dohmin konoha 13 өдрийн өмнө
Yes,people must starve and freeze to die for ecology . And let’s destroy forest and massacre animals for ecology.
PHILIP REEDER
PHILIP REEDER 13 өдрийн өмнө
Every nuclear power plant in France is an original American Westinghouse designed reactor and plant. All of the technicians and workers are required to be fluent in English. All dimensions and measurements are not metric. They use the original American standard units of measure, inch, foot, gallons, etc. This was done to ensure that they never had any issues with converting from standard to metric in building or working in the plants. France has as much as I know, never had an incident in any of their nuclear power plants.
Nicolas Esparza
Nicolas Esparza 13 өдрийн өмнө
Prager U propagating nuclear power as the planets savior is like saying clean coal is good for the atmosphere.
Rafa1589
Rafa1589 13 өдрийн өмнө
The problem is: even though the waste is put in steel containers covered in concrete, this is not going to help a lot. These containers still need to be stored somewhere underground and safe. To find a suitable place alone is already an ordeal. But the even bigger problem would be, to keep these storage places safe for the next few thousands of years. Nuclear power in itself is safe. The problem is that we built a house and forgot to put a working toilet in it.
Sihwan Kim
Sihwan Kim 15 өдрийн өмнө
Idiotic people, anti nuclear.
SlyFan1993
SlyFan1993 17 өдрийн өмнө
Huh, so all those jokes about radiation near the plant must be some form of urban legend or something?
Storytelling by Noblesse
Storytelling by Noblesse 18 өдрийн өмнө
mnpost.info/zone/rNrWp82lgaR5hnI/video
cstrutherskgs
cstrutherskgs 19 өдрийн өмнө
Nuclear is not cleaner than pure solar.
cstrutherskgs
cstrutherskgs 11 өдрийн өмнө
@Radiofloyd 235 Either way that is a false claim. Per the usual for Prager U. They have some good stances but most of the time they spout what ever their giant donors tell them to.
Radiofloyd 235
Radiofloyd 235 12 өдрийн өмнө
Pure solar is so far away from us that it's not even really worth thinking about...
Cardboard Cape
Cardboard Cape 19 өдрийн өмнө
Imagine believing cc/gw exists 🤣🤣🤣
Reece Shugrue
Reece Shugrue 19 өдрийн өмнө
The world needs to stop throwing billions of dollars at inefficient power sources like solar and wind.
Radiofloyd 235
Radiofloyd 235 12 өдрийн өмнө
Wind, maybe (although it does do an OK job in Northern regions, like here in Canada). Solar? Are you out of your mind?!? It is the highest potential power source we have discovered until now, and solar power won't become more efficient by itself! It's an incredibly important investment for future prospects.
Food Connoisseur
Food Connoisseur 20 өдрийн өмнө
One of the few times I agree with PragerU.
Andrew Feazelle
Andrew Feazelle 21 өдрийн өмнө
You can’t be both for free market capitalism and nuclear power. Nukes are welfare queens that require government guarantees to investors that they will get their money back when the nukes are abandoned in the construction phase for cost overruns, as they often are. If you want decentralized free market players in competition with one another that don’t rely on the government, you want solar and wind installations.
Samuel Dyer
Samuel Dyer 21 өдрийн өмнө
This further proves that the environmentalist movement is ignorant of the facts
Radiofloyd 235
Radiofloyd 235 12 өдрийн өмнө
Please enlighten me, for last I heard, everyone agrees that nuclear centrals for electricity are the best possible solution for the time being.
rosen john varghese
rosen john varghese 22 өдрийн өмнө
While the benefits from nuclear power have been obvious for quite sometime now, nuclear waste- and its disposal- has not been tackled adequately by Michael Schellenberger. When nuclear energy gets used on a large scale, the quantity of waste would begin to grow and consequently, one would have to build steel containers encased in concrete to store them. Now here’s the catch : nuclear material has a half life of 1200 years and it’s anyone’s guess as to what that would mean when the waste keeps on increasing. One can image acres of land being filled with nuclear waste with a half life of 1200 years! How does that sound for starters? Why wasn’t this aspect not elaborated upon and only a fragment of it towards the end of the talk was mentioned!
Radiofloyd 235
Radiofloyd 235 12 өдрийн өмнө
@potato but roasted last I heard, nuclear is still one of the cheapest cleaner sources of power, though.
potato but roasted
potato but roasted 22 өдрийн өмнө
Also, Nuclear plant and the safety measures the prevent accidents is incredibly expensive, which is also conveniently ignored in the video.
Scott Wigglesby
Scott Wigglesby 22 өдрийн өмнө
Thorium
Bert Kosier
Bert Kosier 24 өдрийн өмнө
I would be all in for Nuclear Energy Power Plants except you have to solve the problem with nuclear waste first. Having radioactive nuclear waste stored at power plants in pools / ponds is not viable and represents significant risks to public health and the environment both in the short term and long term (>100K years). Solve this problem and I am all in for fission based nuclear power. Better yet, develop fusion power which has no radioactive by-products but is still >100 years away from having a viable / low cost process for power generation.
Gladonos
Gladonos 24 өдрийн өмнө
Suddenly PragerU is against Fossil Fuels? How convenient... -_________- I don't see the point in this video. The people this is aimed at don't believe in climate change and if there is no climate change, why switch to Nuclear?
Food Connoisseur
Food Connoisseur 20 өдрийн өмнө
Ignore PragerU. Unbiased sources acknowledge the same - nuclear is safe, clean, and efficient.
Luis Atilano
Luis Atilano 24 өдрийн өмнө
Are you nut? How dare you to assume that it wouId never have occured in the West? It's a too much ideoIogic statement.
Peter Adams
Peter Adams 25 өдрийн өмнө
While I as a liberal disagree with most Prager U videos, I do agree that nuclear energy is a valuable alternative for our future.
Richard Longoria
Richard Longoria 26 өдрийн өмнө
Thorium reactors have less of a chance of melting down, and require considerably less heat control. Glad to see Republicans on board with nuclear.
Peter R
Peter R 26 өдрийн өмнө
I just want my Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future to rum my truck - screw batteries!
SecondLifeDesigner
SecondLifeDesigner 26 өдрийн өмнө
Of course this is what PregerU doesn't tell you which is what is most important. There is only enough Uranium to power those all the nuclear reactors to meet all the energy need of everyone on the planet for about 50 years. Yes 200 direct deaths but thousands perhaps tens of thousands world wide due to cancers caused by Chernobyl and how many more thousands will be caused by Fukushima . If those barrels leak over the tens of thousands of years they will be radioactive for how many more millions of people will die from the cancers they cause? What about nuclear weapons proliferation because you can make weapons grade plutonium in secrete with uranium nuclear reactors? As usual PregerU props up with lies and misdirection established ways of doing things because the 1% controls and owns those markets. If PregerU really cared about the environment and wanted to promote a technology that could save the planet it promote Thorium nuclear power. But the 1% don't own that yet. Better to keep the grift going with established Uranium and fossil fuels.
Food Connoisseur
Food Connoisseur 20 өдрийн өмнө
Uranium isn’t running out - and 50 years is long enough to develop better renewables and possibly even fusion. Don’t fearmonger. We need nuclear.
Kyle Despain
Kyle Despain 27 өдрийн өмнө
Don’t forget about where used solar panels and wind turbines have to go when they’re used up
Uriel Waknine
Uriel Waknine 27 өдрийн өмнө
So basically, those who claim to believe in climate change don't want to do anything about it.
Ali Razi
Ali Razi 27 өдрийн өмнө
So we should try to make nuclear power plants everywhere, but we shouldn't allow Iran to have a nuclear program with IAEA watch dogs making sure they don't make nukes? Sounds like pragerU to me
I Exist
I Exist 28 өдрийн өмнө
I didn't realise advocating against nuclear energy was a leftist thing. But as long as they are using thorium, I think they are pretty good, or at least better than carbon.
ALLAN LOUIS JEUNE
ALLAN LOUIS JEUNE 29 өдрийн өмнө
As long as u use thorium
gialuquin88XD
gialuquin88XD Сарын өмнө
Go nuclear, go green ♻️
The Militant Skeptic Komorow
The Militant Skeptic Komorow Сарын өмнө
While the video definitely makes great points about nuclear energy, there is no such thing as an unobtanium fuel source. Michael Shellenberger points out that nuclear energy is "safely" contained in steel containers put in concrete underground which is true, but we need to remember concrete completely deteriorates after 50 years. Nuclear waste is radioactive for over 900 years, so there is no effective way to store nuclear waste. Not to mention that more usage will result in more waste.
Alexandro Peña
Alexandro Peña Сарын өмнө
Fallout players: f*ck yeah, let's go nuclear
Ivan Joshua Michel
Ivan Joshua Michel Сарын өмнө
Hidroelectric is good, if you wanna kill your river ecosystem...
Max Taylor
Max Taylor Сарын өмнө
N
Caesar [SailorNeptune]
Caesar [SailorNeptune] Сарын өмнө
Too bad Sweden is shutting down nuclear power, we need to do like Finland and build Gen 3+ reactors
Bruhification fetish
Bruhification fetish Сарын өмнө
Holy shit prager U is right for once
Анісія Лучків
Анісія Лучків Сарын өмнө
Are you kidding about Chornobyl? A lot of people are still suffering because of the rapid increase in malignant tumors. Don’t you want to add the number of people who died because of it? I am not against nuclear power, but at least try to find better and more trustworthy arguments
Crowned Lemur
Crowned Lemur Сарын өмнө
I agree that nuclear energy is the future and is the best energy and will be the way we stop climate change
Vishnu Ashwath
Vishnu Ashwath Сарын өмнө
Nuclear is good but shouldn't we be trying to use all types of renewables right now to stop climate change
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
Personally I think we should use the kinds of energy that make the most sense in a certain place at that time, including nuclear.
mark rey
mark rey Сарын өмнө
I'll built many of them :)
Sethe Newman
Sethe Newman Сарын өмнө
Wanna know the biggest threat to Nuclear power- big oil
Sethe Newman
Sethe Newman Сарын өмнө
How much funding from big oil did pragerU lose making this
Rikkos Hop
Rikkos Hop Сарын өмнө
Nuclear power is a moot point. The tech for the 21st Century is “Liquid Air” it’s not just safety it is also cost. 20 billion to boil water vs. millions for using air. That’s right air not wind that’s two different techniques. People might not have died in Fukushima, but you can’t find a star fish anywhere on the west cost of the US. Why is that? We need to save the planet and we now have something better than nuclear. Bottom line, AIR is free !!!
Shaun Hall
Shaun Hall Сарын өмнө
I’ve changed my mindset after seeing this. Nuclear is the way to go if we are are going to stop global warming.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Yeah until it explodes, causing more "climate change" or just killing everything...
Reytian
Reytian Сарын өмнө
I’ve been telling people this for years. But they’re always afraid of the word “radiation” even though our eyes absorb it to see. Light is a radiation. Not so scary right? Also they fear that having a power plant nearby will cause radiation sickness, but in reality, you would need THOUSANDS of plants within a MILE radiance to even have a slightly than average rate of regular radiation that you’ll receive from your day to day life. Nuclear energy is the future, it’s clean, it’s safe. There’s only been 3 incidents that have ranged from poor engineering, mother nature’s wrath, and poor protocols. All of these issues have been taken into account for the other 440 that are in operation around the world.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Well, people dont want to be neat the next '3' plants that explode or meltdown. Oh and our eyes dont absorb gamma rays... Man-made radiation is NOT your friend brah
John Stetts
John Stetts Сарын өмнө
First, I'm pro-nuclear and believe modern and even older western reactor designs to be safe, not so much for Russian designs. But, in 1979 I was a teenager living within 90 miles of Three Mile Island (TMI). For a few days, it was pretty damn scary seeing the evacuation rings on the TV news maps encompassing our small city in north central PA and waiting for an evacuation order that never came. Then ironically in 1985, while attending Penn State Harrisburg, I was living just a handful of miles from TMI and ended up taking a guided tour of TMI for engineering students. The tour included the active unit #1 reactor control room (inside of the several feet thick concrete containment building), a cooling tower, and a presentation of what, how and why the accident happened. Too many years have passed to recall much technical detail, but I walked away comfortable with the technology and enough so to live within the shadow of the cooling towers then and now. That being said, I recently watched the horrifying 5 part Chernobyl docudrama on Netflix, which I highly recommend. In it, I learned of the multiple Russian reactor designs flaws (Biggest: Tipped fuel rods and No reactor containment building!!), failed procedures, and of the countless dead and suffering that resulted from the disaster and its aftermath. Far more by the way, than the official Russian propaganda number of 50 deaths used in this PragerU video. Therefore, please fix this issue. I usually agree with, and have great respect for the views expressed on PragerU, including that nuclear power is safe. However, to gain the respect and agreement of those not likely inclined to agree with us, PragerU must always use good data to support your positions, ideas, etc...not just the cherry picked data. Sorry for the negativity. I am a PragerU fan.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Notice Prager U didnt tell you the negative aspects of nuclear. None. There will always be excuses for the disasters. Always. You can never remove the human element to these things... and as we know, humans make mistakes. Lets not let another mistake destroy our town shall we?
Aj
Aj Сарын өмнө
I think the issue is nuclear weapons that can be developed under clean energy pretext like Iran. So governments oppose this solution.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Yep. That and not glowing on the dark is another big factor.
ctigernews
ctigernews Сарын өмнө
Chernobyl...Fukushima...abundant, clean and safe?.... DESTRUCTION. Billions of $ of destruction. There's nothing left-wing about opposing the dangers of nuclear power.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### agreed agreed. It hasnt happend yet however, a few years after 911 (again it was in the local news) a small cessna plane flew right to the plant, it was piloted by a couple Mexicans trying to smuggle in drugs & thinking the plant /access road was Crystal River airport. Eglin AFB scrambled 2 fighters to intercept however, they only flew over the road as plant security had them on the asphalt detained. That gives you (and our enemies) just how secure U.S. plants are from such threats... granted that was a long time ago, so I hope things have improved.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis I agree that there are inherent risks, but I still think they can be worked around. I would need to do more research on for Tsunamis, earthquakes or F-5 tornados, but in the case of fukushima at least there were things that could and should've been foreseen that would've prevented any nuclear leak. Still the actual radiation leak was pretty low considering it was another Gen II reactor against the worst earthquake and tsunami on a very long time. But still I agree that this isn't an excuse and shouldn't be allowed to happen again, we can do better and we had half a century to develop much better technologies. I won't argue with you about Gen IV reactors being a pipe dream because the technology *could* be developed, but it's going to be very hard with constant political and public opinion charges. Gen III on the other hand it's a pipe dream in the US only because of politic and public opinion, otherwise it's far from being a pipe dream because the technology it's already there. But like I mentioned before I'm only pushing for Gen IV reactors that won't be available until at least the next decade. I agree with one of your concerns and it's also one of my biggest concerns too. The biggest issue with nuclear energy isn't so much the technology itself, but the quality of constructions, but again that also applies to other buildings like dams and bridges. (which again, either of those have killed more people than nuclear energy) About a plane flying into a nuclear reactor multiple things could be done. A ground to air or air to air missile could be used to destroy the plane before it gets too close. Future directed energy weapons could also be used. Or since planes are so high tech nowadays I can imagine a future where a hijacked plane is just recaptured by remotely controlling the computer of the airplane. In any case you don't have to worry about my opinion for at least another 10 years until Gen IV reactors become available.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### dont hear what im not saying, most plants DO perform safely, but my main argument is the security risks more than plant malfunctions or 'accidents'. storing waste at the plants is, like I said a security issue in itself. I keep hearing about how safe plants are, yet we run the risk of further catastrophy the next Tsunami, earthquake or F-5 tornado. Dont try to argue against those disasters because there is NOTHING any nation could do about those things. Hence, the U.S. has not built a single reactor since the (near) 3 mile island 'incident'. Gen 3 & 4 reactors are a pipe dream in the U.S. maybe across the world...yes Commies we have to trust yet again with nuclear plants...does the Chinese, Russians or Indians make you feel safe running those plants...speaking of planes tho, NOT 1 could be stopped should A PILOT decide to fly into a plant...NOT 1.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis It only takes one pilot to take down an entire plane. And more people die each year from plane crashes than in the entire history of nuclear power. I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate concerns with nuclear power. But "risk" specially with future Gen IV reactors is extremely low. What I'm saying is that banning nuclear power completely because of Chernobyl is like wanting to ban all airplanes because of 9/11 (may all the victims rest in peace). By the way I'm not pushing for building new reactors right now. We already have Gen III reactors that are more safe, but I would like to skip Gen III entirely for Gen IV which is even much more safe to the point of being pretty much fool-proof and won't be commercially viable until at least 2030.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### yes except all those things you mention dont irradiate an entire area and render it unihabitable forever. SEE this is what I mean ! Oh it was the communists you say (yes granted safety was kinda a secondary thing with them) but capitalists, fascists, socialists, zionists, have the same problem... they are all human. They make human mistakes ! Whether its not the proper safety design, bad location or anything else. It only takes 1 incident to ruin everything. All that "oh its cheap" mentality is gone when you have to decon or permanently evac an entire town...how many more do we have to do? God forbid some F-5 tornado hits a U.S. plant or our enemies LGB an reactor...what then? No thank you.
Bryan Jones
Bryan Jones Сарын өмнө
nuclear weapons can be banned, but nuclear powerplants are the way to go.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis I see, so there's competition but the lack of stable recognizable company names diminishes public trust. I understand, thank you for giving me more insight in why you came to have a strong opinion against nuclear power. I just hope that for the well being of everyone we can reach for an energy source that can satisfy everyone in the near future.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### WAS a gen 2. Its mothballed (or should be) now...the other power plant there is still in operation I believe its a natural gas? The reactor is shut down...for now. No Florida has many power companies, that constantly change hands, sold, merged or go bankrupt. All more reasons for my stance on the subject also...
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis Yes Crystal River it's a Gen II Pressurized Water Reactor. Is the energy in florida controlled by only one company or are there multiple companies? I'll google for a few news papers to get more insight.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### it was one mess after another. For years they werent able to be efficient. They blamed the reactors' design which, granted could be a possibility with Gen 1/2 types. Then, it seemed like whoever they put in charge couldnt get things better or hire the right people to do the jobs. In Florida (like many other states) electric is privatized. So its all good ol' boy. Not whos more qualified, not whos required. Its all who knows who uncle etc. The NRC for YEARS gave them warnings, citations for cutting corners, as they were constantly cutting costs for anything they could. It was a mess. Years ago they finally pulled the plug, put the reactor in shut down and prepared for decommission. Then they almost screwed that up ! They were going to try and hire some pos company to mothball & seal the reactor ! Thank god the local papers got ahold of the story & got some pressure to hire a competant (I hope) company to get it done. Its still not over. Dont take my word, google Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant & see for yourself. I think we DO need to phase out fossil fuel plants, but Nuclear plants use that too. I dont know what the solution is, sure as hell isnt nuclear.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis I see, then I see why having such first hand experience you would have a negative view on nuclear energy. I'm genuinely interested in your experience, if you have some time I would love to learn more directly from you.
Kavin Bala
Kavin Bala Сарын өмнө
Gotta say solar power and a Dyson sphere is definitely better But we aren't at that level yet So nuclear energy could be what takes us that far If there was something more efficient and effective even if it was more dangerous or risky of say is worth it if it means a faster route for us to be able to harvest energy effectively from our star.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
They are NOT building any plants. None. 0. Nada. Theres reasons why.
Jacobus Kurnia Kaalapaking
Jacobus Kurnia Kaalapaking Сарын өмнө
It's risky but a temporary solution
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Nope. They arent building plants. None in the U.S.
adonis parts
adonis parts Сарын өмнө
A piece of wind turbine once went loose and crushed my dad, clearly eolic energy is too risky!!!
ROHIT GOGOI
ROHIT GOGOI Сарын өмнө
Price overruns are the main reason it's not cheap.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@ROHIT GOGOI please so some research. Search for nuclear waste on MNpost dont take my word for it. Oh and there are no 'price overruns' in my country because they havent built ANY plants since the 70s
ROHIT GOGOI
ROHIT GOGOI Сарын өмнө
@David Louis most are stored in containers near surface so i don't think that's a huge cost.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Nope. Like the $19B hole they built for the waste eh?!
Flint Stone
Flint Stone Сарын өмнө
This is fake news. What about Fukushima daiichi. This guy is uneducated.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
Do you know how many people died in Fukushima due to radiation?
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
No. You are wrong. Hes VERY educated. Hes lying and/or not telling the WHOLE truth about everything it seems...
Joshua Picardal
Joshua Picardal Сарын өмнө
Yeah wanna go green? Nuclear power is way to go it's a no brainer. Though I may understand other people hating because of the stigma of these structures of being incredibly dangerous but once you're educated enough about these stuff, you'll let go of that fear.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Yeah. They havent built any in the U.S. since when? Why? Tell me how 'cheap' they are to build?
SureOkYeah
SureOkYeah Сарын өмнө
It's about time PragerU created a truthful video, it's simplistic and not well argued, but they got the right spirit about nuclear energy. What's that saying? Yeah, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
This is NOT a truthful video man. Sorry to break it to you. Its 1 sided BS leaving out alot of facts.
Toasty McToastface
Toasty McToastface Сарын өмнө
the problem is that we have nownere to stre that nuclear waste effectively
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis I see, thanks I didn't knew they spend $19B in that place or that it was unstable. I'll definitely be looking more into that.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### yes Yucca Mtn. So controversial, even the Trump admin. wouldnt fund it.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis But what cave? I'm still not sure if you mean Yucca mountain or some other place.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### surface storing is costly. Very costly. Not to mention dangerous, you cant have spent fuel rods all over the place where you are producing electric ! Its adding fuel to any fire, not to mention the security risk. Even the utility companies dont like doing it. Now dont even try to blame politics for that, they spent $19B for that cave. They (still) cant get anyone to sign off on that place because they figured out if the place has a collapse the nuclear waste gets trapped in soil. Soil that can leak to ground water thats close to the place. You mean to tell me the government didnt know that until AFTER they spent all our money & built the place?! There is still NO solution to nuke waste.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@David Louis You mean surface storing next to the reactor? That's not inherently unsafe. In fact it's very safe as long as the people working in that know what they are doing and it's given proper maintenance. I'm curious about the $19B hole in the dessert. Is it Yucca mountain? Afaik that place in particular was suitable but never went anywhere because politics.
Robert Larrypoor
Robert Larrypoor Сарын өмнө
Then tell Republicans to stop trying to punish Iran for making nuclear energy and move away from dirty oil!
Black Box Painting
Black Box Painting Сарын өмнө
Iran is using Uranium not Thorium.
Leo Gonzlaez
Leo Gonzlaez Сарын өмнө
Is that what the Iran nuclear deal is or whatever ?
Leo Gonzlaez
Leo Gonzlaez Сарын өмнө
Is that what the Iran nuclear deal is or whatever ?
Brandon Tedder
Brandon Tedder Сарын өмнө
Ummm. Except the wildlife die offs from Fukushima spilling tons of nuclear dirty water back into the pacific. I’m not against nuclear, but to say it’s totally safe is also a farce.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
Fukushima was an older rector design and was close to the end of it's lifetime. There are more secure reactors designs today.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Its not safe bro. Anyone who tells you it is, is a liar, a fool or both.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@iamchillydogg yeah old designs...like all of the ones in the U.S. right now? How about the whole world? You honestly believe you are going to make a plant TOTALLY SAFE from nature?
iamchillydogg
iamchillydogg Сарын өмнө
Those were old designs. The mistake was really the positioning of the backup generators.
Jaime Jimenez
Jaime Jimenez Сарын өмнө
Personally I feel if we can solve the energy storage problem then we probably wouldnt need so many power plants...
Jaime Jimenez
Jaime Jimenez 17 өдрийн өмнө
@Vento #### wasnt talking batteries because batteries aren’t really very “green”. Was talking flywheels or some other technology that can store energy.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
it's already solved. If you mean electrical batteries then we're are probably two decades away at least. And that will only get longer if we limit ourselves on energy.
Cory Shook
Cory Shook Сарын өмнө
I have been saying this my entire adult life! Americans exaggerates everything especially the sky is falling type subjects. COv19 is a perfect example of extreme exaggeration because of agendas, both political and financial . Electricity is the future I mean look at cars and trains and now they’re working on airplanes so we need to charge those things somehow. They are also looking at ways to use the depleted energy instead of just burying it actually utilize it for something that doesn’t require as much power.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Yes ! Especially in Japan Along the coast !
American Gold Eagle
American Gold Eagle Сарын өмнө
nah nuclear is not safe bruh
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
underage people may not apply.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Nope. Not at all. Morons will keep telling you how 'cheap' and 'clean' it is tho as they glow in the dark. Yeah tell me how cheap and clean is Fukishima? Then they will say sonething like: oh but that was an old design" or "oh it was the Tsunami" never the reactor.
Leo Gonzlaez
Leo Gonzlaez Сарын өмнө
Climate change isn’t safe either it’s worth the risk
iamchillydogg
iamchillydogg Сарын өмнө
Nuclear easily wins for lowest death rate of any type of energy.
Ryan D
Ryan D Сарын өмнө
I agree with everything in this video, except the death count from nuclear power accidents. I know the numbers from Chernobyl say like 30. But then again I’m sure those numbers of the actual death count were hidden by the Soviet government at the time. Still that was just one accident tho, and things have gotten a lot more safe sense then. And you can tell this by the nuclear accident in Japan, which only killed around 10 people. And that was brought on by an earthquake. So I’m sure the United Stares would totally benefit from nuclear. We could even invest in better transportation. Like bullet train systems, or power electric cars without the side effect of burning fossil fuels at power plants. The United States would truly progress from nuclear power
R J
R J Сарын өмнө
Need to figure out how to store all that waste. Its not 'clean'. Its also mostly safe... until a Chernobyl happens somewhere.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
Just don't allow another USSR to exist and there won't be another Chernobyl.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@iamchillydogg Exactly
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@iamchillydogg why not?
iamchillydogg
iamchillydogg Сарын өмнө
It's not waste the US government just won't allow reprocessing.
Kermit Frog
Kermit Frog Сарын өмнө
But AOC said it’s evil and AOC is incredibly smart, so...
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
Alexandria Occasional Cortex
Leo Gonzlaez
Leo Gonzlaez Сарын өмнө
Are you joking
Ignacio Rodríguez
Ignacio Rodríguez Сарын өмнө
So how about Thorium then?
Xeverous
Xeverous Сарын өмнө
Please be aware that nuclear energy DOES NOT use the same materials as nuclear bombs. Nuclear plants DO NOT need resources like enriched Uranium 238 - their goal is not exponentially growing chain reaction but consistent balanced reaction where the same number of free neutrons is produced and consumed. Too slow => less cooling, too fast => more cooling. A failing nuclear plant can not explode like a nucelar bomb, it simply melts which at worst wastes the radioactive resource and significantly heats the coolant (usually water).
Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You
Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You Сарын өмнө
Media in Hollywood has brainwashed Society so bad that they'll never accept nuclear power or even nuclear Fusion no matter how safe you tell them it is
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You didnt say I was scared of everything jacka$$ Nice one avoiding all my facts tho...no rebuttal, no reply. Just garbage. Like nuclear energy !
Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You
Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You Сарын өмнө
@David Louis Then go live in a cave If you're scared of everything You rube
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You ever hear of gamma rays? burning coal eh? Yeah because that destroys all plant life in a radius around the plant? Or mutates it? Kills people too? No. How much burning coal spent fuel rods are stacking up at those plants?
Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You
Tickle Me and I'll Hurt You Сарын өмнө
@David Louis You don't even know what you're talkin about There's been more radiation released from burning coal that has ever come out of a nuclear power plant Ever heard of radon gas
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Yes we are so brainwashed. Especially when we glow in the dark or live in Pripyat
Themaskedgamerguys
Themaskedgamerguys Сарын өмнө
As a leftist I'll say that uranium takes quite a bit of waste but is over all better than burning coal. Thorium is the way to go Also we have a shit ton of thorium in the earth but it's still non renewable and will disappear. Also, mining creates a ton emissions so if we are dependent on muscular energy it will create more co2(still less then coal) then using renewable energy. Thanks for listening to my TED talk maybe one person out there
FireSonic101
FireSonic101 Сарын өмнө
Are we really not gonna talk about nuclear waste then?
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@FireSonic101 False. Research integral fast reactors and how reprocessing could reduce the amount of nuclear waste, how Yucca mountain could be used to hold all the nuclear waste of the US or even just stored on the surface next to the reactor.
FireSonic101
FireSonic101 Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### there is no effective way of getting rid of nuclear waste. That is one of the reasons many don't support building nuclear plants. They'd probably end up dumping it in the ocean.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
You mean the nuclear fuel that could be used if not because of politics?
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel ok so you admit you were wrong, avoid the subject and talk about the Sahara and something else I really cant inderstand...Nuclear Waste is not worth the investment? Is that what you were trying to say? If you are serious about that, we cant even talk.
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel Сарын өмнө
@David Louis but its not worth the investment. It would be if for example the sahara desert was wull of them but the production of silver, transport, energy transfer and most of all politics just make it impossible. Thats why we need nuclear powerplants and as a european i cant wait for the launch of ITER
Christian Romero
Christian Romero Сарын өмнө
Love PragerU
TheZarcFiles
TheZarcFiles Сарын өмнө
Isn’t to something to do with the long economic RoI that makes nuclear touchy for investors?
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
That is another factor. Plus the dangers. Waste.
Joseph Monte
Joseph Monte Сарын өмнө
Where I live in NJ we currently get 40% of our electricity from nuclear which represents 90% of our carbon free power. Nuclear is safe, efficient, and very scalable.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
Yeah hope they dont go boom. Or store the waste in your backyard
Phil Timmons
Phil Timmons Сарын өмнө
Typical PragerU: where dumb ideas come to die. Perfect shitstorm of stupidity. Michael Shellenberger + PragerU. Sad Comedy.
Phil Timmons
Phil Timmons Сарын өмнө
@Vento #### well, I do not think we will be dating, so probably any underage issues are not too great a concern. But as noted -- Michael Shellenberger's constant lying might be more of a concern . . . although probably not so much for typical PragerU dimwits.
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@Phil Timmons philosophically? do you even know what philosophy is? You sound underage.
Phil Timmons
Phil Timmons Сарын өмнө
@Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel Well, philosophically Nuke Energy is not so much bad as lying about Renewables -- which is pretty much Shellenberger’s main game. But since you asked about Nukes . . . here is just a partial list of "Why Not Nukes" . . . . 1. Nukes are the Most Expensive new generation source. 2. Nukes are the Slowest new generation source. 3. Nukes are the Most Long-Term Dirty new generation source. 4. Nukes are the Highest Risk new generation source. 5. Nukes are the Least Flexible new generation source. 6. Nukes are a Central Plant Model Only new generation source. 7. It would take 1000s to 10000 Nukes to power US. (meaning we could never even get enough New Nukes built before new-old ones would need replacing). 8. No one actually serious in the Generation industry wants New Nukes. 9. There is still no way to clean up Nukes. 10. Existing Nukes are being shut-down early due to poor economics, and/or being put on welfare to avoid Bankruptcy. ------------------------------ But other than that . . . New Nukes seem like a really great welfare-boondoggle stupid idea.
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel Сарын өмнө
then explain why nuclear energy is bad in your opinion
Akash 14
Akash 14 Сарын өмнө
This isn’t a bad video by any means, its just that nuclear power does come at a price it isn’t the best option as portrayed here just because it happens to be super reliable in that it produces high amounts of energy in quick succession. Here are just a few problems: 1) power plants have to be created and maintained this costs a lot of money and if we assume that power plants are to be the go to primary option you would need many of them around the world further destroying natural land mass. 2) nuclear substances that are used (ie plutonium and uranium) are finite resources, like coal they run out. 3) produces radioactive waste material. Which is placed into huge forms of concrete and put deep underground. 4) at 2:52 you mention that the accident like Chernobyl would never take place in the west. Implying that renewable clean and safe energy production is to be for only the west when in actuality if we are the only ones to use this good energy then we wouldn’t be making up for all the bad energy production taking place in the wider world. 5) there is a national security regardless of wether you’re in a 1st or 3rd world country. Domestic and or foreign terrorist organisations may target such places because of the great destruction they can cause.
Zane Albert
Zane Albert Сарын өмнө
@David Louis Used fuel is buried among 70 secure locations throughout the US. I was making the point that if you were to have all of it in one location it would encompass one football field about 10 feet high. However, it is not all consolidated in one location but rather dispersed and stored in small quantities. Transportation of used fuel has never resulted in radiological releases to the public or environment in the US and this is a highly regulated process. www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy environmentalprogress.org/energy1
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
@Zane Albert wow thats amazing. What about the $19 BILLION dollar hole in the ground to store all that waste? Sounds like that might be your 10 feet deep football stadium...well where is this 'safe' football field/ stadium anyways? Is it near where you live? Why are millions of people going to die because of air pollution?
Zane Albert
Zane Albert Сарын өмнө
​@David Louis The US has produced roughly 83,000 metric tons of used fuel in the history of nuclear energy and all of it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. Used fuel rods get safely stored in canisters encased in concrete and stored underground taking up an incredibly small land mass. Nuclear energy has the smallest land use footprint of all energy sources and it has the potential to save millions of lives in the future by mitigating air pollution.
David Louis
David Louis Сарын өмнө
They have no actionable plans for the waste. NONE. No plants have been built in the U.S. for over 40 years. Morons will keep telling you how 'cheap' and 'clean' it is tho
Zane Albert
Zane Albert Сарын өмнө
All energy sources have pros and cons so I agree with your statement that nuclear is not without any price. However, on average wind and solar require 400 times more land than nuclear. This poses risks to soil health and biodiversity if we were to have hundreds of millions of acres of wind and solar infrastructure. Uranium is technically a finite resource however it is incredibly efficient which makes it very scalable. For instance, 1kg of uranium can produce the same amount of energy as approximately 126 gallons of oil. But even so, considering the concept of finite resources you just made the same case against wind and solar as they require cobalt, copper, aluminum, arsenic, and more. Although nuclear is the most efficient and entails the smallest land use footprint, we should also supplement it with some other forms of energy such as hydro, geothermal, and biomass which don't require finite resources. These sources can only act as a supplements because there are limited locations that entail geothermal reservoirs or the ability to construct a dam or arable farmland to grow biofuels. We could also use some solar panels on preexisting rooftops or parking lots in areas out west to prevent further land expansion. However, I am just making the point that none of the energy sources I mentioned will be able to entirely replace fossil fuels without the use of nuclear in the energy mix to some degree.
Kristin Astor
Kristin Astor Сарын өмнө
Outstanding work. Right on, spot on. True.
Lawliet 82
Lawliet 82 Сарын өмнө
Well, against facts there is no arguments I myself kinda was against it since... well, it kinda destroyed a whole place in ukraine forever I do know it is not that unsafe as they say, actually it is pretty safe, but i always wondered about the waste and if the waste is this small that means with very little uranium a lot of energy can be made Okay okay, if this whole thing is correct then why don't we do it then?
Jason Vyzer
Jason Vyzer Сарын өмнө
A full football field with cannisters stacked 70' high? I mean, I get your point.. it's "relatively" a small amount, but that's still a lot. Also, how much would that amount increase if the US were to up it's usage of nuclear power to say, 80%?
A.J. Hodges
A.J. Hodges Сарын өмнө
Regarding the 3 mentioned incidents it should be noted that both 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl were exclusively human error. Not following procedure and not double checking things that should have been double checked. They should have already known better in both cases. Fukushima was the result of inadequate backups. When the power went out and the rising water prevented the backup generators from running they had no way to quench the reaction. Manual backups are required by law in the United States, have been for decades. If all else fails and you lose control you open one valve by hand and quench the reaction with water fed by gravity from a source set up for that purpose. They might make a man-made lake or deliberately place the reactor near a natural lake or river and they usually dig down to place the reactor to ensure it's below their emergency water source. Reactors near the California coast are built below sea level so they can source sea water in such an emergency. If you have to do so the power plant "dies" but no humans do. A dead plant has all nuclear material removed and is eventually demolished and you have to build a new one somewhere else.
John Arne Hansen
John Arne Hansen Сарын өмнө
Make American railroads electric !
Nate
Nate Сарын өмнө
To bad green energy is way cheaper then nuclear power. Good luck next time
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel Сарын өмнө
NO?
Dead Channel
Dead Channel Сарын өмнө
Nuclear energy can permanently damage nature
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@Dead Channel And there are safe ways to deal with such dangers as with almost anything.
Dead Channel
Dead Channel Сарын өмнө
Vento #### Well Nuclear power can take centuries to disappear and coal can just seep into the ground if you shut down a coal plant
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
@Dead Channel Uranium is also a natural resource.
Dead Channel
Dead Channel Сарын өмнө
Umocnić Discography Dictum Risen Diesel Coal is a natural resource it would seep into the ground 😂
Vento ####
Vento #### Сарын өмнө
So it can some of the chemicals used to make solar panels.
Don Lee.
Don Lee. Сарын өмнө
Nuclear energy = Facts. Solar Energy = feelings.
Keanu Threeves
Keanu Threeves Сарын өмнө
Nuclear energy = Good way to produce electricity Solar energy = A decent, cheap alternative
Maxie Boy123
Maxie Boy123 Сарын өмнө
I’m glad I watched this video, I didn’t know half the information about nuclear energy till now, and It was taught last year.
Dragon Ball Flee
Dragon Ball Flee Сарын өмнө
Well what do you know, trump was right 😂 and biden lied
jose farrington
jose farrington Сарын өмнө
Why even France is moving away from Nuclear? Because renewables are more cheaper and scalable. Nuclear will stay around, but it will not be the main source of energy worldwide. And nuclear days will be counted when fusion technology starts be be commercially available in the 2050's.
Lala The Mage
Lala The Mage Сарын өмнө
I heard about nuclear power and felt disinterested about this topic, glad to learn something new and actually see how practical nuclear power can be for us, thanks Prager U!!
Yko!
Yko! Сарын өмнө
Woah, a pragerU video I agree with!
Keanu Threeves
Keanu Threeves Сарын өмнө
I'm surprised they were allowed to make this video, considering they are funded by fracking billionaires.
Rolletroll
Rolletroll Сарын өмнө
You want to hear a (bad) joke? In France we will reduce the fraction of nuclear energy in our mix because of "environnemental" reasons. I'm ashamed of my country...
Buran01
Buran01 Сарын өмнө
France's 3rd largest nuclear industry: filed barnkrupt this decade; France's second largest nuclear industry (Areva): buyed by the largest one (EDF) on the verge of bankrupcy in 2017; France's largest nuclear industry (EDF) and the company that operates the largest amount of nuclear reactors in the world: net debt in 2018 33 billion €, but with future obligations such as pension liabilities and costs for managing nuclear waste allowed for, adjusted net debt was €70 billion. France, the praised withite kingth of nuclear power industry, faces a unprecedent financial and energetic crisis: most of their power plants were built in the 60's and 70's to allow the stack of nuclear weapons, so they funded the industry non stop to reach the goals of having nukes. Now (at the end of the Cold War in the mid of the 80's) that the world no longer needs nukes (and they rust while spent trillions in servicing) the military stablishment decided to cut founds for an industry that NEVER was profitable and no longer provide any value. So, if the largest nuclear company in the world, EDF, is unable to make profit from their dozens of nuclear reactors, figure how will end your money if wasted in the funding of new nuclear entreperneurs which have to compete against solar photovoltaic and wind turbines... Just think a bit. Short answer: nuclear power is not cost effective. That's why is crumbling, as happened with the coal 5 years ago. And will be worse every year, because pv + wind + storage will only get cheaper and cheaper.
Kyle Kimberley
Kyle Kimberley Сарын өмнө
PragerU is funded by a number of Koch 'foundations', I'm sure those two have nothing to gain from nuclear energy or anything.
Nuclear Energy Explained: How does it work? 1/3
05:18
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Үзсэн тоо 6сая
When the writer of a show only focuses on progressing the plot.
3:55
Ashanti and Keyshia Cole go head-to-head on Verzuz
1:44:04
REVOLT TV
Үзсэн тоо 2,2сая
UFC 257: Post-fight Press Conference
1:22:33
UFC - Ultimate Fighting Championship
Үзсэн тоо 2,7сая
Is Nuclear Fusion The Answer To Clean Energy?
22:53
CNBC
Үзсэн тоо 2,2сая
The Economics of Nuclear Energy
16:11
Real Engineering
Үзсэн тоо 1,2сая
Thomas Cochrane: Craziest Sea Captain in History
1:17:36
Kings and Generals
Үзсэн тоо 697мянга.
The fight to rethink (and reinvent) nuclear power
08:11
Illusions of Time
31:08
Vsauce
Үзсэн тоо 4,8сая
But how does bitcoin actually work?
26:21
3Blue1Brown
Үзсэн тоо 6сая
The American Civil War - OverSimplified (Part 1)
29:53
OverSimplified
Үзсэн тоо 19сая
Supreme Court Shenanigans!
12:02
CGP Grey
Үзсэн тоо 3сая
When the writer of a show only focuses on progressing the plot.
3:55
Ashanti and Keyshia Cole go head-to-head on Verzuz
1:44:04
REVOLT TV
Үзсэн тоо 2,2сая
UFC 257: Post-fight Press Conference
1:22:33
UFC - Ultimate Fighting Championship
Үзсэн тоо 2,7сая
Funk Flex x Rowdy Rebel - RE-ROUTE (Official Video)
2:22
DJ FUNK FLEX
Үзсэн тоо 1,4сая
We made the ULTIMATE GAMING POD!
15:03
Hacksmith Industries
Үзсэн тоо 1,5сая
Kyle From NELK Gives His Dad $300,000 To Retire!
5:28
FULL SEND
Үзсэн тоо 1,2сая