Nuclear Power Was Supposed to Solve Climate Change… What Happened? | Hot Mess ?

Nuclear Power Was Supposed to Solve Climate Change… What Happened? | Hot Mess ?

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments

Thanks to the funders of Peril and Promise
for supporting PBS Digital Studios. Since the 1950s the world has had a carbon-free,
weather-independent energy source. It works with our existing grid and infrastructure,
and it isn’t dependent on batteries or back-up power from fossil fuels. If the goal is to slow down climate change,
shouldn’t we be building more nuclear? But instead of installing this power generation
everywhere we can, it’s on the decline around the world. What happened? [OPEN] Historically, nuclear power has been the world’s
largest source of carbon-free energy. Of course, nothing is completely carbon-free. Fossil fuels were undoubtedly used to build
every nuclear plant on Earth. You need trucks to deliver the fuel rods,
construction materials, and that kind of stuff, but that trade-off applies to all carbon free
energy, at least until we get those sweet Tesla trucks. Globally, nuclear generates 11% of power,
and in the US it provides 20% of our energy. But since 2013, six nuclear power plants in
the US have closed, with dozens more looking like they may retire in coming years. After the reactor in Fukushima, Japan melted
down in 2011, Germany, China, and Italy all shut down or stopped construction on reactors. People often cite safety as the big reason
for shutting down nuclear power plants. But when you actually look at the numbers
nuclear is among the safest power technologies we have. But despite high profile accidents like Chernobyl
or 3-mile-island, nuclear power generation causes less illness and death than all other
fuel-based energy production, by a lot. Those deaths are just more spread out, they
aren’t tied to one event, so we don’t hear about them. Most countries have continued decommissioning. Germany plans to completely phase out nuclear
by 2022, And when those plants go offline, you’ve gotta make up for that lost power
with something, and most of the time we replace nuclear with natural gas or coal, not renewables. The thing is, a lot of this is economics:
even before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power looked like it was on its way out. Nuclear is expensive and can’t keep up with
cheap energy from natural gas. But wind and solar started out expensive too,
and only became cheaper after decades worth of innovation and government policies. So why isn’t there as big of a push behind
nuclear? For one thing, big environmental organizations
are solidly anti-nuclear. The Sierra Club for example, says they are
“unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy” – they point to disasters, risks of nuclear
proliferation and the dangers of nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is an area where a climate
change solution is at odds with other things people care about. The Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor may have
to close because they can’t afford to meet new regulations designed to protect local
fish populations. And in particular, the impacts of nuclear
energy have disproportionately fallen on indigenous peoples around the world. Since the discovery of Uranium ore in the
southwest states, communities have been relocated and hundreds of barrels of radioactive waste
have ended up on Native American reservations. Should our top priority be reducing carbon
emissions or protecting people and biodiversity? Like most climate change solutions, nuclear
energy is full of difficult choices. But besides nuclear we currently don’t have
any carbon-free power generation that operates on big scales. The closest we can get is hydropower, which
supplies 7% of the energy in the US, primarily in the West. But if you think nuclear is expensive and
holds risks for ecosystems, just wait til you hear about dams. These days it’s easier to install smaller,
more flexible renewables than big, expensive power plants. Some companies and researchers are trying
to tackle a lot of these issues we’ve mentioned here with cool futuristic technology like
smaller reactors that are easier to build, eliminate the possibility of a meltdown or
reduce fuel waste – but most of these are just concepts years away from deployment. It’s hard to even say if new designs will
win over people that are currently afraid of or worried about nuclear. Or if they’ll manage to get through the
strict regulations nuclear power has to contend with in many countries. And as long as fuels like natural gas are
cheaper than nuclear, they’ll remain more popular. But if our goal is to stop climate change,
using fossil fuels is not a solution. Is it possible to keep global temperatures
under control without nuclear? Probably. Is it a heck of lot harder? Definitely. Funding for this episode is provided by these
funders: P. Roy and Diana T. Vagelos, the Marc Haas Foundation, and Sue and Edgar Wachenheim
the third, in support of Peril and Promise, a public media initiative from WNET in New
York, reporting on the stories of climate change and its solutions. Learn more at

100 thoughts on “Nuclear Power Was Supposed to Solve Climate Change… What Happened? | Hot Mess ?

  • Francisco Teixeira de Almeida Post author

    Fun fact: just before Fukushima disaster new nuclear projects were on the rise exactly due to climate change concerns.

    Truth is that nuclear energy is quite expensive – and the biggest cost component is construction (similar to hydro) regardless of current reactor design, so cost reduction is unlikely unless someone come up with a new revolutionary reactor design. Operation safety is critical (as the Chernobyl disaster demonstrated) and the waste disposal is yet an unsolved problem that can persist for millennia.

    Also, stating that health impacts of nuclear are the same as other sources belies the fact that an area stricken by a nuclear disaster becomes forbidden to human use: the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi currently covers 371 km2 (143 sq mi); Chernobyl exclusion zone covers 2,600 km2 (1,004 sq mi). If a dam bursts everything downstream is washed away but rebuilding can start in a matter of days, but if a nuclear plant go kaboom it may take centuries to recover the affected area.

    So I think that nuclear energy is still a bad choice. Our best shots for now are renewable sources and consumption efficiency gains.

  • Manuel Falcon Post author

    Hey guys, just wondering how come you didn’t mention the topic of nuclear waste in the video? Seems like a rather important piece of the whole nuclear picture.

  • JD233 Joel Post author

    Hi everyone,
    I would recommend energy for future presidents.

  • Thorium Guy Post author

    The advance reactors are not theoretical. There are plenty of cases of experimental advanced reactors working perfectly fine. One such example with the molten salt reactor experiment performed at Oakridge during the 60s and 70s.

    If you actually care about global warming, you need to revisit advanced nuclear reactors

  • M31k02 Post author

    What I still don't get is why molten salts reactors were more or less abandonned in the past few decades (as a real alternative anyway). They're more secure and produce less hazardous waste. Obviously that's not a perfect solution, but it's still better than water reactors.

  • Phil Heaton Post author

    There are other alternatives to current nuclear technology.

    One of the ones the was being developed alongside the uranium pile was Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors (LFTR). Since it couldn't be used to create nuclear materials for bombs, it was abandoned. LFTR would use the thorium that is being created as a byproduct of rare earth mining, amongst other things, is safer to operate and has less dangerous byproducts as near as the early research shows.

    There is also nuclear fusion. Once a pipe dream, a huge fusion plant is currently being built in France. Obviously, turning hydrogen into helium is safer than uranium, plutonium and even thorium reactors.

  • Steve Deasy Post author

    Why is this argument only concerned with keeping energy usage at the current rates? Other solutions include efficiency, less of a consumer based society, and maybe less people on the planet. Her argument seems to be too based on myopic vision.

  • TheWizardOfOsborne Post author

    I actually live in rural Florida where that one dot went red. Our nuclear facility had to close due to a crack in what I believe was the containment wall. The parent company deemed that the benefit of having a nuclear power plant wasn’t enough to justify the cost of maintenance.

    In my opinion, this highlights a major obstacle for nuclear power. The potential damage is catastrophic and as a result, the costs of keeping facilities within strict safety regulations is high.

  • wesos de queso Post author

    All i can think of is that Fossil Fuel industry commited sabotage on the newborn Nuclear industry back then to get them out of the bussiness.

  • AngelLestat2 Post author

    you are an idiot.. you did not made your research and now you are spreading lies.
    Solar and wind can not delivery the amount of energy needed??? what? Solar and wind today are 3 times cheaper than nuclear, they are even more cheap than fossil fuels in many cases.
    Nuclear is safe or cheap? If you combine chernobyl and fukushima disaster (400 billions in damage total), you can remplace the 40% of all nuclear plants in the world with solar + wind + full storage.
    So you committed 100%? it seems like it is a 100% paid from nuclear sector to promote this video.

  • bikingcat Post author

    People that don't accept global warming and are pro-nuke can't believe nuclear is being pushed as a green energy option.

  • Nmethyltransferase Post author


  • 동동동 Post author

    Ugh… just another shallow video aiming for "unbiased, neutral approach"

    Nuclear energy is the only future. And this false notion of balance and expectations for the "reasonable doubts" are killing people every year.

  • 동동동 Post author

    Solar and wind is economically behind fossils and the proposed methods to make them provide electricity 24/365 are concepts that are far away, and they also cause huge toxic bulky waste problem.

    So let's keep using fossil fuels then?

    Wtf is this?

  • Clayton Harbich Post author

    You didn't talk about the decades old crisis of nowhere for the nuclear waste to go. They are currently storing the waste at the plants themselves. This is also creating the cost problems that will only get worse every day that goes by.

  • Harry Baron-Richardson Post author

    Usa in the 50s: Get that 3rd world nation a nuclear power plant, bitches love power plants
    USA in the 21st century: oh my god! Your so primitive using nuclear energy

  • Marek Špot Post author

    Point is – coal powerplants should be closed first because they harm much more than nuclear ones. There´s radioactive residue in coal is too yet not many people know about it. Yes, nuclear waste is a problem (though see 3,5th and 4th generation nuclear plants in development which use this waste as fuel) but bigger one is the climate change. Solar, wind and biomass powerplants won´t have sufficient output anytime soon…

  • Red Post author

    Honestly i don't really see any problem with going nuclear. Like, 1 gram of uranium can give as much energy as 2-3 tons of coal. So instead of burning 8 Mtons of coal yearly we could power the whole Earth with just ~3 tons of uranium. How is that a storage problem?

    On top of that the more waste you have the faster it cleans itself up. Uranium 235 decays into Ba 141 and Kr 92, within 24 hours nearly all Ba 141 will decay (through La 141) into Ca 141, with a half life of 32 days , and Kr 92 will decay into Y 91 with a half life of 58 days and after that it's down to stable isotopes of Pr 141 and Zr 91 that are completely safe . So, after ~40-50 days those 3 tons of waste from uranium 235 (*that could power the whole Earth for a year btw*) will be reduced down to 1.5 tons, and after a year we'll be left with ~15-20 kg of slightly radioactive waste. Now, that's just SOOO MUCH waste.

    Really to me it seems that nuclear power sources are efficient, safe, relatively cheap and eco-friendly. Why wait 50 years for nuclear fusion, we have an almost perfect energy source right now that we should abuse the heck out of.

  • yanbo Post author

    Like I get that nuclear power in itself is not the problem and has a lot of power, but the nuclear waste it produces is just unfeasible. Nuclear waste produced by nuclear power plants radiates for 1000s of years, if not longer, and is therefore a long term risk. You have to somehow store it safe for 1000s of years and make future generations in those 1000s of years understand it is dangerous.

  • Umberto Fournier Post author

    anotehr great video

  • Nathaniel Neubert Post author

    Nuclear waste… well what should we do with eastern California and the deserts of Nevada? There is nothing there but salt flat. We can easily store nuclear waste.

  • Stewart Campbell Post author

    Hey Kid's, it's Milk & Kookie" Tyme !!! YYZ,60++NOOB

  • biscuitsalive Post author

    I disliked the animations showing radiation spread from Chernobyl. Did affects really reach as far as UK?
    I need to look this up now.

  • steamtacular Post author

    Thorium based nuclear power gets around most of the issues regarding nuclear power.
    The waste is radioactive for a short period (relatively), reactors are designed in such a way that meltdowns are actually self containing, less fuel is required for the same amount of power and the fuel is much much more abundant than Uranium.

    On that note. Global stockpiles of nuclear grade uranium are pretty small overall and we'd be hitting peak uranium in a few years if we decided to go all out on nuclear power.

  • Jacob H Post author

    3 Mile Island generation environmentalist must quickly die off, they can not be convinced or persuaded for accepting nuclear energy, the obvious choice.

  • Hectic1 Tech Post author

    hah dumb, if we started relying on nuclear energy we'd just be digging our own graves and pretty fast too, we will never be able to deal with nuclear waste and disasters if its used everywhere, there would be too much and a disaster would be much worse..than having a single power plant be affected

  • Adrien Girod Post author

    TIL I learn Tesla Trucks don't need energy or metal to be produced. Elon Musk is a genius. (Good channel though, keep up the good work !)

  • Austin Wasserott Post author

    Do you mean California republic from fallout 4? Lol

  • Willaev Post author

    “It’s on the decline all around the world”

    No it isn’t. It’s only on the decline in the ignorant West. Russia, China, India and more are building nuclear power plants.

  • joseph avila Post author

    Support nuclear. What's the worst that happens… get super power.

  • Nupur Nishant Post author

    How about we collect all radioactive waste and throw it on the moon?

  • Celt Gunn Post author

    I love the idea of the big cities using nuclear power. And the smaller cities/towns can utilize the solar panels, as well as trees planted in the medians in town or in town square, anywhere. They're fake trees, with small fans on them. To get power going. Plus plant other things on the rooftops, veggies, herbs & fruit. Useful items.

  • L B Post author

    I think that until you have enough knowledge to stop the results of a meltdown you should stay away. Until you have a safe place for the waste stay away from nuclear power plants. Work all those problems out first. Japan is still in a meltdown. It's still running off into the ocean. Insanity.

  • Lorenz Zahn Post author

    Actually, one reason Germany is phasing out of nuclear energy is part of the expansion of renewable energy production. Nuclear power plants and older generations of coal plants just aren't able to adapt to the fluctuations in the grid. Those plants are struggeling to make profits during daytime when cheaper solar and wind energy are floading the market.

  • Rursus Post author

    It became more expensive than solar energy. Or more precisely solar energy became cheaper. Nuclear power is simply obsolete.

  • Joey Broda Post author

    This is why a price on carbon is so important. We have to account for the additional costs of using fossil fuels that go beyond the cost of production. It can start out small today but it needs to the political will to keep inching up to ween us off and prop up exploration of alternative fuels.

  • arcoz elio Post author

    We in Italy did not have nuclear plants at the time of Fukushima incident. We had like 4 reactor in the past but they were shut down in 1990. After Fukushima, there was a referendum that was in fact useless.
    By the way, I agree that if humans had pushed for constant research and innovation of nuclear power since the 50s, probably today we could have safe and efficient reactors, so maybe climate change would not be this big

  • Blue Skies Post author

    There's also the fact that building something that's one-of-a-kind tends to be expensive. Nuclear would be cheaper in the US if 2-3 designs had been chosen and used, rather than everyone running off to do their own thing.

    Multiply the excessive cost of building a one-of-a-kind power plant by the delays imposed on them by legal action by environmental groups and the cost of nuclear is easily 3-4 times what it should be.

  • ÏŞHTĀÄŘ Post author

    Yeah ,nevermind that spent fuel storage am sure that won't need any CO2 emissions or no radiation hazards there

  • random commenter Post author

    Fly that nuclear waist stuff to the moon dig a hole and throw that Barle in the hole then fill in the hole

  • Alexi Post author

    How about we put tiny nuclear reactors in our cars?

  • Tie Man Post author

    I dont like this person can i get the other dude this girl is making faces

  • Ryukachoo Post author

    Liquid fluoride thorium reactor.
    Ideally; two fluid breeder design
    More realistic: once-through burner design with reprocessing

  • Ryukachoo Post author

    Reminder that modern reactor designs are stupidly safe and the dangerous ones are the long aging ones.
    Also we have waste storage; it's yucca mountain, which is blocked by people who don't know how radiation works or barely passed chemistry in high school

  • 20teamplayer Post author

    But don't forget LFTR reactors. Thorium may be the next step.

  • Darknightx33x Post author

    claims nuclear is more expensive than solar/wind, but doesnt give data on nuclear cost of energy. Also it is worth mentioning that there is no one item that is perfect. did you realize that hydroelectric dams massively f*** up the ecosystem? Or that solar panels require ultra pure components which requires significant processing and produces toxic byproducts? How about geo-thermal power that requires drilling and fracking the earth, and sometimes near heat sources like volcanoes and lava?If all you do is look at the negative side, you will not see the benefits. im not saying nuclear is perfect, but i personally feel that it should be more common place and people need to stop bashing nuclear as much as they do.

    also if someone has data on cost of nuclear vs other sources, i would be interested in seeing it.

  • Internet User Post author


  • Nick P Post author

    Why not just use thorium instead of uranium?

  • Kaushik R Post author

    You look hot ?

  • Teo Vela Post author

    My own concern with nuclear power is what to do with the waist. I live in the United States and we don't have any place to put all. Not that anyone even wants to have that conversation over here. Building more newer reactors may be the needed but until we can get together and talk about what we can do about the nuclear waist we might have to put those plans on hold.

  • suf sanin Post author

    Sorry for dislike

  • fireofenergy Post author

    There's definitely a way to power ten times today's electrical demand with some best version of a molten salt reactor. And the "people" are just going to have to get over it and back that up, all 7 billion of us!

  • Tato Post author

    fusion cores

  • D. Damarjiwo Post author

    I know this might be lost in the sea of comments, but here's an additional perspective:

    The major motive of states interested in developing green energy to pivot away from nuclear to other renewables is that other renewables (esp. wind and solar) is cheaper — today, and projected to be way, WAY cheaper in the very near future — than nuclear energy. This is due to how innovation and competition in the green energy market works, as green industries are all racing to find a competitive product to fill this (so far) unfilled niche. Also, if you haven't noticed already, all production cost for each type of energy starts up high and will become dramatically lower over time. Solar and wind industry are still in baby steps compared to the fossil (or maybe, nuclear) industry which has been in the mature stage for quite a long time. This is the argument I heard directly from Denmark's Energistyrelsen (a national energy agency overseeing all that green energy planning) and Vestas, purportedly one of the most competitive wind energy industry in the market today.

    Couple that with the setup simplicity, lower fixed investments, and most importantly the perceived risks of developing nuclear, and you've got yourself a very attractive product that kills all other competitors in the market (incl. nuclear and fossil). In fact, Denmark has fashioned all that innovation to make a very, very profitable entry into the global energy market (for example, check out where all these "green solutions" are neatly compiled for international high-stake buyers to browse). The bottomline is that well, of you ask why nuclear has lost its promise, the answer is just simple market economics (and some political will too).

    If I say that the future isn't nuclear, but solar and wind, would you believe me? I am interested to hear your responses!

  • build a dyson sphere now! Post author


  • Yora Post author

    Tesla trucks carbon free? How are they going to be build and how are their batteries charged? There is no carbon free anything for the forseeable future.

  • Denis Parfilko Post author

    That awkward moment when libertarians and conservationists join forces because of nuclear, wow, how the tables have turned
    I like this

  • The Kryptonian Post author

    She looks like Christopher from CNCO

  • jguthrie Post author

    Not to be the Thorium guy but why would you not mention Thorium powered reactors or LFTRs… China is developing these as we speak

  • Yoyle 0340 Post author

    Thorium is cool

  • jason kinzie Post author

    Thank you for this video. I'm way more opposed to coal fire plants than nuclear plants. And if tesla gets off the ground than even transportation could become carbon free are at least the carbon emissions would be drastically reduced.

  • Erik Sundell Post author

    Hot mess "We are committed to 100% accuracy at every level" – do you mean it?

    Nuclear power is not "in decline everywhere around the world", for example: "Mainland China has about 45 nuclear power reactors in operation, about 15 under construction, and more about to start construction."

  • Ryan Ehlis Post author

    Climate change from burning coal and oil is total bullshit! It is not even a thing.

  • Ryan Ehlis Post author

    There is enough coal and nat gas to last hundreds of years.

  • Gangstalking Paradise Post author


  • David Canatella Post author

    Let's see, petroleum is used to mine uranium, transport uranium, process uranium, opporate backup cooing systems, escavate waste sites and transport waste to sites. Also, the clinically psychopathic rulers who short cut across the ethical road map to become rulers are not going to suddenly get ethical or care if radioactive material is and practices are handled with care.

  • David Canatella Post author

    No one ever says" hey hydropower is safe, solar panels are safe". The reason is that reason makes it obvious. Why the need for so much convincing for nuclear power? That's obvious too.

  • K-T extinction Post author

    I 100% believe in climate change and I appreciate the channel's effort to raise the awareness of the issue. Also I know YouTube comment section is one of the worst place to express opinion. That being said, this video is a surprisingly misleading BS. Not only the effect of nuclear power plant accident on public health is devastating as we saw in Chernobyl, it often raises other serious problems. Those who had to deal with Fukushima disaster were poor, uneducated, and in low social rank. Many elderly had to evacuate from the area and some parts are permanently not inhabitable . This would never happen to those who live in big cities, because the government will offer the option of nuclear power plant only to poor, rural areas. Can you seriously say that "the effects is not as big as you might think" to my friend who was forced to leave his hometown?

  • DeepSpace12 Post author

    Basically 3 major accidents in the 70-year history of nuclear power: NUCLEAR IS SUPER DANGEROUS

  • TheKingTiger96 Post author

    Little correction: Italy stopped producing nuclear power in 1986 after a referendum that came just few months later than Chernobyl disaster

  • Russell Fine Arts Post author

    Nuclear is dead and won't be coming back due to: nuclear waste and extremely high cost of energy from nuke plants. Virtually all new generation coming online is: wind and solar with battery back-up. Like it, love it or hate it, this is the reality as renewable energy doesn't just "kill smaller numbers of people" as nuclear does, it kills no people and the fuel is forever free. We'll be seeing massive wind turbines and farms and massive solar farms that provide the cheapest and safest forms of power.

  • ajspades19 Post author

    Nuclear fission power is just a stop gap until nuclear FUSION power comes online.

    The future is nuclear.

    All non-nuclear electric power production methods are limited by resource supply, electricity demand, and geography.

    Nuclear power has none of these weaknesses and has far fewer negative environmental impacts.

    New nuclear power plants are approaching, if not demonstrated to be, walk-away-safe; if the core and pressure vessel start to overheat or overpressure the course of action is monitor the situation.

  • DunnickFayuro Post author

    I like the Bill Gates' Terrapower approach. They use spent nuclear fuel (i.e: nuclear waste) to create energy for 50 – 100 years per cycle. And their technology is already ready; they were building one in Alaska before environmentalists forced the project to abort.

  • wolvenstar10 Post author

    I mean, you could just not dump nuclear waste in bad places, and have government investment in upgrading safety standards.

  • Aaron Vallejo Post author

    Nice video guys. I think you nailed the main reason nuclear is fading away. Economics. From my perspective nuclear has 3 main problems a) it is just too expensive to keep these reactors open much less start building new ones. This is why orders for new nuclear plants were declining even before Japan. b) Nuclear waste. c) Nuclear can not scalable up to meet the energy demands of the world. For example, we would need a new 1,000 MW (1 GW) nuclear plant online every single day for the next 40 years. This is clearly not feasible. What is feasible and gaining more and more capital investment daily is renewables, electric vehicles, grid batteries combined with high insulation and high efficiency. Two examples, back in 2015 Dow Chemical in Texas bought 200 MW of wind rather than 200 MW of natural gas because it was cheaper, faster and less risky. Two weeks ago, in Arizona APS bought 850 MW of grid batteries from Tesla along with 100 MW of new solar PV. With new US wind now costing 2 cents and new US solar PV costing 3 cents a kilowatt hour sold to utilities, I think the future has arrived. As we roll out community scale and regional renewables we can also think about building Gigafarms for growing food and jobs but mainly high carbon sequestering, fast growing plants for biochar. With billions maybe trillions of tons of biochar we can rebuild our global soils, rebuild our coal mines, rebuild our oilfields safely locking away our industrial carbon and hopefully, hopefully keep the Earth's temperature stable. Good work guys!

  • 橋本絵莉子 Post author

    In a climate change and extreme weather events, with nuclear all will become even more a mass-extinction event, there are natural events are just blasting your whole nuclear concept into the enviroment that you will never be able to use for the next 1000s years, this can collapse a whole nation economy in just a few days.
    And that nuclear is a very bad solution you can see in Europe where most power plants are not build where they are needed, they are build right next to the border, so when something does happen, it might not happen at home.
    Also we got already enough stored nuclear waste will destroy the whole planet when leaking or not taking care of all the time
    I think fukushima and still chernobyl is enough contamination on our planet for the next 1000s years, it would be very respectless to life and these people to build nuclear power solutions, by far too respectless.
    You can use reactors for space exploring but not where you got life, DNA and nuclear are not best friends.

  • David Canatella Post author

    Carbon in nuclear power is used for mining, transporting processing, backup cooling, transport of waste, disposal of waste and dealing with the consequences of ocean straight piping.

  • WarSongParadise Post author

    More people should hear about this!

  • Matthew Boyd Post author

    I support nuclear because it could improve a lot, but it takes a decade to make and that's just to long.

    Solar and batteries (or dual hydro reservoir energy storage) can be built faster than any other energy generator.

  • jayceh Post author

    All of the above is the only solution to replace fossil fuel. Gravitational energy generation and storage should lead the way as they have been, but we need solar, geothermal, wind, and gen4 nuclear all at once.

  • de sp Post author

    t h o r i u m

  • Alianger Post author

    What about geothermal? Off grid housing?

  • Brigita Mikolajūnaitė Post author

    could someone explain how nuclear energy effects climate change? what amount of co2 emissions it releases? is there any regulation to tacke this issue? I guess, if it's not relevant for global warming, there should'nt be? It makes a lot of damage for environment, but doesn't release any co2

  • Runonanon Post author

    Nuclear doesn't seem to get the consideration I think it deserves.

  • Djarms67 Post author

    you know there is this libertarian youtuber name Shanedk who said that if you don't consider nuclear energy than he doesn't want to hear about climate change.

  • Zen Trozzi Post author

    Nuclear waste is the future of nuclear energy. Liquid sodium baby

  • Zen Trozzi Post author

    Nuclear waste is a huge problem. Great lakes are gonna be deadly radio active in 100 years if we dont move OPG 's nuclear waste DGR on the shore of lake Huron.

  • Ted Archer Post author

    Oil companies lobbying happened, that's what happened

  • Gunther Sotomayor Post author

    What about nuclear fusion?

  • bazoo513 Post author

    It is well documented that the initial FUD campaign against nuclear in 70's was financed by coal lobby, and it probably continues today. I submit that every anti-nuclear "green" organization is either run by idiots or has been bought.

  • Influx27 Post author

    My understanding is that nuclear energy is actually a net negative, that it costs more energy to run a nuclear plant than the plant puts out

  • Andreas Wagner Post author

    Hey guys, regarding the massively destructive faults, like Tschernobyl and Fukushima, there are thousands of minor errors that occur every year.
    The operation of this technology has seen a lot of change in the economic pressure. In France, for example the maintenance is done not by highly trained local engineers who know their plant inside out, but by groups of outsourced and poorly paid maintenance people who live a kind of nomadic life by travelling from plant to plant and performing certain maintenance tasks on parts of the plants that nobody else likes to go into.
    The existing plants have gone into an age, where I, as a electrical technician, know, that the equipment that kept vital parts of the plant operational is so outdated, that maintenance and even partial replacements of components don't help anymore.
    As mentioned, new plants (like Hinkley Point C in the UK, of that new plants in France and Finnland) will never generate electrical energy at market price levels, while the kWh generated by "truly" renewable resources decreases in price all over the place.
    I write "truly", mainly because the nuclear fission materials are, even if not fossile, yet still dug from the ground and afterwards dumped, while the resources that make wind, PV energy and other renewable generators can be mostly recycled. More recyclable technology is being developed and needs to be focussed on, nonetheless. The same goes for the production of such equipment, which needs to be powered with renewables as well, of course.
    Moreover, while the planning, building and demolishing of a nuclear plant takes about as long as the service of the plant, a wind energy generator or a PV module is mostly service time.

    And one more thing:
    Nuclear plants manifest a top down infrastructure, where big (often multinational) companies make money. The grids that are needed create more dependencies.
    A power supply infrastructure based on local and decentralised renewable energy generation, run by the communities and local authorities, with a grid mostly there to ensure stability of the power supply, the whole thing becomes more independent and democratic. Why should the money go to anonymous global investors, when it can be directly beneficial for the communities.

  • Justin White Post author

    If the world is going to ‘end’ in 12 years if we don’t deal with carbon emissions (and I know I’m oversimplifying) then the fear of nuclear power shouldn’t be an issue. It seems that those in charge feel as though the risks of nuclear power are worse than the effects of climate change.

  • franklin russell Post author

    She should have pointed out that the current LWR plants which were built all over the United States become more and more radioactive over time. Insurance companies will
    not insure these plants. In the event of a major accident, the stats on deaths would look a lot different. The waste is not a small problem caused by a misunderstanding but
    a huge problem we have no solution for. Plants have been storing waste on-site because there is no place for it. Nuclear power is a big government project that every
    Republican loves to throw money at.

  • Bev Alexander Post author

    If "carbon-free power generation doesn't operate on big scales," it is only the fault of big industry which doesn't want to give up control and profits. Nuclear is an exceedingly dangerous technology, and those pesky waste products are not only dangerous for a very very long time, but can be concentrated to make nuclear weapons. It is shameful to try to make nuclear look safe and clean. We can generate our own power with rooftop solar and wind. We can use less energy in many ways – flying less, converting to electric, building our towns and cities to make it easier to get to work and shop without driving. We can eat more plant-based – and grow our own plants! I am growing a lot on a city parcel – plenty of fruits and vegetables, and since I don't eat animal products, which are extremely power- and water-intensive, I don't need to buy much.
    What happens if a missile hits a nuclear power plant? Who wants to find out? And it will take more than some nuclear power plants to halt climate change, since the accumulation of carbon AND methane is not only due to transportation etc. We need to change the way we live.

  • Władca Wymiaru Post author

    What this mad woman is talking about? China and India are accelerating construction of nuclear power plants because they are desperate for cheap and reliable energy sources!
    Soon Thorium Reactors will breach the dam and flood entire world !!!
    No risk in MRS and 20 billion years of avaliable fuel! Plus thorium is on the Moon, Mars, Mercury and every frikkin asteroide !!!

    Want renewables, catch:
    renewables FAIL! Renewable Energy in Australia

  • Cindy Tepper Post author

    And if there is a war, and the nuke plant gets attacked or bombed? All you have to do is take out the cooling water circulation system.

  • Mlchael Wray Post author


  • Kenneth Post author

    Go thorium. The decline of nuclear is a victory of the auto-petroleum industrial complex. Those cunts lobby governments around the world and fearmonger against alternatives. Of course, there are always stupid peasants who fall for it.

  • Rikkos Hop Post author

    Nuclear power in the 21st century is a moot point. The tech is "Liquid Air" yes I said air, not wind – it's free, renewable, and reliable. 60 mil v. 25 bil per plant, there is no contest !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *