Nuclear Physicist Reacts - Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
2022 ж. 17 Қыр.
619 104 Рет қаралды
Nuclear Physicist Reacts to Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
In this video, I react to Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? video from the perspective of a nuclear physicist. I go through the Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? video and look through what is accurate information on Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? video, and nuclear Physics and react to it.
Hope you like the video about Nuclear Physicist Reacts - Kurzgesagt Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?
Don't forget to like and subscribe!
I’m thrilled you guys enjoy this video! You can check out my support page, where you can become a member, support the channel, and get exclusive access to awesome unseen content! ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou ☢️👩🏽🔬
How do you feel about US robber barons (1930s) and the UN (1960s) having banned Hemp worldwide, and all the possibilities it might have yielded?
If someone said that demonizing nuclear power, taking reactors offline and willfully forgetting the technology _wasn't_ about protecting the environment but instead about denying people something that would make their lives immeasurably better, would you call them crazy? Some people don't steal to enrich themselves, they steal to weaken those they're stealing from.
Those managing the economy demand its growth... kzhead.info/channel/PLhH8w0wcKSeDpkunKyRWBkPCcjiEk6AL7.html
For a scientist u look 😍
Stop pretending that nuclear power will solve any problem. In France, the country with the highest nuclear power production in the world, just ONE new power plant is being built. For more than 20 years! And it is still not finished and has already cost 16 billion euros. You would have to build about 2500 power plants in the next 20 years to have any noticeable effect on climate change. So from now on about 2.5 new power plants per week. THIS IS COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION.
You're a nuclear physicist who reacts to online videos. In a way, you might call yourself a "nuclear reactor"
Ahahahaah this is hilarious! I’m taking it and quoting you on it 😂☢️👩🏽🔬
There are some very good analysis of nuclear energy in these comments, and yet this might be the most brilliant comment here lol 😂
quite a radio-active pun!
I almost had a meltdown reading this hahaha
My state went critical after reading this 😃
It's awesome to see Kurtzgezagt getting fact checked, and even agreed with!
Absolutely!!!! But I LOVE KURTZGEZAGT!!!!!!! SO MUUUUCH!
I love how she stated facts and her opinions, only to play the video and have them say the exact same thing
Those nerds would love that 😂
Yeah. Cause last time they were fact checked by another big physics channel, they deleted their comment & tried to burry other comments mentioning that. They made a apology response years after that & then too they didn't credit the channel & still had an ego about that
@@Dolphins_are_our_Overlords tell us more about it, what video and what topic, which channel gave corrections.
Kurzgesagt puts in the work to produce their videos. They have a whole video explaining their process and how a video is made. They spend a lot of time and energy making sure they get it right. (sometimes they even correct themselves when they get something wrong!) One of the best channels on youtube.
agreed yo
totally disagree, they do plenty of mistakes and often get things horribly wrong
Absolutely right! They are great!
@@cj09beira what would be examples?
100%
Our world needs more experts explaining things in clear ways that a layperson can easily understand. Thanks for your hard work.
Thank you I appreciate it 👩🏽🔬☢️
Especially the internet where misinformation runs rampant.
Well the problem is that no "layperson" will watch an educational video. Even more so when it's on yt.
The videos tha people at Kurzegsagt make are epitome of "simple" They even have a video that explains why and how they lie to us durimg these videos so we can better understand the concepts that we are not knowledgable to understand.
One burning question I have is "how is she an expert"? She just says she is and that can be a misinformation as well. Disclaimer- this is her first video I watched so I have no idea who she is and she makes almost no effort to show her credentials. While this is a "react video", she gives or takes legitimacy from knowledge she comments if people believe her. Having her credentials verified should be a standard procedure.
Hey guys, in the video I made a mistake referring to 70% of energy in France being generated by nuclear. The correct statement is that 70% of electricity in France is produced by nuclear. Thanks for pointing it out and enjoy watching ☢️👩🏽🔬
This mistake stems from the biggest misunderstanding in this topic and noone focuses on it. You should make a video about the fact that electricity not equals energy until a lot of things uses fossil directly. the usefulness of renewables is blured all the way: is that wood in the kurtzgesagt renewable group? You think the ppl understand?: -all the wind - and solar farms are built all around the world like crazy; ! -we argue about storage like pros, no solution yet !! -and even if you count in geo and tidal; !!! -we need WOOD(biogas whatever) to reach 4% !!!!!! but "Germany meets 100% of its needs from renewables on a sunny afternoon." -lie1: 'needs' means elecricity but implies energy 100%->35% -lie2: on a sunny afternoon factories stop, ppl get into fossil cars, or precharged cars, they wont use electricity until they get home; also minimal airconditioning in germany, and no lights used AND solar is on a peak. -lie3: renewables mean a 100 things and not all of them are expandable greatly. You will think a big %is solar because of the context, but who knows? Maybe the wind was also on peak on this afternoon? -lie4: this not is good thing. The proper title would have been: Germanys solar- and windfarms overflow the grid when load is the lowest, but stopes just before evening peak load kicks in.
I wished you had addressed the comparison of 'primary energy' with pure electricity generation. This neglects the waste heat that is generated and lost by fossil fuels, including that energy in the primary energy calculation, inflating the energy percentage of fossil fuels. A similar comparison with nuclear would be to include the mass-energy content of the uranium-235 atoms that are used in nuclear fuel (and not just the output electricity generated). This accounting trick is a constant trope by fossil fuel interests to portray their contribution as much more than it actually is.
Another point that is almost always missed. Yes, replacing fuel cars, home heating, water heating, and cooking with their electrical counterparts would mean that we will need A LOT more electricity generation even if we use the same amount of total energy. But it's not just generation. It is also transportation and distribution, and even receiving it at home. Adding generation capacity in whatever form will not hep by itself if we don't have the wires (grid) to transport it from the point of generation to the areas of consumptions and then to distribute it in the neighborhoods, and if the houses will catch fire when you plug your car while mom in cooking, son is taking a shower and we have the heat on because it is winter. It is a huge transformation that is required and we are so focused in solar and wind (and in storage to buffer between production and demand) that we are blind to other things that need to happen, from other sources of sustainable energy (like nuclear) to increasing the generation, transportation, distribution and consumption capacity, to other things like synthetic fuels from CO2 in the air and water for things that cannot be electrical in the foreseeable future (like aviation).
@@maunaowakea777 Sometimes the energy content of the material is the only concrete number, Oil burned in a car is a lot less efficient (20~40%) compared to oil burned in a stationary steam turbine generator with heat capture systems (~80%), the Media tends to be the one not understanding the technicalities.
@@woobilicious. Yes, true, but let us be honest, at the right temperatures tires burn cleaner than coal, yet many countries have banned burning tires, it seems that sometimes we do not take the right steps but does anyone care, it would seem they do not. Hell when I was a kid we were told that we have no gas, so we are going to make car engines smaller, everyone sat back and watched it happen, and yet now we are making them bigger, since fuel probably is created basically as it was with improvements over time I can not see how 30 years later we now have tons of fuel and car engines are growing again. It is like in the US they have a water issue, and people are like you can not wash your car or water your grass on these days, yet the water is not used by the people in the cities it is mostly used by the farms that water the fields they grow food on, but the farmer isn't told to not water his fields. Things do not seem fair, but I mean if my lawn is yellow no one starves so yeah OK, just don't now go a feed all the food to the cows.
Kurzgezagt is one of the most accurate, thoroughly researched and serious channels currently on KZhead, so I'm glad to see that you agree with this video after hearing your regular "true", "that's accurate", "exactly", "precisely", etc. and just adding extra info that the original video didn't have time to address in detail. Thanks!
I wish there was a "well-researched" filter on KZhead.
Couldn't agree more with you. Kurzgesagt has became a reference in youtube not only in science videos but also social, psychological, theoretical, etc...
thank you for posting this comment. I only came here to see if they were trustworthy, but I'm tired and don't want to watch the whole video before I go to bed lol 🤣
That's what happens if media is properly funded and held to a high quality standard. I'm well aware of the opposition and arguments against tax-funded (some would say "government controlled" but that's far from the truth) news outlets, but Kurzgesagt is constantly proving them otherwise.
Kurzgezagt is obsessed with reducing CO2. They literally have a video about how to use space mirrors to redirect sunlight and cool down Venus, but on earth "The only way to stop climate change is zero emissions"
I LOVE Kurzgesagt and all their videos! So I’m really pleased to see an expert fact-checking them!! Thanks for this! :)
New one will come soon stay tuned ☢️👩🏽🔬
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist so excited!!! :)
I love seeing videos like this as a huge nuclear energy advocate and a student studying nuclear physics there are so many misconceptions about nuclear power and its safety and the possibilities of the future advantages of nuclear power
Thank you! I appreciate it ☢️👩🏽🔬 best of luck with your studies
I watch their videos regularly, and they are very good. These videos proves you can educate without indoctrination someone to a cause. I've always found them to be very balanced, and show information from both sides and allow the viewer to form their own opinions.
Indeed! I feel the same way! Thanks for your comment! Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!👩🏽🔬☢️
I dunno guys... I am fairly well read on the climate change topic and I am not convinced that anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses actually cause global warming. There is compelling evidence against this hypothesis and other sources of potential warming is routinely ignored. For example, the role of solar irradiance was complete ignored in the early 1990s because of serious bias against fossil fuels. Take a look at CDN Does the Sun warm the earth? Also, the climate models we have tend to run far too hot, especially if the models are very sensitive to anthropogenic CO2. Furthermore, the models make predictions that are just not in an line with reality, all GHG models predict warming in the tropical troposphere and higher layers of the atmosphere. Advocates of the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis suggest that CO2 acts to cool the upper layers of the atmosphere, but trap heat in the lower atmosphere. This makes absolutely NO sense to me, though I am but a lowly undergraduate bachelor's of science in physics, but I am pretty good at smelling bullshit.
@@kayakMike1000 It's more complex than that. From the high stratosphere to the the mesopause, there is indeed a decrease in temperature over time, as the troposphere's pressure keeps it from radiating heat effectively from below, and the thermosphere absorbs a lot of the high energy solar radiation from above, leaving it in an awkward middle section where it doesn't get much heat. Greenhouse gases are good emitters as well as good absorbers. As the concentration of them increases in the mesosphere, so to does its capacity to radiate. Since heat introduction is limited, but emissivity is increasing with the change in composition, the net change in temperature is negative. This trend turns positive at and above the mesopause. Nearly 30 years of climate data from the UARS has verified this. See "Trends in the polar summer mesosphere temperature and pressure altitude from satellite observations" in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
I assume they're on the socially libertarian end of Social Democracy. Which is good.
"You can educate without indoctrinating" hahahahahaha yeah right 😂
Yes! Finally! People need to move past the false dichotomy created by political and economic interests and I'm glad to see the increasing amount of expert coverage of such an important and nuanced topic.
Thank you for the support and your comment! Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!👩🏽🔬☢️
That username is amazing.
Unfortunately, it is not a complete false dichotomy. Nuclear plants aren't really a good complement to renewables for both economical and technical reasons. That's a little bit a blind spot in the video but not a reason for me to be completely against the use of nuclear power. As long as a country blocks the construction of renewable plants politically (i. e. Germany in the last ten years) and the construction could be much faster it is more a question of building storage or nuclear reactors. For the latter we'd need to accept an enormous amount of public interventions. So, it doesn't surprise me that it works bad in the west and better in the east. If we are honest about it and consider that for our plan to become CO-2-neutral, it's ok for me to take this path. For my country I highly doubt that it would work. That's because I'm fine with leaving nuclear in Germany.
@@adalata Hey Flo, I thought Germany was blocking nuclear, not renewables? Also, when you say that nuclear is not a good complement to renewables - can you expand? Usually, people mean nuclear is good for baseload power supply, and by renewables, people mean solar and wind. Obviously, hydro is good for baseload too.
@@clancyjames585 For about ten years Germany blocked the construction of solar and Wind politically. The new government this year brings for times as many to the net as in the previous years. But one problem our market faces is that baseload become incompetable when too much electricity is produced by wind and solar. For that reason renewables are switched down by the Bundesnetzagentur when there is not enough demand for both. And they have to be payed for switching off because there is enough wind and sun. So, in combination with wind and solar you need suppliers which can be easily switched on and off instead of baseload capacities. Gas is an example but it should be green gas relatively soon, of course. Nuclear power is much to expensive (LCOE) to compete without subsidies even today. In such a market the problem would be even bigger. And so probably it is not a coincidence that states with much electricity from nuclear are far behind when it comes to renewables typically. That seems to be an odd bridge technology to me then.
As a person from Finland, the slow building of nuclear plant is definitely an issue. Finland was one of he few western european countries that has built a new nuclear plant (it is built by Areva and Siemens). The permission for it was granted in 2002 and building started in 2005. It was supposed to be finished in 2009 but has been delayed multiple times for multiple reasons. At the end of 2021 it was finally started for first time for testing and in September the first full power tests were done. It is slated to be in full production in December this year. So a very long project indeed.
wow
western europe????
@@elephantofstrawberry I suppose he views any country west of Europe's Russian half as western. Or maybe he just means westernized culturally.
@@elephantofstrawberry Western Europe in the sense that Finland is liberal european democracy (ie. the "western world"). I suppose one would need to come up with a word that has the concept of it, but would include also Australia.
Those delays come from the typical issue of the military-nuclear-industrial complex: cutting corners, not adhering to safety and quality standards, cheap, cheap, cheap, bribing or pressuring inspectors etc. The Finnish fell victim to the same thing that is one of the strongest arguments against nuclear power stations: They are never built to the quality standards the industrial complex promises and advertises in its propaganda.
Seeing a Nuclear Physicist fact check a Kurzgesagt video is something I DID NOT know I needed in my life until now
As a mechanical engineer, I appreciate your passion and frustration for this topic. I believe that you are correct, it will take a long fight to do the right thing and I’m glad that you are on the correct side. Keep going, I will keep fighting too.
Thanks for the support and your comment. You can check my support page where I post exclusive uncut videos and more awesome content ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou
Is she correct? But in what? What kind of sides are you talking about?
@@kleniiii bruh use context clues
2:40 This point about france is really important I feel. They produce most of their power from nuclear, and they've never had a significant incident. France proves that nuclear power can be done right, but a couple of poor governments make some bad decisions and/or leave their reactors in the hands of undertrained staff and everyone goes up in arms against the technology instead of the people. A factory can poison the waters around it for miles (depending on the factory of course). Does that mean we should stop building factories? No, it means we should carry out careful waste management procedures within and around factories. It's a problem of management, not of the technology itself. And France has the management 'problem' solved. Other countries should follow their example.
Thanks for the insightful comment it is indeed the case that human error causes severe issues more often than not. Therefore npp nowadays mostly rely or passive safety mechanisms driven by physics itself ☢️👩🏽🔬
Intersting point because this summer France relied on the German renewables to get their Reactors working. Or rather they baught the electric power from Germany, scaled down their nuclear power production because of the heat and draught caused issues. Also, iIrc their reactors are old and running on 60-70% of possible production capacity (?). So France shows exactly the point this video makes. You need a good mix of energy. The "unreliable" part is often quoted but not so big an issue or could and can be mitigated. My company had projects with windfarm companies and they can react to deviations in minutes, because their wind farms are located on different sites and if one is experienceing a low, they switch more on the other. I am really on the side of the "need to work together" argument in this video, however most big companies try to squeese as much money as they can out of it and try to avoid investing and developing the good stuff (see Exxon, Laschet and coal etc.) And lastly. Since the start of nuclear energy in Europe, there is *no* solution for storing the nuclear waste adequately. At least that I know of. There is Gorleben, Ahaus and others. Asse (salt mine) was considered but after 20 or so years it proved not save. France is sending some of it to Germany, other waste is stored in Le Hague etc. but no permanent solution yet. Just a plan to have it 2035 or so(?) So even France has not solved the "management" problem. Peace!
I'm totally in agreement with you, I've been on the side of the pro-nuclear power generation in the past during a few risk assessment analysis consulting work that I did. However, what most people don't seem to realize that the argument on the high-level decision making side is very rarely about the accidents or the meltdown themselves, since most (good) politicians, decision makers and scientists know that nuclear power generator is much safer than most other alternatives. It's about "what happens" if the meltdown did occur. That one single worst case scenario is the prime and main reason why the majority of nuclear power proposal falls flat into the ground. The biggest issue with nuclear power is not cost, it's not safety, it's not waste (well technically waste management is the second biggest issue, but I digress), it's not even marketing, it's their failure risk threshold. The largest coal or geothermal power generator, when it fails in a catastrophic failure, some people might get injured, or even die, millions of dollars might be lost, it's bad, for sure. But comparatively, even a mid-sized nuclear power plant, in the event of a catastrophic meltdown, the entire place, the immediate area surrounding it, and possibly a huge swath of area around it, would be a complete wasteland, with zero chance of rebuilding for decades if not centuries (depending on reactor type). This, is possibly the main cause of why nuclear fission reactor will never see public light.
@@olafschmidt8437 France was buying up Germany electricity which was generated mostly by burning lignite. The problems in France were maintenance delayed by Covid lockdowns and high cooling water temperatures. The solution is maintenance and wet or dry cooling towers.
@@gregorymalchuk272
I love Kursgesagt and always recommend it to my friends, it’s always very didactic, clear and makes a lot of effort to be as accurate as possible for 10 min videos
Hey! Kurzgesagt viewer here and I appreciate you taking the time to run through one of their videos. I generally hold them in high regard for their quality research and it's really nice to see that confirmed by other sources. Now I get to binge on your other videos :D Secondarily, I am 100% in the more nuclear camp and I appreciate anyone in the field trying to make workable solutions.
I love academics getting into the youtube space to factcheck videos. Misinformation or misleading information is rampant, and you're doing the best science communication work possible in my opinion. Cheers
If just showing a cooling tower is already considered misinformation (0:34), then wilI am sure you will find plenty.
Kurzgesagt Videos are actually fact checked during their making. They uploaded a video explaining their process and script writing and said that they let their content be reviewed by multiple experts in the field
@@kilianbrachtendorf4303 Even though Kurzgesagt's videos are actually good, they are way too simple. It is always good that an expert explains some key aspects in detail so that people have a better understanding of the topics.
But she is not an environmental or energy expert, she is a nuclear physicist.
@@leonfa259 I'm not talking about Kurzgesagt dingus
I'm a big fan of Kurzgesact, I'm now a new fan of yours. It's always awesome having a source you trust being checked by an expert. Thank you very much for your video.
@Barrett do you have anything to prove what you say?
@Barrett ? That was a pretty boring video, nothing false in it. The end result was basically nothing happens.
@@dylanb2990 kurzgesagt is funded by Bill Gates, I wouldn't trust anything they say. kzhead.info/sun/qKeuqZV8mIOwioE/bejne.html
@Barrett if only 5 min of research why not put in a comment or even better do a video like the one above.
@Barrett What are you saying is wrong in that video? Do you think the moon *would* move???
This is how reaction videos should be made, love how you transition and that picture in picture view is perfect, good job.
Glad to see Kurzgesagt getting recognition. Loved the video. You got a new subscriber!
It's unfortunate that fusion always seems to be "20 years away." I'd like to think that, with the recent successes in testing fusion, we're actually closer to truly being 20 years away than ever before. Perhaps you could cover some of these recent tests and give your opinion on how close we actually are to the final breakthrough necessary to make fusion a reality.
Thanks for the support ! I will consider making a video about fusion 👩🏽🔬☢️
Twenty years is very optimistic. The "recent successes" you mention aren't really very successful. The good numbers being reported only compare the energy going into the plasma, and the energy coming out. They disregard all the energy required to run the machines, and all the losses, greater than half, involved in converting the heat produced in the plasma to electricity. See this video by Sabine Hossenfelder: kzhead.info/sun/f65th5WfZGiAnJE/bejne.html In other words, we aren't close at all to fusion energy.
From what i've read, ITER should demonstrate fusion producono energy in 2035, but commercial fusion is then only expected to work commercialy around 2070
@@Kob1yashi And in 2035 they will say fusion is only fifteen years away. Right now, they are claiming that Q_{plasma} is 0.7, while Q_{total} is maybe 0.1. There is a very long way to go to reach break-even.
@@michaelsommers2356 I'm not sure I think the progress is exponential so I believe we will see fusion in 2080 for sure but until then fast neutrons reactors seem to be the best bet
This was fascinating! I frequently enjoy Kurzgesagt so it was reassuring to hear an expert largely verify what they said. There was another video released just recently by them to do with nuclear waste disposal, that would also be interesting to hear your thoughts about!
A nuclear physicist is not an expert on energy grids and energy policy, however.
I am an avid Kurzgesagt follower and saw this video in recommended list... Kurzgesagt screenshot in the thumbnail caught my eye. I like how you went through the video, and I subscribed immediately, and watched your other videos as well! I hope to see more reactions to tv shows like Chernobyl in future, the Simpsons are also funny and fun :D I hope you will help the internet auditorium to better understand nuclear energy, debunking all the horror misconceptions around it etc. I wish you many many more subscribers soon! Keep on the good work!
Thanks for confirming that this youtube video is of high quality to understand the issue at hand. In this age of information, it is always a hard task to find quality information and not get lost in the junk of Internet.
I found myself applauding through the video. We need more of this, for the future of energy, of food, of everything. We need to make decisions based on the best evidence available. Governments need to start employing actual scientists and specialists to inform policies. Thanks for clarifying every point, and kudos from the land that houses the old Atucha I (didn't know it was THAT old until now).
Let me know how you liked this reaction video and thanks for suggesting it guys! It was really fun reacting to it! ☢️👩🏽🔬 stay tuned for next weeks controversial episode!
Hi! Would you be able to cover Thorium as a fuel source at some point? Or any alternatives to Uranium & Plutonium as a nuclear fuel. Cheers! Cool channel too!
A balanced overview. Finding solutions to the world's problems has to start with eliminating the us against them stance we find ourselves in. All sides seem to feel that compromise is the enemy instead of the beginning of progress. In the U.S. California has mandated electric cars while suffering through rolling blackouts. These ready-shoot-aim approaches to get votes have nothing to do with solving problems. We are closer to rationing energy than many would like to admit. .
Hi Elina! It would be great if you react to Chernobyl from HBO. greetings from Brazil.
Nice reaction (fun intended!)! We're thanks to you
The real reason there are no nuclear power plants in the US is no one wants to insure them.
It is perhaps the chief saving grace of humanity, that people feel the NEED to explain things they understand to others, its almost like a biological urge to share knowledge and its amazing. Love this
« Almost like a biological urge » It’s most probably a biological urge. Your ancestors shared stories, showed the youth how to use tools, etc…. As well. We evolved to transmit knowledge.
Just found your channel and really love your content, thankyou for doing what you do. I wirk in the environmental industry here in Australia and i regularly have discussions with colleagues regarding our challenges with energy in the not so distant future. It always fascinates me that the major of my peers either don't know or don't understand that 'long term energy storage' is one of our biggest problems. Particularly in a country as vast as Australia. I mean 80% of Australia is still without telecommunications coverage. The idea that we will somehow be able to capture, store and supply clean energy throughout this country is a fantasy. Necessity is the mother of invention. Hopefully it won't be desperation. 👍
Great reaction! After high school physics, I never understood why people were so strongly against nuclear when the alternatives (fossils) are so much worse. I think it's largely an education problem.
That is exactly the problem. Nuclear is such an easy target for its opponents, because all they have to say is "hiroshima", "chernobyl" or "fukushima" and most people that aren't educated on the subject will be against nuclear power out of fear simply because they hear the word "nuclear".
because both are stupid. Its just doing nothing for decades.
Bad education + propaganda
other then people are idiots, it takes a long time to build and high costs to build, I can take 10-15 years to build one
@@d4s0n282 A big part of those high costs comes from extremely strict regulations, approval processes and so on, not a small part of which are purely based on anti-nuclear propaganda and fear, not scientifitc reasons.
I always fear nuclear brca iam Ukrainian but i am learning more and more and its so interesting how fear makes one ignorant ♡ thank you i am learning so muchhh
Thank you so much! I’m so glad you share the viewpoint of this channel which is precisely to give unbiased input to the topic! 👩🏽🔬☢️
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist Well as you work in that field you can hardly say that you are unbiased.
@@Duconi I’d say that this channel will undoubtedly have their biases but I’m willing to bet they are more likely to be open to criticism and also acknowledge in what ways nuclear energy has its faults.
@@Duconi You're confusing personal opinions with objective facts. One person is not biased just cause they work in the field or just cause they say things that do not confirm YOUR biases. Science is not made by one scientist, there's a scientific community and peer reviewed papers, articles, studies, reports: if you decide to ignore those numbers and data that don't fit your ideologies then yes, you're biased, otherwise you're just being objective and impartial. Also, I wouldn't want an hairdresser to prescribe me antibiotics just cause he or she would have no biases. I'd prefer an expert in the field to do it.
@@thekyuwa I agree, that science has checks to avoid faking results. But they are still biosed, meaning, if you are working with a hammer all the time, you maybe miss the invention of a cordless screwdriver which is in some situations maybe better than nails because you can screw them out again. By working in the nuclear industry she is biosed there, because she maybe doesn't sees improvements in other areas like renewable energy that may nuclear power obsolete. We are always biosed by what we do. Even hairdressers are. They know what they can but if you are visiting them with dread locks they maybe don't know how to handle them. And they are maybe have a more positive view on specific hair dresses they like and do regularly.
Just found your channel and really love your content, thankyou for doing what you do. I work in the environmental industry here in Australia and i regularly have discussions with colleagues regarding our challenges with energy in the not so distant future. It always fascinates me that the majority of my peers either don't know or don't understand that 'long term energy storage' is one of our biggest problems. Particularly in a country as vast as Australia. I mean 80% of Australia is still without telecommunications coverage. The idea that we will somehow be able to capture, store and supply clean energy throughout this country is a fantasy. Necessity is the mother of invention. Hopefully it won't be desperation. 👍
I just found your channel today (courtesy of KZhead recommending your reaction to Kyle's half-life files) and I have been binging you since. Kyle was actually the person that originally changed my mind about nuclear power. Since he left because science and started his own thing, I've been finding myself desperate to learn more about nuclear energy. I'm not a hippy. But I do love the environment that I live in. We need to change. We need to be better. -Kratos, ghost of Sparta
A huge issue with electrifying everything is that our current power grids also don't support it, in my country alone power grids were overloaded during the summer due to almost every house having solar panels, a heat pump and many people cooking with induction and driving electric cars. It was so bad that power companies blocked generated power from solar panels outright. If we want to electrify the world we don't just need better sources, we also need better transmission. The world's power grid needs a massive upgrade.
We should heavily invest into hydrogen. Offload the excess power to generate hydrogen so we can use the power later when it's dark outside.
@@zimzimph Hydro is an absolut horribly bad idea for a quite a large number of reasons.
Insufficient power grid infrastructure is one of the biggest problems in Australia, the second biggest problem is goods transportation. Electric cars are all fine and well, but Australia needs massive road trains and trucks to get supplies of all kinds across the country, and there's no way an electric powered truck of any size can haul the loads they have to carry the distances they have to travel in Australia. And sadly, battery efficiency is rapidly reaching the limits of the technology simply due to the nature of available storage capacity of the molecules they're made from vs the weight of said molecules. The amount of weight of a battery that would be needed to be carried by a typical road train would increase the load of the road train enough to cancel out the energy that the battery is able to provide, making it pointless to carry such a huge battery. I've sometimes wondered if hydrogen tech doesn't speed up fast, would it be possible to make miniature nuclear engines for trucks... but then I remember how terrible some companies are with keeping their trucks roadworthy in the first place that it would probably be a massive safety risk to trust half the trucking companies to take responsibility for something like that.
I'm confused, how shutting connection with solar panels can help with the power draw? Aren't they supposed to compensate for that? They are not a consumer of power. And the power is still needed to be generated somehow. Is it something to do with the specific connections of the panels that can't handle their output??
@@absolutehuman951 OP said the power grid was overloaded which means it had to much power not too little and that's why the companies blocked solar panels
I love those videos!! You offer a different non biased view to an already great informal video! It gives us, non expert viewers, a great perspective on nuclear energy!
Thank you so much for your comment! This is exactly the purpose and I’m glad there are people who share this view!Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!👩🏽🔬☢️
Good too see actual intelligent information being presented about this problem
i didn´t know that kurzgesagt does translate their videos into english. As a german who only saw their videos in german I was kinda nervous at the beginning because I thought the video would be in german with youtube subs which aren´t 100% accurate but to my pleasent suprise they also have an english channel which I love because the videos are really well made in my opinion. Happy to see that you think so aswell
I liked that you're mentioned that each region is going have a type of energy generation that is better for it, for example Brazil, were I live, is full of rivers with a ton of waterfalls so most of our energy comes from hydro
I just landed in the right side of KZhead, it was amazing to hear an expert's opinion over a channel like this. Thank you!
I recognised the channel straight away from your thumbnail and gave this a watch. And you're right, "their name" is pretty hard to pronounce, even harder to type. 🤣 Good video I love your accent. ⚛️
Came here looking for scientifical criticism, instead I only got deeper into my confirmation bias ;) but seriously, great work at spreading knowledge in very understandable form, content creators like you makes hard and complicated topics a little more easy to get grip on :)
Great Video. I've been watching Kurzgesagt for years and yours for several months so it is great to see your opinion on one of their vids. I live in California, a state within the US. We need power and water. So I would love if they started bringing more nuclear power plants online combined with water desalination plants since they can work together. I doubt it will happen here yet it would be nice.
California's grid is going down in flames as we speak. They now have too much solar and want to charge new customers $8 per kilowatt rated capacity just for being connected to the grid. They are paying Arizona to take their peak solar energy, and turning to customers to tap off their installed battery banks for demand times. CA customers already pay twice the national average for their electricity, and double that during peak hours. You will pay dearly for their anti-nuke stance.
Thank you for your comment and support! Truly appreciated ☢️👩🏽🔬
People tried to keep Diablo Canyon nuclear running for some of those same reasons.
@@Nphen But the California Greenies have every intention of destroying their own state.
We shouldn’t build a nuclear power plant in CA due to the San Andreas. Let the faulty slip before building it.
Kurzgesagt is one of the best science channels out there.
Great video! I love Kurzgesagt and I know id really love to see you react to the other Nuclear related videos that they produce!
Kurzgesagt means "In short", and i folow them, they have an incredibly good channel with lots of information and simplicity in their explanations very accessible to all people, that would be of great use in schools to any teacher in any science areas.
I'm a science teacher and I've shown some Kurzgesagt videos in my class last year when we were on the topic of energy production. Mostly those that have been translated in French :)
@@636theofthebeast8 yes i follow the "Portuguese channel" as well. But all the videos i saw in Portuguese i allready have seen them on the English channel before LOL
I got an ad for the American Nuclear Society under this video, I didn’t realize they did advertising. I would also suggest an episode of “Half life history” from the KZhead channel Kyle Hill as a video to react to. I’m currently an undergraduate in nuclear engineering and I’m happy to find a nuclear science focused channel since they are kind of rare!
Thanks you so much for your support and good luck with your studies ☢️👩🏽🔬 I’ll make sure to address the video you’re referring too! :) please subscribe to not miss out on future content
Thank you for taking the time to review this video.
Thank you for this video! You explained things so amazingly well and I hope you could react to more from Kurzgesagt! (Or just say "in a nutshell" because that's the translation of the would kurzgesagt)
Love the video (both)! What I do have a huge issue with is their categorisation of burning of Biomass as a low emission powersource. There are plenty of sources that show chopping down trees to make pellets to fuel biomass powerplants. Per definition you can categorise wood as a renewable powersource, that doesn't make it a good thing
Yup. Wood is perhaps the highest-emission power source there is, since it’s a pretty useless fuel. Trees grow back, sure, but they use CO2 from everything. So by that logic - burn things but grow more trees - coal, oil and gas are also low-emission 😂. Biomass is also a silly term. Organic chemistry is called that for a reason.
@@mikesrandomchannel yes, i don't want to make it too political but there lies the flaw of a lot of green parties. The word bio sounds wonderful, the word nuclear sounds like the apocalyps.
@@brdl6192Yeah, the names we give to things are important. Take "renewable": what does that even mean? Do we "renew" sun, wind, water, thermal energy? Of course not. The only thing that has to be renewed (because we set fire to it first) is, of course, all that bio-stuff, whether biomass, biogas or biodiesel.
Trees absorb carbon while they grow and then release it when they burn. As long as forests are allowed to regrow, the process sounds carbon-neutral to me.
I've seen a lot of videos that deal with the subject of energy (nuclear vs fossil energy vs renewable energy) and it only very rarely talks about mining (how it is more and more complicated to extracting the minerals, how much it destroys the environment, the geopolitics around it). I think it's a key point
You're absolutely right and we'll do more videos going into depth on this topic ! Thanks for the comment! Please subscribe to not miss out on future episodes ☢️👩🏽🔬
If we invested in seawater and/or granite extraction, Uranium extraction would be cleaner than any renewable by such a massive margin, and it could be done around the entire world, rather than be localized in exploited regions
From the thumbnail I thought you were against that video (that I watched when it was released).. As a fan of Kurzgesagt it was a good opportunity to confront their views with someone unbiased, glad to see confirmation of that info! Btw, they always share ALL the sources they use, both as a note in the bottom right during the video, but also as a document linked in their description
Hi it's my first time watching your channel and it's really nice to have an external opinion on Kurzgesagt. I have been watching their videos for a long time and they honestly always give a really good broad opinion so I would definetly encourage you to do others topics on their work ! Thanks for the really good quality insight ^^
The biggest issues I see in a country with zero nuclear (Australia), are that; 1. The time for a FoaK (First of a Kind) nuclear power station in Australia will be over 10 years, probably longer judging on how we deliver major infrastructure projects. In that 10+ years, we could instead install plenty of wind, solar, hydro, BESS (battery storage) that would not only exceed the GW capacity of a future nuclear power station, it'd be deployed over that decade and force FF plants offline sooner, yielding 'green energy' well before the nuclear power station is commissioned. 2. We have plenty of wind/solar resource and plenty of land. Therefore we can (and are) quite easily deploying a lot of wind/solar in the country. 3. The NEM (electricity grid on the East coast) stretches 5,000km (North-South). If it's not windy in one location, it's windy in other. Due to such large geographical spread, aside from solar, the weather does change significantly. We've also plenty of mountain ranges for PHES (pumped hydro). Essentially we can over-install the GW we need of generation such that the maximum demand is always met by minimum generation. Again, we can continue to deploy this now, while FF power stations are retiring and over 10 years before any nuclear plant would be commissioned. 4. Lack of social licence. Pro-nuclear is a very tiny minority in Australia. It will take many many years to sway the majority opinion in order to gain social licence to commence a nuclear program. Then tack on 10+ years to design and build it. Without social licence, you won't get it off the ground as no government would overturn the current ban in place on nuclear power. 5. Nuclear power has been investigated and is simply not cheap enough compared to wind, solar, hydro (PHES) and even firmed with storage. Solar thermal can provide time-shifted generation to meet demand peaks (e.g. evening peak) and is forecast to be way cheaper than nuclear in 2030 (for Australia). e.g. This report with cost analysis on generation technologies: publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP2021-3374 6. The move to distributed renewable generation (wind, solar, hydro) are generally individually smaller power stations compared to old coal and nuclear power stations. This is a benefit in that if any one power station goes offline, it has less of an impact on the overall generation supply. 7. The disadvantage of wind, solar PV and similar technology is that they're asynchronous/inverter based. They inherently make the electrical grid weaker due to it's old design. However new BESS technology, synchronous condensers and steam-turbines from hydro/solar thermal are available to help strengthen the grid as a counter to the asynchronous tech. I can see many other non-nuclear countries would be similar, specifically the 10+ years to get the first nuclear power station commissioned. So even if you discount the issues of nuclear waste, radiation leaks, melt downs, etc... I still can't see it stack up unless you've got a well established nuclear power industry. Otherwise they take too long to commission (FoaK), they likely have no social licence (which takes time to change) and are much more expensive than many other technologies being deployed.
Good comment, provides sources and information instead of just restating arguments without backing them up, which I am guilty of.
Very interesting and I agree a mixture of renewables and nuclear has to be the way forward for the time being at least. Sadly, here in the UK, there has been as much opposition to some renewable projects as there has been to an increase of nuclear by the very groups who are opposed to fossil fuels, the Severn Barrage tidal project springs immediately to mind. All parties are going to have to accept that there's always some price to pay.
No such thing as nuclear. It's very much steam power generation.
@@rockon8174 No such thing as steam power without generating heat.
@@ForbiddTV heat generated by the nuclear reaction, heating up coolant which is in turn used to heat up seawater, [typically] thus cooling down the coolent allowing it to be fed back into the system,
There are Reactors that don't use coolant, such as the chernobl power plant
@@howlofwinter8264 Chernobyl used coolant, none of them use seawater as their primary cooling.
I'm very glad you did react at one of Kurzgesagt videos, I'm not expert. But I always watch they videos and it looks like they do a good research, and try to be unbiased. Also I'm very glad to find your channel :), as a curious mind Is always nice to find people that know their stuff to give some information. Thanks for the Videos.
Thank you for providing your professional expertise! Very informative. Also, completely unrelated but as someone who grew their hair out during quarantine, yours is beautiful and I'm super jealous of it lol
The best video I've ever seen about this topic is the one from Simon Clark called "Why nuclear power will (and won't) stop climate change". It's 40 minutes long, and it goes more in depth than this already very good Kurzgesagt video, and has also more relevant points. The video might be too long for a reaction as a whole, but maybe you could watch it and in your video only react to certain parts of it.
Thank you for the suggestion ☢️👩🏽🔬 and for the support! Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!
I didn't check through all comments but there is a little mistake at the beginning, in France 70% of electricity is comming from nucelar not 70% of the whole energy. Anyway it is a great video thanks
Thanks for pointing it out. You’re right and I misspoke there, it’s electricity not energy. 👩🏽🔬☢️
Tremendous video. Well done. I do think that fusion power will ultimately be the next major source of energy, but we have some serious hurdles to overcome. ITER and DEMO should help with that, but the time horizon just doesn't really mesh well with the emergency that is climate change. I agree with the video you are reacting to (and of course your comments) that renewables and nuclear (which, although not "renewable" is very sustainable over long time scales) need to be pursued as complementary to each other as we desperately search for solutions to our ever-increasing energy needs. I hope to see more of your videos and will subscribe and look at anything else you may have posted. This is the first video of yours I've seen. I hope you do more than reacts. A nuclear physicist on KZhead? I can't wait to see what you can teach those not in the know :)
Just loved the way you reacted on it providing us more details of it❤🎉
Finally someone else who understands there are pros and cons to almost anything! 15:00 One of my people!... I feel like there should be more of us but people do really seem to enjoy black and white answers rather than swimming in the grey areas
Thanks for the support and your comment. You can check my support page where I post exclusive uncut videos and more awesome content ko-fi.com/elinacharatsidou
great video, some people fear what they are told to fear, US media has done a great job only showing the scary parts on Nuclear power. I believe I read some where that more people have died just digging up coil than all Nuclear power death combine. thank you for sharing
Thanks for your comment I appreciate it !Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!👩🏽🔬☢️
More people have probably died from the radiation spread by burning coal than nuclear power. Well regulated nuclear power is extremely safe... it coal isn't even really comapable. But nuclear is also quite expensive and slow to build. I really wish we had put massive public investment into advanced nuclear power a few decades ago... At this point it is probably too late for it to play a major role in the desperately needed transition going on right now.
Coal is far worse than that. Coal-attributable deaths are around 100-1000x TWh vs nuclear. As travis mentions, coal kills more people through radiation than nuclear kills in total (mostly through power-plant waste ash used in concrete).
"Nothing is quite perfect, but at the same time nothing is useless" when it comes to energy production. Imma steal that quote and use it all the time.
Good to know, especially since I already used that video to educate my daughter about this topic a few years back. I'm glad I picked a good one.
Here in Georgia (the US state, not the country), we are trying to expand an existing nuclear plant from 2 reactors to 4 and actual construction on the expansion has been going on for 13 years now. It's been a year or two away from completion for 5 or 6 years now... And that's just actual construction - the planning took I believe 3 years as well. And that's just expanding an existing plant, not even trying to build a new one from scratch. "A decade or more" - a LOT more... We needed to have been building nuclear plants starting 20 years ago.
I 've heard that during the Trump era nuclear was slowed down in order to enhance fossil fuels
That is because of your anti-nuke Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Other countries get them built in 4 years or less.
You’re not wrong. This is actually the sad reality. Building or expanding nuclear power plans that are different per location or country etc is like reinventing the wheel, EVERY TIME. We need a way to mass produce and stream line the production of nuclear reactors and I believe small modular reactors (SMRs) can over us this possibility.
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist It's funny how the US (and other countries) can build small modular reactors in two years or less on ships and have them deployed all over the world, costing millions not billions, yet have these anti-nuke organizations in their countries that stifle NPP building since their inception for almost 50 years now.
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist The US has been building small modular reactors aboard ships for many decades in two years or less, costing millions not billions.
Kurzgesagt is awesome and also illustrates (for a big part) the power of publicly funded media.
Love this! Hey…real quick, what’s the brand and model of the LAV microphone you’re using? Thanks in advance!
Kurzgesagt (KURTZ-giz-aget) A smart series of workers who made me pass my astronomy class
Another reason why I wanted to hear your opinion on Season 1 Episode 14 of Captain Planet and the Planeteers, is because I'd like to hear what you have to say about the anti-nuclear power messages and how much of their lessons did they get right and wrong? It's even an episode with their radiation themed supervillain.
Thanks for your comment! I’ll make sure to add it on the list and check it out. Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!👩🏽🔬☢️
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist already did
Great video, i honestly appreciate a more "serious" and in depth approach like this video (by the way i highly suggest all kurzgezard video, for the high value in accuracy and accessibility). Maybe you could give an opinion about Scott manley "Going Nuclear" series or a single video from it, i would sincerely appreciate
Thanks I appreciate The support and I’ll check the suggestion ☢️👩🏽🔬
I am at a point in my life where money isn't exacly in abundance but I donate what I can to Kurzgesagt each month for exacly this reason. I believe they are doing a great thing sharing information to the world the way they are and its always validating to see a professional in the field comment good things about them.
I find the Kurzgesagt videos very fair minded. Nice to see your informed analysis, especially given the level of confirmation for my own views of how nuclear is an essential COMPONENT of a clean energy future. The promising new 4th gen reactor designs need serious fast track investment, especially given the time pressures of "no return" tipping points Eg: LFTR reactors are going online in China this month.
Technically, nothing is renewable. Lithium for batteries is not renewable (and its mining is devastating for the local environment), silicone is non-renewable, etc. Right now we need clean energy, not renewable. Looking forward to seeing the implementation of Small Modular Reactors; their by-product is hydrogen, which can be used in the aviation and automobile industry.
You’re right ! I agree and thanks for your comment and support ☢️👩🏽🔬
Batteries can be recycled, look up Duesenfeld. Their process recycles 91% of the contents in a purity grade, that can be directly reused for production of new batteries. The 9% that they cannot fully recycle yet, are the separator film (4%) and the electrolyte (5%). Also solar panels are not made from silicone (a silicon containing polymer) but cristalline silicon, which can be recycled. In a feasibility test the Fraunhofer Insitute and recycling company Reiling GmbH have produced new solar cells from old ones without adding any new silicon. And the process is easily scalable for industrial use.
@@wermagst 1. 90%
I have always believed that Nuclear energy has great potential and it can in a way satisfy global energy demand as well and it is as safe as any other energy provided all the safety protocols and measures are properly followed and implemented. I think the biggest hurdle in realising it's full potential is misconceptions in the minds of people around nuclear energy and i feel extremely proud that peoples like ELINA madam are doing their part in eliminating misconceptions around nuclear energy. So thank u madam🙏🙏🙏
Thank you for your comment! this is exactly the purpose of this channel and I’m glad you share this view too! Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!
Well in theory they are kind of safe, but in reality it's a different story, as we have seen with Fukushima. A well developed and highly technological country. It was considered safe before. Sure, there where some worries, but they didn't worried enough to turn it off. And then something unexpected happens and the result is catastrophic. And sure, in theory the plants in France should be safe as well. There are some concerns and findings by reports. But no one worried enough to turn them all down. Just some are turned down now (I think because of lack of cooling water?) and are actually increase the energy crisis in Europe. What if something unexpected happens there? Sure we have learned from other accidents and know how to avoid them. But we can still make other mistakes. So the claim it is the safest technology is quite bold. So let's look on other technologies like solar. The most dangerous thing that can happen with a solar panel is, that it lands on your head. If it's very windy they could maybe get loose and fall down on you like trees do at many storms. But of course there are measures to avoid such things from happening. So following safety protocols and properly followed and implemented, I would argue that most renewable energies are much safer than nuclear. Especially if you include smaller things like water pollution with heavy water and heat. Are there maybe effects on the health through that?
@CelestialCrab welcome in this discussion. Looks like you are blind to the negative sides of nuclear and just want to push it blindly. So sure radiation can directly kill you. But it has to be a lot of radioactivity before that happens. So it's not surprising that only one person died from that at Fukushima. Well, the bigger problem is cancer. Like coal plants kill people by causing lung cancer, radioactivity kills people by creating any kind of cancer and also results in more babies dying through mutations. Also fleeing from the catastrophy and land getting unusable are real consequences similar to solar panels falling on people. So at Fukushima 600 People died at the evacuation, and studies show that 15 to 1100 people died from cancer. The risk for thyroid cancer raised by 70% for people around the power plant. Other raised as well. And from the hundreds of thousands of people who have been evacuated many have psychological problems. 70% sleep poorly since then. That also leads to a worse quality of life. Well the loss of your home is there maybe also a factor. And this are pretty unique events. We don't know how it would be in other cases. Could be better but could be much worse, too. From a single event we can hardly extrapolate how other events would be. What if the city of Luxemburg has to be evacuated? What if there is nuclear dust again over half of Europe like in the Tschernobyl accident? Sure, it is unlikely, but there is still a small risk.
It doesnt matter if they are safe or not if one EPR costs 20 Billion (building only). And Germany alone need 100 of them. And gen3 sucks. Because we need russian uranium. So we need gen4. Yeah and that will take some time and will be much more expensive.
@@halleffect5439 Russophobia....
First off, thank you so much for stepping onto KZhead and sharing your insight into an industry most never have the chance to understand. Would love to get your take on what the path forward is for nuclear given the limited supply of U235? From the Wikipedia article on nuclear power, if we leave our nuclear energy production unchanged we have about 100 years left of u235 supply. You mentioned alternative reactor designs, tell us more about them? Are you talking about breeder reactors or modern reactors that can use u238 safely? The article also states that it's unlikely we will have completed research on new technologies and completed successfully deploying them at scale in time for meaningfully contributing towards easing climate change (before 2050). With China reporting plant construction times of 4-5 years, is the Wikipedia article pessimistic on the role nuclear could play in our rapid energy transition? Also what can you tell us about Chinese reactors? They seem really cool but I know nothing about them. Also are thorium breeder reactors a meme or truly a viable technology to invest time into? Sorry about the barrage of questions - I am a different kind of engineer with an interest in nuclear energy however it's so hard to find information when you're not plugged into the industry. I am so grateful for industry professionals sharing their knowledge and making is easy to access
Nice to see a new expert KZheadr weighing-in on this who is more than a "pretty face" presenter, but an actual expert themselves. Of course, she is not the first such creator, but I think it really makes a difference when an expert gives their firsthand analysis, in spite of how credible the Kurzgesagt team are. Also, it's good to know that said expert is offering a balanced perspective based on the bigger picture, rather than just their own field, biased or otherwise. Definitely a subscribe! On the topic itself: I regard myself as broadly pro-nuclear with regards to the immense respect we must have at all times for such an incredible power. Given the kinds of renewable options currently available, and that pesky little bugger Thermodynamics," I can't see that many countries being able to benefit off of them solely, or even as a majority, for the next few centuries, as the most high-yielding methods like dams and geothermal are simply impossible in places like the Netherlands and Libya, and this is before we bring in things like politics that can halt things like international power grids that could bridge some gaps. One point I think neither really explored in this video was the possibility of using nuclear to supplement the filling of renewable capacitors; a small reactor powering a pumping station to fill a reservoir over time, for example, could stretch-out nuclear's already extremely long sustainability period, and possibly even reduce the possibility for accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, or possible terror threats from actually being able to cause that much damage simply due to their size. Of course, this isn't "THE" answer, and I don't think there can be only one, but there's certainly a lot of food for thought.
I think there is one thing that is represented wrong in this video. Nuclear requires a lot more backup power than solar and wind. What most people forget: Nuclear fission (or fusion) doesn't turn turbines. Steam turns turbines (and generators). For that you need to take water from rivers and heat it (and then put it back) which heats the rivers. There is only so much heating you can do before you kill all life in a river (due to lower oxygen solubilty of warm water). For this reason powerplants in France have already had to shut down in the summer months (and powerplants in germany have had to curtail power output) With climate change (i.e. warmer rivers and rivers that have less water flowing in them) this issue will worsen every year. So while you need a few days worth of backup (storage) for solar and wind you may need MONTHS worth of backup storage for nuclear in the summer. (Dry cooling lowers efficiency, i.e. ups the price of power and using seawater is not an option as it lets maintenance costs go through the roof increasing the price of power enormously) The need for so much backup makes nuclear incredibly expensive...aside from the fact that it's already the most expensive form of energy production...and let's not get into the costs of waste management, decomissioning or lack of insurance for nuclear powerplant. If one were to add these costs then the cost of power from such powerplants would be astronomical. Currently these costs are just hidden in the taxburden of taxpayers.
Thanks for your comment, and even though I can agree to an extend I must say not everything you mentioned is entirely accurate. Countries for example like Sweden have a plan in place for disposal of nuclear waste and the funding for this project, research and implementation is solely paid by the plant owners, based in a small commission on every kWh they sell.☢️👩🏽🔬
@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist True. There are countries that handle this better than most. But even where I come from (germany) there is no final disposal plan worked out and lots of taxpayer money will be needed for the next few decades to end this chapter in electricity generation (companies can 'conveniently' go bankrupt before paying for all this). This is money that was not accounted for by the price of power sold from the nuclear powerplants. If german cannot do this I have little confidence that China, Russia, US, France, UK, Romania, etc are doing a stellar job at this. The worst offense - in terms of cost - is that nuclear powerplants aren't insured against accidents (unlike every other powerplant which HAS to be insured). No insurance company is willing to touch them. The amount of taxpayer money that goes into cleaning up accidents (e.g. Fukushima) is gigantic. Governments/utilities are just gambling on "everything will be fine"...which even with new (as yet unproven!) designs is not a certainty. Earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorism and wars are real. I feel it is criminal to leave out these costs in any kind of economic comparison. It is really hard to cause that much damage with wind, solar or battery storage when worst comes to worst....and that isn't as theoretical as it sounds looking at the nuclear powerplants in Ukraine. (Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm not against nuclear fission or fusion. They are essential if we ever want to seriously do anything in space...but on Earth it makes zero sense to me from a cost, safety and reliability perspective)
It seems to me that your issue with nuclear becoming widespread is that it’s not figured out as well as renewables and fossil fuels. But the reason it isn’t as figured out as those energy sources is because it isn’t as widely used as them. Very much a catch-22.
You did not correctly describe the situation of French nuclear power in the summer. A nuclear power plant does not consume water, takes it, uses it and then puts it back into the cycle (directly or in the form of steam through the cooling towers). The French regulation provides a maximum temperature for water that is re-introduced into the cycle, but since in summer the temperature of the rivers is naturally higher, even if the temperature delta is the same, After use in the plant the water will be at a higher temperature, perhaps above the norm. So France had to stop some power plants not because the water temperature was unsustainable for underwater life or because there was a shortage of water in rivers, but simply because of a regulatory problem, They do not have a flexible regulation that varies the temperature depending on the season. In any case, to say that nuclear needs more backups of renewables is absolutely imaginative, nuclear is a baseload source, while renewables are intermittent and are suitable to cover daily peaks.
The cost to store nuclear waste inside a mountain is a fraction from the cost if the electricity generated by that fuel. The other option is to store inside big water pools. They store inside the water to use the neutron generated by the waste to create new elements.
Can we get your input on the actual damage from Fukushima? I would like to think that the level of containment that occurred from that disaster tells more of a success to nuclear power than dangers. I watched Three Mile Island docu-series on Netflix, however, and it painted a truly ugly and grim picture of nuclear power…something I have been inclined to support more than oppose. I love your videos, btw!😁😁😁
Thank you so much for your support ! A review of Fukushima accident is a great suggestion! Don’t forget to subscribe to not miss out on future episodes!☢️👩🏽🔬
You may like to check out Kyle Hills half life series, he covers both fukushima and three miles island, and many other nuclear disasters.
This is not related to the video it self, but I love your hair, it's like mad scientest but it looks somewhat worked on, I can't explain it but i f love it , you look great! I also really liked the video, I had already seen the original Kurzgesagt one, but I really apreciatte the info you added.
Μπράβο, πολύ ωραίο βίντεο και πολύ καλές επεξηγήσεις. Το αγαπάω το κουργκεζαγκτ, και μου άρεσε που μου πρότεινε το βίντεό σου. Χρειαζόμαστε να ακούγονται περισσότερες απόψεις από τους ειδικούς του κάθε πεδίου. Μίλα περισσότερο! Ευχαριστούμε!
Quick note: Kurzgesagt is produced by the german public television. Its not a single person making these videos, and they put out an entire video explaining their process ("Can you trust kurzgesagt?" on youtube). Good video tho!
Kurzgesagt is NOT German public television
@@OlivierNovel Well; It is produced by ZDF and ARD, and is backed by funk which is part of the german public television group. Correction: It isn't produced by ZDF and ARD, but its still part of FUNK.
@@annikentogo then not all the money paid for the Rundfunkbeitrag is stolen and some of it is very well spent, what a relief, thanks! 🤣
Kurzgesagt is one of the very best KZhead channels out there for science/education content. It's German, it's pronounced Kurz-guh-zat (more of less), and means 'in a nutshell' which is a great name for the channel. Highly recommend their immune system series, as you'll already be familiar with most of their other general science content.
I love how you said "power, electricity, and energy" all separately in video. Because they are!
Very nice video! I would expect more technical explanations by the title of the video but overall chill and positive vibes. A bit weird though you didn't already know Kurzgesagt!
I noticed how you did not touch the fact that production and recycling of solar panels/batterys is extremely polluting and has allot of toxic waste that stays dangerous for millions of years instead of 10000 for nuclear waste. Polititians blatantly ignore this
Wow, an English speaking high-quality video by a Greek. I'm very impressed. Bravo!
Thanks for the comment and support ☢️👩🏽🔬 I appreciate it
Thoughts on Nuclear Fusion? Great video tho! Just found your channel and definitely sticking around :D
Yup, it was a pleasure to watch KG with You, Elina 😊
It's nice to see Greek content creators create quality content on this platform.
It's a fact that each energy source has its own pros and cons. What I wish is that the land use would be highlighted more for most renewables. The amount of land required to scale wind, solar and hydro to our current requirements much less for the future needs is immense. But that is rarely, if ever, mentioned. Great job!
I loved that the video in question ended with an opinion piece. So many videos focus so much on being strictly unbiased and neutral, that they really miss the point in (public) education. Leaving the end of the video with an educated opinion and conclusion helps the viewer really understand how to put together all of the previous facts and statistics. (Especially since so much of this topic is really about public policy.) Ending with a well-constructed and nuanced opinion or speculation also shows that the video producers do have ample knowledge of the subject and critical thinking to provide real practical solutions.
Anyone can go look up facts, quotes, and statistics and put them in a script like some kind of News broadcast. But I don't think the News reporters are experts just on their own.
Now that's what we call BEAUTY WITH BRAIN
Off course they are accurate. It's Kurzegesagt ! One of the best educational channel on KZhead :)
Love nuclear! We are fully electric (except water heater) with solar and batteries on the house. Now we only import some of our electricity from November - March, and I'm sick of it being coal generated! One point about EV charging demand on grid, if regulations and manufactures take a couple steps in the right direction, we could use car batteries to balance demand for grid. We've learned that house electricity usage is much less than what is required to move a car from stopped position. It's a shame those big battery packs just sit idle when they could be used to reduce peak.
Thanks for the insightful comment!👩🏽🔬☢️
Last time I checked(10 years ago) you can only supply the constant part of the el. consumption with nuclear. For examples Bulgaria's NPP needs 2 weeks to step up or down power output. Is there any development in covering the variable consumption part with nuclear?
Kurzgesact is a great education channel. They have a great way to explain sometimes difficult to understand scientific topics in an easy way. Been following the channel or years.
Basically everything I've been saying for well over a decade
☢️👩🏽🔬
Too much over engineering to make it safe means too much money and time wasted... Keep your eye on the ball people ...we don't have that luxury. If is not cost effective and it won't make a difference in the next 20 years.. the market won't let it happen... No need for regulations or histeria. Simply put... _Not the path of less resistance_ .. therefore not something that will succeed .. Natures wisdom is to be heeded 🙄🤔👁️🤔🙄
I didn't watch this one but saw Kursegast's video on how safe it was. I highly recommend their channel
Great job @Kurzgesagt! What a great endorsement!