The Truth About Nuclear Energy

Like, Comment, and click Share for the algorithm 🙃
What did you think about Nuclear BEFORE this video, and has this video changed your opinion?

Tonga is still producing more airborne particulates , co2, and methane than all men we have record of in the history of mankind... everyday... one volcano...

exposing a lie and propagating a few others 👏

coal are so cheap and easy but very dangerous, nuclear are very expensive but worth the price, wind, solar, hydropower was just the right one to choose

The fact that nuclear energy is sustainable and safe in normal use condition might be true, but don’t underestimate accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Chernobyl might have only killed 51 people in the first hours, but the effects were catastrophic! The area around the reactor is absolutely devastating to both the nature and humans, and the radiation that spread across the world poisoned land and decreased the lifespan of millions of people by a significant margin.

I'm not opposing safe nuclear power plants, but implying, for example, that the Chernobyl radiation of 500 msv was not fatal and how many people died years after due to radiation is misinformation and hard to believe. 55 people died? LOL, that is a lie!

Good points, but you are simplfying many points, especially waste. I’d take nuke over coal and natural gas, but true renewable are better.

The real truth about nuclear power is much, much more complex then most can understand.
If America, with battery power cars, that need charged by grid, went totally nuclear power would mean lots of power plants scattered over the US, a few hundred. Most likely an accident would happen before long and if it was a big one most of the US could be made uninhabitable not even for growing food and then drinking water contamination.
This is a risk that must be faced. Very ugly.

Wow did you just stated that only 51 people died after Chernobyl.

I'm not betting on it !

as someone who lived through Chernobyl, i can confidently call you on your b-s about only 51 people dying as a result of it.
nuclear energy is among the cleanest we have, but you posting lies about accidents doesn't do it any favours

Imagine how much cleaner our electric vehicles would be

The change of the current cash flows to the fossill fuel barrons and their financial support of the worldwide continuation of fossill fuel consumption is THE ISSUE. This is the ONLY issue. In Nuclear Industries, everything is known their are NO unknowns. VOTE out all political hacks that have no idea what they are talking about and have redirection of RESOURCES into Nuke developments. The world is wasting time while the costs are rising. I suggest we stop the BS and get to work!!

Big Oil and Russia interfered with development. The Sierra Club mysteriously switched sides after being pro nuclear for some time. My dad worked at the AEC and then NRC. Mom didn't like us watching China Syndrome. 😅 I used to tease him about Homer Simpson. - We've lost decades of development because of disinformation.

gawd damn

Nice. Post this with the EV crowd that believes coal powered electricity in their cars is still less polluting than a gas powered vehicle when the battery is taken into consideration.

Thanks. We need nuclear energy for the Mars settlement.

As long as the psychopath is in charge, oil and coal will be used to boil water for the steam turbine generator 😢

I have often heard the argument, that invests in nuclear Energy would cause lack of Investment in renewable energy, and since that nuclear Energy generates so much more out put, one would then just become too comfortable with it, and forget about low yield, high volatile renewable energy sources completely.

I wasn't able to refute that argument by myself so far, so maybe somone here could help me with that. ;)

There is no need for nuclear power because it is far more expensive than any other form of energy. Even maintaining an existing nuclear plant, like the one at San Onofre, is so expensive it is cheaper to close the plant down! The only people that like nuclear power plants are the rich like Bill Gates who want monopolies forced on the citizens by government. Remember, if a power source needs subsidies and governmental supervision there is something very wrong.

If he truly loves birds, well, I can’t wait until he starts talking about wind turbines…😂

SCE's opacity with its 2006 tritium dump into the Pacific at the Two Tits atomic power plant is what worries me. It's not the tritium that bothers me. It's the silence and obfuscation.

I've lived my entire life in what is considered the fallout range of McGuire Nuclear Station.

I never think about it, the fallout warning sirens (I remember the tests as a kid) were turned off in the 90s and torn down in the early 2000s.

There have been more issues with the coal ash in this area than anything from nuclear power.

SO SO SO SO GHEY

Isn’t 51 deaths a bit misleading about Chernobyl? That is a direct death toll, but the long term affect is massive with cancer rates increase all over the belorus,uk, nearby russia and europe. Also the problem is you have to build reactor near water source, and that is usually a place where people live as well historically due to water availability. Most asian countries have only one problem building a reactor-it must be near constant water supply.

I am all for nuclear energy, preferably generation four! Net Zero carbon emissions is a dangerous pipe dream, in reality we need four to six times the current level of CO2 to feed and green the planet. We humans and every other living thing on this planet are carbon based, and require CO2 to live. Man is a relatively small producer of CO2, the real producers are wild fires, volcano's, and black smokers in the oceans, all of which man has little or no control over. Man produces less than one percent of the planets CO2, that includes the vast amount produced by China. The burning of hydrocarbons does produce pollutants that can be removed with relative ease, CO2 as it is not a pollutant should not be removed unless you have a chemical need for it; it provides far too much benefit in nature. Yes, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas but is currently at or near saturation levels so more will have little effect on warming.
Hydrocarbons have until recently been the planets least expensive form of energy, especially that required for industry, battery power currently cannot effectively power heavy mobile machinery for mining and farming or road transport. Current battery technology is not up to the task and may never be. I personally don't think it is adequate for passenger vehicles, especially with regard to safety!
The attempt to switch to wind and solar is farcical, wasteful and in my opinion criminal. Wind and solar have their niches but not for commercial base load power as they are far too intermittent and too wasteful of space and are ecological damaging.
Nuclear be it fission or fusion is by far the best way to produce base electrical and heat energy, but due to it's criminalization by organizations like the Sierra Club, will take some years to be developed to a usable level. Hydrocarbon supply is not infinite but there is more than enough to supply mankind at required levels until nuclear can effectively take over. There will likely always be a need for hydrocarbons for other uses than burning, but their will come a time when conservation is required.
There is no climate emergency it is a false flag perpetrated by the WEF/UN assisted by the Financial Elite to facilitate Globalism/Communism/Crony Capitalism and a un-elected World Government.

What is a "horrrr"? Try English. I know it's difficult for Americans, but do try please.

its not the diablo canyon reactors...}
its the san luis obispo titties...

Finally, somone, to whom the liberals will listen to, is explaining facts. Excellent job.

Ok, then what are the plans for something like? I don't know China and North Korea bombing nuclear power plants. Then what thousands of utrons are gonna be in the The air, how are we gonna protect that with all the fossil fumes and everything that are already out there? Please tell me yes, it's more safer. But it's a lot more bigger s because people could see where up how it comes from. So now say if we get to Zack Nero calls what if someone bobs that then we have nothing, and I don't like coal or anything like that. But either way we Isaac. We should go with win and sola latin nucula or cold or fossil

Why bro lookin so fruity?💀🍒🍓🍇🍎🍉🍑🍊🍋🍍🍌🥑🍏🍈🍐🥝🥭🥥🍅

but hiding under the table wouldn't save anyone in both cases!

enjoyed the video up until the point where you said we are in the sixth mass extinction...

It is not a bad marketing problem, that nuclear plants fail

a) the safety of nuclear plants was REPEATEDLY downscaled....by who? oh yes. the constructor-companies behind these plants, who asked for state-funding and were often in parties active members, who agreed to these funding. This was discovered and proven after Chernobyl in Germany for example and supported the Stop of this energy sector in Germany. It happen in other nations in the exact same way, people just ignored it, like France ignoring nuclear problems by Chernobyl for local food production.

b) All nuclear plants don't solve the waste issue to this day. the cost of this waste is ALWAYS ignored by companies, who want to point at the efficiency of these plants. Only the cost of the storage under their property is calculated and even this is sometimes downplayed or actual so much downplayed, that these sited put their workers into dangerous situation, just to cut costs of storage for some weeks of this stuff.

c) the costs of the building nuclear sites is always not accurate and lower estimated than in reality. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever build without the funding by the state. This was justified with smaller electricity costs for these citizens, who paid this funding with their taxes. The reduction of electricity cost by nuclear power plants is rubbish. Most of this production is not financial interesting for these private nuclear plant companies, they make the money with the exports of this energy to single energy demanders (big companies) and on the global market, when the citizens and local industry don't need it. Thereby the effect of the site on the actual electricity market is small. Germany for example has exploding electricity prizes by the war in Ukraine and the lack of gas for their gas-plants, but Germany is still on the balance one of the biggest electricity exporter in Europa. the energy-companies in Germany were not effected by the stop of nuclear energy, but they used it as an excuse to raise costs for consumers, who are disliked to be supplied by these companies IN GENERAL.

d) the cost of deaths by nuclear plants is always highlighted and the lack of death-numbers by inccidents. But for some magical reasons it is ignored how much things like Chernobyl actual costed and WILL COST in the next hundred of years. First of all Chernobyl is economical partly at fault for the collapse of one of our two main worldpowers at these times. Second Chernobyl costs a shitton of money to get contained and a lot of people had to suffer in this process. the soviets simply ignored the effects of their forced demands onto these people. The lack of responsibility by the company in charge of Fukushima shows us the difference to Chernobyl in a western world. In our case a state has to cover for all expenses. This had a huge impact on the Japanese economy and forced them to create Abeism to use inflation and the greatest drop of wealth in Japan history since WW2 to cover up the consequences of this sole plant going critical by one simple mistake. And to use Chernobyl once again as an example for long term cost sin the future, please simply look up the cost of the new sarcophagus and the time until we have to build the third sarcophagus AGAIN, who has to envelop the second one AGAIN. And now imagine this for the rest of this millennia. THIS is the cost of this SOLE INCIDENT, that COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.

e) In the USA, a country with a population density of only 37 per Km² the 54 sites were enough to give every citizen in the USA a dosis of 1054 Sv combined every single year. Dependent on your location you get more from this pie or less. normal is 0000000,4 Sv per human. it is a typical trick to downplay the effect of nuclear sites by simply stating average numbers and comparing it to single actions than. it is ignored, that the effec tof these 54 sites effect EVERYONE and ALWAYS.
If they report their numbers correctly, it is like every single US-citizen getting feed a banana over a whole year by these 54 sites, dependent on your area 10 or only one piece of it. Thats the effect, WHEN THEY WORK ans WHEN THEY ARE NOT OLD. So have a look at the map and find out how many bananas you are forced to eat per year just by these numbers.

f) the CLAIM, that modern nuclear powerplants cant meltdown is often CLAIMED, never proven and if it is not correct the claiming liar will not be responsible for his lie, that will burn billions of $ and probably kill some people or "just" steal a bit of their lives, so that we don't have to mention them in videos to pamper this idiotic idea in the future. A lot of these "new concepts" ignore to 100% the fact, that they are not constructed, because their concepts are not the most cost-efficent construction. We don't need nuclear powerplants, who are safe, if they can't produce enough energy in their runtime, to be efficient for the company in possession of this site. To hide this fact, the designs tend to increase the livetime of these reactors on paper, while the preventation mechanism against a meltdown will ALWAYS lead to less stability in the reactor core and this HAS TO REDUCE THE LIVETIME OF THE PLANT. And of course the correc tPicking of sites makes an accident like Fukushima impossible, because there is no ocean near the site...this is a bullshit-claim. in other sites, it will be a earthquake and a landslide or a terror-attack and a worker with a peanut allergy, that will create accidents. Accidents happen. the nuclear site safety idea claims "perfection" to make it safe, but ignored the reality of non-perfection in our world.

g) it is wrong to claim, that 90% of the waste can be recycled, this is simply a lie by this video. Only 90% of the high-quality radiation waste (actual radioactive material) is CLAIMED to be able to be recycled and than again made partly to waste again and than it drops to lower radiation waste. This is only MADE with LESS THAN 5%. This lower radiation waste has to be stored miles under the ground to prevent any danger by this waste to us, is the 80% majority of the waste and often the products, who came into direct contact with the actual radioactive material, but they are not itself an radioactive element in itself. You cant recycle this. Even worse these stores are build on the bury and forget presumption, so if the site is actual leaking radiation in a form, that is harmful to humans, WE CANT FIX IT. And for some magical reason there is not a dedicated site for storage in the USA. So all "secured" sites today are actual not for eternity, but will have to be costly recovered. This will increase the waste amount, because stuff down there will become radioactive by the contact with radioactive waste over decades. gj.

People are terrified of Nuclear plants, but don't care about microplastics. Thank you mainstream media !

The problem with nuclear power is to make it safe makes it uneconomical if you make it economical it isn’t safe. I worked in nuclear power for over forty years. US Naval and then US Commercial. US utilities have been shutting down nuclear power plants that have already been paid for, because they aren’t economical with just O&M and on going capital expenses. The major costs of nuclear power is in the initial construction. With elevated interest rates we now see, nuclear power is dead. It is cheaper and much easier to install renewables and storage.

Man I really wish this would work. I just feel it is naive to think that we can store something for thousands of years, if modern society didn't really exists since about 3000 years. For me, if the waste issue is really solved, I am all on board for nuclear.

The waste meed not be a problem if handled correctly.

It is stupid to pressurize water, molten salt is much better. Use thorium for fuel and it will last until the Sun blows up.

I have my own hypothesis as to why nuclear is disingenuously disregarded as a source of safe and clean energy.

We defo need nuclear to decarbonize and ultimtely save our planet from burning - im a phd researcher in chemical engineering

Shhh, those stupidly expensive windmills need to be sold .

It is important to use nuclear enegy together with the renwable emergy in order to get away from the clikate crisis.

FINALY SOMONE WHO GETS IT

They dont want nuclear energy because it solves A LOT OF PROBLEMS. Call this conspiracy or what ever you want. The elites want to convince us that in order to save the planet we have to do what they want us to do AKA eating less meat, Going electrical, traveling less, Concentrating on 15 mins Cities etc... They dont want a striving society they want to control society so it makes sense to cut the only thing that could go against their plans.

Damn how much I hate people saying "the truth about..." , Especially when they then proceed not saying the truth