Tap to unmute

Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?

  • Publicado em 12 Abr 2021
  • Get Merch designed with ❤ from kgs.link/shop
    Join the Patreon Bird Army 🐧 kgs.link/patreon
    ▼▼ More infos and links are just a click away ▼▼
    Sources & further reading:
    Do we need nuclear energy to stop climate change? More and more voices from science, environmental activists and the press have been saying so in recent years - but this comes as a shock to those who are fighting against nuclear energy and the problems that come with it. So who is right? Well - it is complicated.
    German Channel: kgs.link/youtubeDE
    Spanish Channel: kgs.link/youtubeES
    This is how we make our living and it would be a pleasure if you support us!
    Get Merch designed with ❤ kgs.link/shop
    Join the Patreon Bird Army 🐧 kgs.link/patreon
    Reddit: kgs.link/reddit
    Instagram: kgs.link/instagram
    Twitter: kgs.link/twitter
    Facebook: kgs.link/facebook
    Discord: kgs.link/discord
    Newsletter: kgs.link/newsletter
    The Kurzgesagt voice is from
    Steve Taylor: kgs.link/youtube-voice
    OUR MUSIC ♬♪
    700+ minutes of Kurzgesagt Soundtracks by Epic Mountain:
    Spotify: kgs.link/music-spotify
    Soundcloud: kgs.link/music-soundcloud
    Bandcamp: kgs.link/music-bandcamp
    BRclip: kgs.link/music-youtube2021
    Facebook: kgs.link/music-facebook
    The Soundtrack of this video:
    Soundcloud: bit.ly/3a4Jfi8
    Bandcamp: bit.ly/2PNqPvr
    Many Thanks to our wonderful Patreons who support us every month and made this video possible:
    Harshul Banthia, Priyadarshi Siddharth, Ethan, Chad, Mason Lagos, Zinovia, BigOlive, Edgar Galan, Lance Liu, Super Luigi Bros Animations, Nicolas Eckert, Drashya Goel, Francois, Seanskios, Alessandro Ticozzi, Cameron McPhail, Ace Sparrow, Russell Stockhammer, o+o, Alec Hogben, Mikolaj Pawlikowski, Alexandra Cheung, SubSonixx, Guillaume VIDAL, Andy Highland, Arina Maria Neculai, Jeremy Engelberg, Josh Lavine, Azreal, Jeremy Clark, Jordi Malaret, Daniel Lo, Kenna Miller, Motin, rayV, Maximo Brito, bque23, Evhen Samchuk, Riyo, Giakeimas, Sunny Bär, Alexander Utz, Gaspard Medina-Creimer, James McClelland, David Nejedlý, George-Cristian Bîrzan, James Ilesley, JP, Ariel Tubbs, Anon, Felicity, Prashanth Samuel, Doop a Derp, Brettyoke49, Oksana Sivchenko, Rene Duedam, Kacey Armbruster, Yu Shing Cheng, osama bin laden's cousin's white best friend, Miko Boulerice, Skyler Martin, Matt Harlow, Arash Amini, Christopher Thomas, João Pinheiro, Raj Patel, Maurizio, panic, Raghav Mahajan, Mate Serdult, Ethan (cathethanoob), Warren Price, Laiton, Drew Johnson, Cole Reid, Daniel Mayor, Vincent Strüh, Gamerbot43, Jonathan Elbaz, matt yang, Nikita Ivanov, Lindsay, David, IsThisRealLife, Sam Wallick, alxpck, Aina Piera Tur, Darius Soo Lum, Happy 1 Year Will Smith

Comentários • 25 964

  • Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

    Head over to our shop to get exclusive kurzgesagt merch and sciency products designed with love.
    Getting something from the kurzgesagt shop is the best way to support us and to keep our videos free for everyone.
    ►► kgs.link/shopkgs
    (Worldwide Shipping Available)

    • Xianxia Emperor
      Xianxia Emperor 4 dias atrás +1

      Imo Nuclear Power, Hydrogen Fuel and Renewable Energy sources should be used simultaneously to help in combatting/stopping climate change.

    • M S
      M S 2 meses atrás

      Would love to buy stuff. But that shipping fee to the UK. Over €9. No thanks.

    • ArFfol GerGer FraNtian #Funshorts
    • Thor Plays
      Thor Plays 4 meses atrás

      Do you have a few people or an entire offical setted up offfice

  • Oskar T Ross
    Oskar T Ross Anos atrás +20469

    Ahhh. Yes. The perfect homework distraction

  • TurboChicken
    TurboChicken 7 meses atrás +2351

    Nuclear energy is in a way like traveling by an airplane. It is very safe, but when something happens people freak out.

    • ninjaXavier3
      ninjaXavier3 10 dias atrás

      @Seb0rn you can if you are brave

    • drstalone
      drstalone 18 dias atrás

      @michael fogelström the point I was making is, nuance is everything. In the absence of that the anti-nuclear side is correct on the basis of the precautionary principle. The shallowness of the pro-nuclear arguments I see here however valid otherwise only adds to the point.

    • michael fogelström
      michael fogelström 19 dias atrás

      @drstalone planes have accidents all the time most of the time the passangers dont even know.. 1 in 9 is not bad its rather good. U have to account for the severity of the accident to. People lack perspective

    • drstalone
      drstalone 20 dias atrás

      @finalpalma05 ​ there are 450 nuclear reactors in the world, 57 is like one for accident for every 9, whereas there are millions of cars in the world and probably thousands of planes. Imagine if one out of very 9 planes or cars had an accident. You can't just quote numbers without denominators. Secondly, you have to consider each accident qualitatively rather than hide it behind numbers. You may have a point but it is arguments like this than nuclear power itself that makes me worry we, the human being we are, are going to compromise of safety. Also the argument is a bit like saying we are not going to have a problem if 57 kittens are on the road, so why not 57 tigers? Black swan events and ticking time bombs waiting to happen are not a joke. Again, I am not against nuclear power but arguments like yours that are being made to make a case for it scare the living daylights out of me.

    • finalpalma05
      finalpalma05 20 dias atrás

      There have been Fifty-seven nuclear energy accidents or severe incidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster. Now imagine if we stop using the car after 57 accidents or flying planes or any one of a million thing we use on a daily bases just because of 57 accidents.
      What I'm getting g at is this there a risk in everything nuclear power is a good possible alternative and the more use something the more improvements we make the safer it becomes but there always a rise.

  • CharlieFoxtrot06
    CharlieFoxtrot06 Anos atrás +1477

    If we'd invested more in nuclear energy decades ago, we probably wouldn't be having this climate change debate right now.

    • Alexander Vlaescu
      Alexander Vlaescu 14 dias atrás

      @Genomsnittet Not really. With nuclear the more reactors operate the more experience you acquire running them. That in turn would result in them becoming safer. So no if we had more nuclear reactors more likely would be that they would be even safer.

    • Russellm
      Russellm 27 dias atrás


    • James Grover
      James Grover Mês atrás

      @Stewart D "you didn't read what I wrote"
      What you wrote - "The question is whether you're ready to pay the price to get away from it."
      To which I replied and you rebutted calling it "virtu signaling"
      😂 Get a grip, you asked the question, I'll ignore your further questions.

  • Rich L
    Rich L 7 meses atrás +126

    I’ve never understood the abandonment of nuclear in progressive countries interested in reducing greenhouse gases.

    • Sherbert UFO
      Sherbert UFO 5 dias atrás

      I understand it, and it goes something like this: "money, money,money,money,money, money, greed, money, money..."

    • Juandi Rection
      Juandi Rection 18 dias atrás

      Looking at you Germany

    • Normal human
      Normal human Mês atrás +1

      @wtf bros oil companies

    • wtf bros
      wtf bros Mês atrás +1

      Dig a bit who are financing renewables ;)

  • TJ436
    TJ436 8 meses atrás +331

    I’d prefer the waste generated by an energy source to be in underground barrels than in my lungs.

    • Michael Camarillo
      Michael Camarillo 28 dias atrás

      Bruh, perfectly said

    • TJ436
      TJ436 Mês atrás

      @panther popel A third of Europe? I wonder why I haven’t heard about it… maybe because the news and the papers aren’t all fact.

    • TJ436
      TJ436 Mês atrás +1

      @panther popel And where did you get this information?

  • DarkFish YT
    DarkFish YT 6 meses atrás +665

    "BuT nuClEaR cReATes ToXIc wASte"
    Well is true, but I prefer a few tonnes of toxic waste underground rather than millions of tonnes of toxic waste on the atmosphere.

    • Duolingo Bird
      Duolingo Bird 2 meses atrás

      There are some nuclear power plants in France that use the nuclear waste as fuel so no waste is left behind

    • Senpai
      Senpai 2 meses atrás

      @2020cat Check the finnish soluion, not a real problem.

    • Indian0Lore
      Indian0Lore 2 meses atrás

      @Jarod 1999 where do you think the initial radioactive material came from?

  • 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝗽 𝗞𝗮𝗴𝗲

    Top 10 times nuclear power plants are safer than coal power plants :
    1. Now
    2. Now
    3. Yesterday

    • Nice Flowey, The Overseer
      Nice Flowey, The Overseer 3 meses atrás +4

      Well, 99.999% less greenhouse gas (we mostly cant dispose that)
      And 100% more solid waste (which we can dispose)

    • Voluntarism
      Voluntarism 4 meses atrás +5

      and 100% less pollution

  • J dG
    J dG 2 meses atrás +12

    How funny it is when everything attached to the word "nuclear" we get a freak out, yet the Sun is perfectly fine.

  • Tuomas
    Tuomas 4 meses atrás +10

    Unbelievable how people are more afraid of nuclear power than walking across the street

  • Grayson Smith
    Grayson Smith Anos atrás +15010

    I have a profound respect for Kurzgesagt. They put an enormous amount of time into research and animating their videos, try to make scientific topics as simple to understand as possible, and treat their viewers with a lot of respect. The Earth mug I bought from them hasn't had any paint come off even though I've been dishwashing it for a year, definitely not a cheap product. Of all the BRclip merch I've gotten, I think theirs is the highest quality (just barely beating out LTT). They could have just kept with patreon alone or gone with a cheaper producer, but they genuinely care. I'm happy that there are actually content producers who just want to educate the world and make the world better. As soon as I get a paycheck I am going to put a good amount of money into their patreon per month.

    • TheLirJEt86
      TheLirJEt86 Hora atrás

      Them and Sweden, big respect

    • Kosteri x
      Kosteri x 26 dias atrás

      @Daniel Seacrest they, their, a lot. Why bother with typing at all.

    • Daniel Seacrest
      Daniel Seacrest 26 dias atrás +1

      Sure but they still have a lot of statistical misinformation on their channels, and this annoys me so much.

    • Son Yutup Bükücü
      Son Yutup Bükücü Mês atrás

      :CHAD: :CHAD:

  • Jordan Thomas
    Jordan Thomas 6 meses atrás +34

    The short answer is basically, yes, the only way we can reduce our carbon emissions is to either stop burning the fuel sources we already use, or use vastly more efficient energy dense fuel sources currently available, nuclear is by very far the best option, if you care about the planet, the climate and the human species, you need to support nuclear energy.

    • lunny371
      lunny371 6 dias atrás

      @Igor Bednarski A new age would mean new problems. And we can't forget about the socioeconomic issues that would come with.

    • Igor Bednarski
      Igor Bednarski 6 dias atrás

      @lunny371 nuclear energy is the safest energy source per TWh. That includes Chernobyl (and it also includes the 0 people that were killed by Fukushima disaster). Fossil fuels kill 5 million people a year. Chernobyl killed between 50 and 4,000.
      In other words - if we replace all coal and gas plants with nuclear it would be safer even if we had 1000 Chernobyls EVERY YEAR.

    • lunny371
      lunny371 6 dias atrás

      @黑龍 - Hắc Long Which is why nuclear reactors it it'self are very few in numbers across the world, there's only 440 across the world to be exact. Safety measures of local governments would not allow such hazards to be placed around local infrastructure. The problem is, accidents could happen, but the last we'd need is a nuclear accident happening in local cities.

    • 黑龍 - Hắc Long
      黑龍 - Hắc Long 6 dias atrás

      @lunny371 In the many years that nuclear energy has been a thing only those two exceptions are ever named. The Ukrainians actively wanted to develop nuclear weapons which is why Chernobyl failed, Japan is one of the worst places to place nuclear reactors but still only 1 person directly died from the Fukushima disaster. More people die daily from coal plants.

    • lunny371
      lunny371 13 dias atrás

      Let's just hope things like Chernobyl and Fukushima don't happen twice more often while doing this...

  • ninja charlie
    ninja charlie 2 meses atrás +9

    The problem with electric / batteries is that creating the batteries is very bad for the environment, not to mention how batteries wear out over time. The next few generations are really going to matter the most if we as the human race want to survive.

    • Benjamin Joseph Bruner
      Benjamin Joseph Bruner 2 meses atrás

      Not to mention gasoline is 30x as energy dense as lithium ion batteries.
      (I can't remember the exact statistic, but Engineering Explained made a great video about it)

  • Levi Tschetter
    Levi Tschetter Mês atrás +3

    The feeling when some of the world's biggest problems (climate change, world hunger) are caused by people not understanding science

  • Charmer Lucina
    Charmer Lucina 11 meses atrás +77

    Thank you for always providing such unbiased, easy to comprehend, educational content. Your channel is helping millions of people to understand the worlds most pressing issues. Your content is priceless, and yet it is free. Thank you

    • Charmer Lucina
      Charmer Lucina 6 meses atrás +1

      @Rick TD yes. Significantly less than oil and coal. By an unbelievably massive margin.

    • Rick TD
      Rick TD 6 meses atrás

      @Charmer Lucina Do you care about human and animal life at all ? Or are you just a poser ?

    • Charmer Lucina
      Charmer Lucina 6 meses atrás +1

      @Rick TD and do what? You’re afraid of a new sort of energy? Did you watch the video? The only thing they want to get the ‘whole world’ is clean energy lol

    • Rick TD
      Rick TD 6 meses atrás

      @Charmer Lucina And no, they target the whole world, not just America.

  • TivO
    TivO Anos atrás +4256

    Kurzgesagt is easily one of the best channels on this platform:
    • complicated subjects are simplified
    • we get entertainment
    • never clickbaits
    • puts in effort and it’s amazing
    • amazing animations
    This channel will never disappoint me.

    • Colin Burke
      Colin Burke 4 meses atrás

      Never clickbait
      What if we turned the world to gold?

    • Murder BøNęR
      Murder BøNęR 5 meses atrás

      Is it legit? Can this source be trusted I know nothing?

    • The Nerd Beast
      The Nerd Beast 7 meses atrás

      Not to mention they often make it a point to make a fair argument on a subject, even if one side is definitely wrong, they make sure to explain their perspective before debunking it.

  • Piechew Community
    Piechew Community 7 meses atrás +14

    nuclear is definetly a requirement for the future. if we just spent 10 years on making reliable reactors that aren't 50 years old, they can consistently produce a silly amount of energy. Thorium reactors have a ton of potential, while also allowing countries to go nuclear without being denounced for the possible nuclear armament. In your other episodes, you talked about other reactors and some that use the type of fusion our sun uses to make energy. Nuclear will provide the needed energy for the dyson swarm, and once we get that up and running we're fine on the energy perspective.

    BEING A BLINK FOREVER 3 meses atrás +1

    I have a profound respect for Kurzgesagt. They put an enormous amount of time into research and animating their videos, try to make scientific topics as simple to understand as possible, and treat their viewers with a lot of respect.

  • N2K
    N2K 6 meses atrás +5

    This channel makes me want to try my hand at science and innovation to see what i could come up with. I would love to see Humanity take more steps towards a new future with much more to see and do.

  • Paul Brooks
    Paul Brooks 10 meses atrás +22

    I don’t understand why we don’t just say “we accept that there’s no way to deal with inconsistent power generation for now, so we will just use nuclear for the next 150 years, and build up the technology and unleash the replacements at that time”.
    Picking a direction, sticking with it, and planning for its end will give everyone an objective to focus on, and allow for us to maximize the quality of the resource we choose.
    Ultimately we can’t afford to just keep discussing it while CO2 generation grows out of control. Nuclear has to be an option until we are far, far further down the line towards being net-zero emissions (and even then, we still will need years of net-negative to undo the damage). We are so far from being at net-zero, it’s ridiculous to take this option off the table. The increase in electric cars will actually increase carbon emissions from power generation, as cars will be recharged at night.
    We need (and will need) much more electric power generation capacity, and the only way to guarantee it *without increasing emissions* is nuclear.

    • JazzyCoffee
      JazzyCoffee  3 meses atrás +1

      @Birutath o Faxineiro yep exactly. sigh, some problems are just too big for most to understand. respect from an australian down under

    • Birutath o Faxineiro
      Birutath o Faxineiro 3 meses atrás

      @JazzyCoffee like, in my country our major power supply is hydroelectric generators, which is pretty impressive considering the size of Brazil, but even than, most of the electric car push is being made in countries that actually have mostly fossil generation, and even the batteries and components are more damaging than actually driving some v8 with major usage of gas. The problem was never the car, and electric ones will never solve the problem, just shift the blame.

    • JazzyCoffee
      JazzyCoffee  3 meses atrás +3

      @Birutath o Faxineiro like istg where do people think the vast amount of electricity comes from?
      our fossil fuel sources, because that is our main energy grid

    • Birutath o Faxineiro
      Birutath o Faxineiro 5 meses atrás +2

      What bothers me the most is that ppl keep pushing this idea that cars are the villains, and electric will solve everything, when in reality they're just making cars less affordable and more damaging with our current power generation.

    • mike_br
      mike_br 9 meses atrás

      @Genomsnittet Chernobyl was an obsolete design even during its time that was built without a outer containment vessel just to allow easier extraction of material for weapons production. Something which no new plant in the development page, or for that matter any plant built in the past 40-50 years, has as a flaw. As for Fukushima, what's not stated so much are the over hundred other nuclear plants along Japan's coastline that shut down completely safely during a tsunami that killed almost 20,000 people, amidst a 9.0 earthquake. I would call that a pretty good track record to be honest, considering all of the other carnage that happened in the midst of the Tohoku quake.
      Absolutely nuclear has its safety considerations to be made but right now fossil fuel is an existential threat to continued human existence on this planet and if we don't act immediately there might not BE a civilization in a hundred years to generate electricity for.

  • Bronwyn Pidgeon
    Bronwyn Pidgeon Anos atrás +2521

    As a scientist who studies this kind of thing, this is really well explained! I have a similar opinion to you, and many of the scientists in my lab do as well. If we are going to start to fix climate change for real, we need to use everything we have. On the actual facts, I might start using this video to teach my students, as It's really hard to explain this issue and this video does it really well!

    • Rick TD
      Rick TD 6 meses atrás

      Are you kidding ? You don't know it's a scam ?

      ANTHONY EDWARDS 11 meses atrás

      - How to safely deal with waste of past 75 years, not yet solved.
      - How to research much more thoroughly about using Thorium fusion, as a safer, cheaper, and more available fundamentally, nuclear option, than Uranium fission.

    • name name
      name name Anos atrás

      ​@Adin P (polite discourse) The cost of solar is higher than people claim. You can't put solar panels anywhere if you don't have land to put them on (including roofs). Part of the cost of nuclear is buying the land and performing environmental impact studies, talking with the public, etc. And plants are built to be unique rather than using the same design. Cookie cutter houses are cheaper because they use the same design. I think even solar farms are more expensive. Ivanpah cost $2.38 billion in 2019 dollars and has a nameplate capacity of 392 MW. This comes to $6,071,428.57/mw. San Onofre cost $10.9 billion in 2019 dollars, had a nameplate of 2710 MW, coming to $4,022,140.22. Ivanpah began construction 27 October 2010, commission date 13 February 2014 ("Or 3 years, 3 months, 18 days including the end date"). San Onofre's first reactor (456mwe), construction began August 1964, commissioned January 1, 1968 ("Or 3 years, 5 months, 1 day including the end date.". The other two were commissioned in 1983 and 1984 but had protests starting in 1977. Not many protest solar farms but if they do it's for different reasons than nuclear. People protest nuclear because "it's deadly". People protest solar because they don't want forests cut down or cemeteries desecrated). In the end with everything being equal, nuclear seems less expensive and for the same output gets built faster (the cost would increase for solar to be built faster).
      Wouldn't a nuclear plant surpass the 1mw solar farm in days not months? If the farm produces electricity 8 hrs/day 365/yr, for 5 yrs that would be 14600 mwh. A 1000 mw nuclear plant would produce 12000 mwh in 12 hrs (smaller plants can be built faster and would still beat solar. A 200 mw reactor would produce 14400 mwh in 3 days).
      Wind isn't that environmentally friendly. The blades need to be durable which means they're very difficult to recycle (not reuse). They're made with plastic which gets scattered around the world because of erosion (plastic straws are bad but not blades). They disrupt air currents which affect the rest of the planet. And they kill birds (which means those who would have eaten the birds or what the birds would have eaten are affected).
      Hydro is better than wind because people have been changing landscapes for thousands of years. And people need to get drinking water from somewhere. The Great Lakes are one example of being hydroelectric and tap water (and recreational). And which is better, taking tap water from rivers and oceans and dumping filtered waste water back into them or having a reservoir where it's an endless cycle of hydro+tap (toilet to tap provides clean drinking water and if it's good enough to be dumped for fish then wouldn't it be good enough for people). Many nuclear plants have "private" lakes which are used for hydro (Arkansas Nuclear One uses Lake Dardanelle as its cooling source. Wikipedia lists Lake Dardanelle as having a nameplate capacity of 140 MW and a 2019 net generation (MWh) of 594,423, producing the 2nd most from hydro). Other than energy what does wind provide which make it superior to hydro (land use for hydro is debatable. If there weren't a dam/lake there it would be some sort of real estate. Land is needed for wind). Some claim wind helps farms because of circulation but at the same time it makes it harder to spray pesticides along with a few other problems.

    • Chris Delzell
      Chris Delzell Anos atrás +1

      @いかく most modern nuclear reactors can run safely until they are out of fuel with no user input. In the event of an error, every known mode of failure is safe. That is, it is far far more likely for an unmonitored plant that undergoes a failure to undergo it in such a way that the reactor is rendered incapable of reacting before damage is done to the outside world. Think of a modern car engine. Smash it up in an accident and 99.999% of the time it just stops running, because it is designed in such a way that its preferred ways of crumpling isolate the fuel from any potential ignition sources. Burning is rare, and explosions in modern cars are unheard of. Technically possible, but excessively unlikely.
      Nuclear also produces less waste heat per MW than any other form of energy generation 'mikey' above is just ignorant. The potential thermal efficiency of a powerplant is determined primarily by the core temperature and pressure. More pressure and temperature in the core is good. Less in the environment is good. All plants have an environment equal to 1 atm and whatever temperature the weather is at. Nuclear plants can run at higher temperatures, so can use a smaller core to generate more energy. (Think of trying to spin a wheel with either a candle or a blowtorch. To get the same speed with the cooler, more dispersive candle you need a REALLY big candle that will heat up the whole room very fast.)

    • Adin P
      Adin P Anos atrás +1

      @Mark Hackett My point was not the numbers, that’s why I said it may not be completely accurate. The solar farm one is quite accurate as they can cost anywhere from 800k to 1.3 million dollars. My point is that even though Nuclear facilities do cost a lot more in construction and maintenance, they are more efficient in making power with a less amount of space.

  • David Schaftenaar
    David Schaftenaar Mês atrás +3

    I still love the fact that you made this video. Thank you so much. This helped and will _continue_ helping. Opposition to nuclear _is_ irrational in the face of global warming.

  • arson1tez
    arson1tez Anos atrás +12

    I had my Midterms today and there was an essay part about climate change and a solution that I would suggest.
    Thankfully, I have been watching Kurz for years now and I elaborated my choice on Nuclear Energy.
    Will update you guys if I get my score.

    • arson1tez
      arson1tez 5 meses atrás +3

      By the way guys, I passed.

    • YesMan02
      YesMan02 5 meses atrás +2

      I have a work to do at school about an environmental solution and my teacher said that nuclear energy is bad for environment so I couldn't used this as a subject

    • france icoy
      france icoy 9 meses atrás +1

      @NotoriousMAN1 bet he got a 90% grade or higher

    • Terrifying AltAcc
      Terrifying AltAcc 9 meses atrás +2

      Yeah, how did it go!

    • NotoriousMAN1
      NotoriousMAN1 9 meses atrás +2

      How did it go?

  • Mick Owens
    Mick Owens 6 meses atrás +2

    I once watched a report that calculated the energy costs in building a windmill generator. considering the life expectancy of 15 years it would not generate enough power to pay for itself in carbon reductions. I think the same calculations were done some years ago to solar panels but that changed due to inventing better ones, I wonder if someone could look into the carbon costs of building a nuclear plant including ongoing and waste. Have no idea what to compare it to maybe a hydro plant ?? it would show facts with the fear component of a meltdown taken out. Love this presentation the idea of smaller nuclear plants and ones that use up the waste would be key to humanity reaching even higher numbers of population rather than having to lower population so the planet can sustain us.

  • Willow
    Willow 5 meses atrás +2

    The idea of replacing anything ever with fossil fuels is a terrifying one because, we know how complacent humans can be, so this view of pushing the fossil fuels out together, then easing off the nuclear is an excellent one.

  • John Santos
    John Santos Anos atrás +925

    Your videos are always next level 🔥 great production value !

    • neomagican
      neomagican Anos atrás

      you can create quality content if you get lots of cash from the nuclear lobby

    • petasan chanel
      petasan chanel Anos atrás


    • Carmela's Random Stuff
      Carmela's Random Stuff Anos atrás

      @MVRTIN u counting the narrator (1) and the musical composers (2) in there?

    • MVRTIN
      MVRTIN Anos atrás +7

      Fun fact: behind this videos are a team of 43 german crew memebers

    • _raze___
      _raze___ Anos atrás +4

      @Boyset Studios only 9 now feeling bad tho

  • Robert Oswald
    Robert Oswald 27 dias atrás +1

    LOVE how they snuck in “bio energy” as low-carbon… it’s the worst, actually.

    • adwait playz
      adwait playz 13 dias atrás

      No it is actually low carbon . Since turning atmospheric CO2 into fuel and then burning it to release the CO2 back into the atmosphere doesn't add any new
      CO2 in the air.

  • H_H
    H_H 2 meses atrás +4

    Nuclear energy is clean and safe. It's better to invest on both nuclear and renewable energy.

  • akos
    akos 5 meses atrás +4

    Did anybody tell the Kurzgesagt team that making a channel this good and educational is impossible?
    I love this channel.

  • Jasper Chu
    Jasper Chu 6 meses atrás +3

    In British Columbia, there is a ban on the use of nuclear energy for commercial power generation. It is somewhat understandable given that a lot of Canada’s nuclear power plants are around 40-50 years old, and restoring and refitting them would be incredibly expensive. In for instance, it’s a mistake to ban commercial nuclear energy if we have the regulatory capability to keep it operationally safe, accountable to the public, and as minimally invasive to the environment as possible. In BC and Canada, we should pursue research, investment, and development of next generation nuclear reactors if they are more modular and cost effective. It seems like the most obvious choice

  • Augustus331
    Augustus331 Anos atrás +2083

    This is exactly why I am so dissapointed, angered even, that the Green Parties, those who'd supposed to be the surest bet to combat climate change, disregard nuclear power altogether.

    • Augustus331
      Augustus331 5 meses atrás

      ​@Googlar I'm working in the energy-transition nowadays, and I do actually blame politicians and academia too, for their ideological purity. What you see is that people have strong opinions on energy, oversimplified: left is against nuclear, right is against solar/wind. No-one wants to compromise.
      This also leads to horrific renewable-energy-laws, that my collegues and I have to work with.
      For example: it takes *10* years to build a renewable project here in the Netherlands. 2 years construction, 8 years for NIMBY-procedural BS. Every person living withing 400 meters of a solar panel is a stakeholder that can veto it.
      Thus, our representatives have really dropped the ball on everything energy-related. I hope more energy-experts will seek office, cuz this is unsustainable.

    • Googlar
      Googlar 5 meses atrás

      It's mainstream political parties who have failed to properly appreciate the value of nuclear power. Don't blame green parties for something which they never had the power to stop. Maybe some green party politicians played a small part toward contributing to reduced investment in nuclear power in one or two European countries, as a part of a parliamentary vote.
      Not all "green" politicians are anti-nuclear, and green party politicians still have better than average views on the importance of managing environmental costs in industrial and economic regulations. All political parties have ignorant supporters among their members, and have made bad policy decisions. Don't blame a minority for something that they're not even responsible for.

    • Okami Jubei
      Okami Jubei 5 meses atrás

      and the death penalty against the most violent ones.

    • Andrew Hobson
      Andrew Hobson Anos atrás

      @John The bit that gets me is the logic trap; If the politicians are not knowledgeable about the subject matter, and the people voting to elect said politicians are not knowledgeable about the subject matter... you see where i'm going with this? I feel like the main thing that would help in the long run is having peer reviewed Scientists take over the school curriculum needs of our education department, take politics Out of it, and actually teach critical thinking skills and the scientific process to kids, instead of churning out our good little worker bee's... maybe that would help? I don't know. I'm an old man, and I've had maybe 50 teachers in my lifetime so far, and out of those, maybe 3 that actually put in the effort and inspired me to Care about the subject matters and do my own research. All the rest cared more about standardized test scores and filling quota's, but that's what our tax dollars Tell them to focus on, so I can't really blame the teachers...

    • Jannis Meyer
      Jannis Meyer Anos atrás

      @Naxster With saying "nuclear bad", they mean, that the highly radioactive waist, produced by using nuclear reactors is very much indeed bad. And they're not environmental terrorists, even if you might say so, they are just concerned about, how the world will look in more than 500 years. They are not focused on immediate gratification, but more for a clean source of energy, that won't harm the coming generations on this planet. And they don't want to watch the world burn, that is not a fact, they just want to see a healthy earth in 1000 years, that is not unhabitable.

  • Jonah Quaale
    Jonah Quaale 10 meses atrás +67

    I just wanted to say that everyone acts like electricity is the perfect way of storing energy but no one seems to know that lithium, which is what we use in pretty much everything battery related, is a finite resource as well and can only be mined so much. Eventually we would run out.

    • Alexander Rydberg
      Alexander Rydberg Mês atrás +1

      Ummm, no. Lithium is one of the most common materials in the universe and tesla that were built pre-2015 are still running as usual.

    • Samuel Sabin
      Samuel Sabin Mês atrás

      @BarOfSoap Gasoline powered vehicles have similar problems as well. Unfortunately deterioration is just a part of life. I wouldn't count out EV's just yet. Even if you don't think the current level of innovation is a smart idea for large-scale, technology is always improving. I've seen some exciting battery technologies that fix a lot of these problems and provide a lot of benefits.

    • Samuel Sabin
      Samuel Sabin Mês atrás

      In the video it shows an example of storing energy using pumped hydro storage instead of a traditional battery. There are many different "physical" types of battery alternatives that I've seen coming to light that would not require lithium. There are also some new battery technologies I've seen that use other materials for battery usage that could be interesting.

    • La Lloronna
      La Lloronna 8 meses atrás +3

      Actually, a lot of people are researching ways to create batteries without the need of lithium. You can also store electricity in power conversion plants, but that is a topic I don't know a lot about.

    • Jonah Quaale
      Jonah Quaale 9 meses atrás +4

      @P64 Space is getting polluted and thats why space x reusing rocket parts is good, but the Falcon 9 cost about 390 million dollars to build which is still way too expensive to consider trying to mine out in space.

  • Blerst
    Blerst 4 meses atrás +4

    One thing people forget is that to phase out nuclear energy we need nuclear scientists and engineers. If we completely phase out nuclear no one will study in those fields and we won't be able to manage old reactors and nuclear waste.

  • Marionette King
    Marionette King Mês atrás +1

    Having a purely electric based society is a double edged sword. We become more advanced and stable, but we could see a catastrophic failure if hit by a geomagnetic storm. Electrical grids and satellites being the main vulnerability. Anything electrical will be rendered useless do to the EMP caused by the solar storm

  • Gorgovoid173
    Gorgovoid173 7 meses atrás +4

    I think this may be the great filter, that decides whether or not we advance as a species into the next stage.
    We either make sacrifices in order to get better sources of electricity, or we die due to polluting our own planet.

    • Matt Smith
      Matt Smith 6 meses atrás

      For those who have not seen it, "The Great Filter" is another terrific Kurzgesagt series!

  • Bxrry
    Bxrry Anos atrás +20176

    This guy could be my science teacher for 12 years and I wouldn’t complain

    • Rick TD
      Rick TD 6 meses atrás +1

      You would be a fool. He's a liar.

    • Hayden Lau
      Hayden Lau 7 meses atrás

      This guy is just a narrator. He might not be qualified.

    • JITEG
      JITEG 7 meses atrás

      @Zach Crowe turn the team into a single guy

    • Ad Bobo
      Ad Bobo 8 meses atrás

      He's just a used car salesman. It's true, they can spin nice fairytales.


      @The Fork 18? Where tf you live m8

  • Nate B
    Nate B Mês atrás +3

    One could argue the biggest threat to the environment is radiophobia.

  • Acid Mana
    Acid Mana 11 meses atrás +19

    You know the nuclear scare really set back the drive for research and funding for nuclear energy and YET, it is still to date the best and most efficient form of energy.

  • Kayla Hirst
    Kayla Hirst 7 meses atrás +4

    I think we should do both and this needs to happen in the next 20 years

  • Ξ   S K U L L  Ξ
    Ξ S K U L L Ξ Mês atrás +1

    If humanity wants to use renewables, then each renewable should be suitable for certain spots like solar for desert like environments as well as tropical.

  • Givrally
    Givrally Anos atrás +7325

    Honestly, I may hate a lot of things about living in France, but damn am I proud of my country's choice of nuclear use.

    • Ranulf Griffiths
      Ranulf Griffiths Dia atrás

      Well said.

    • Xman Studios
      Xman Studios 12 dias atrás

      @Jaguarfix lp And relying on Russia.

    • Katherine Howard
      Katherine Howard 19 dias atrás

      While I live in the Philippines (and we use coal), I am happy that the coal economy is trying to be more environmental friendly so good for you guys that you r country uses Nuclear :)

  • Feltharion
    Feltharion 2 meses atrás +2

    Choosing nuclear weapons over energy sources was a big monke move in the long run, and as if that wasn't enough, people just accepted the thought that it's "too dangerous" while destroying the planet regardless, simply amazing.

  • Thomas Scharsich
    Thomas Scharsich Anos atrás +1

    I would just like to thank Kurzgesagt from the bottom of my heart for listing their sources in such a well-labeled and organized google doc. Seriously you guys are saints. I'm writing a paper about this exact argument and your sources have been invaluable. Unfortunately, some of the links no longer work though.

  • Really Mildly Annoyed
    Really Mildly Annoyed Mês atrás +2

    Germany before Ukraine War: We're disabling most of our nuclear reactors
    Germany after Ukraine War: *WAIT NO STOP DON'T DO THAT WE NEED NUCLEAR*

  • Elijah Carter
    Elijah Carter 3 meses atrás +1

    A big concern of mine is our current battery technology, especially how difficult it is to mine for the materials needed to build these batteries. It’s basically child slaves in Africa are killing themselves trying to dig up the materials the West needs to go green. Also, these batteries need to be disposed of in very specific ways, and that is not without issue either. I like the idea of Nuclear + Renewables working in tandem to get us to our energy goals, hopefully sooner than later.

  • Tryctan2
    Tryctan2 Anos atrás +3265

    This chanel is amazing.
    - we learn
    - we understand
    - we appreciate
    - we get entertained
    This is not youtube at this point.
    This is art.
    Thanks to the team behind the scenes and everyone that donate to this chanel to contribute to what we can see today.

    • Red Horizon
      Red Horizon 10 meses atrás +2

      Well most people on BRclip can create art but BRclip itself is definitely not art

    • Kyle Stanley
      Kyle Stanley Anos atrás

      @Jesus Fried Christ You just stated a lot of tall claims with a very small amount of explanation or evidence.

    • Kyle Stanley
      Kyle Stanley Anos atrás

      @João V M L Silva Is that not what we're doing? Many colleges would use videos not too dissimilar to these nowadays as study materials to prove concepts, so one could argue that watching these sorts of videos is studying.
      ... Alright, I know this video in particular isn't a strong example of my point, but I still think this is a very real part of the process you've given me.

    • pizza time
      pizza time Anos atrás +1


  • IrishFish98
    IrishFish98 9 meses atrás +1

    This video makes a lot more sense. The energy vs electricity part explains why things are and aren’t happening

  • Thomas Newlands
    Thomas Newlands 9 meses atrás +5

    There needs to be more investment and research into Nuclear technologies. Love the idea of thinking about renewables and nuclear as working together rather than competing against each other. We need to cover the weaknesses of these energy sources by having a diverse energy network.

  • Jasen Da Beast
    Jasen Da Beast 10 meses atrás +1

    I love that kurzgesagt videos can both depress you and give you hope at the same time.

  • Thortor121
    Thortor121 10 meses atrás +1

    Some people forget that replacing fossil fuels with solar panels and wind turbines means a stupid amount of mining of rare materials and highly complicated processing that would probably do a stupid amount of harm to the environment. Even if we beat global warming, we would have to deal with the destruction of many rainforests and other previously untouched habitats, not to mention the destruction that it would take to build supermassive solar power and wind power arrays, since those take up a ton of land to work properly, while a nuclear plant only causes a ton of destruction if there’s an accident or something like that

  • Orrin de Kock
    Orrin de Kock Anos atrás +565

    i expect no less from the kurzgesagt team, but keeping facts and opinions separated and clearly delineated is absolutely crucial in discussions like these. massive props for doing it and doing it well

    • Dan Brown
      Dan Brown Anos atrás

      @Ihazplawe No I'm not, it is a scientific fact.
      Maybe for the uneducated who think history began 100 years ago that is hard to grasp but on the geological scale (hundreds of millions years) the atmosphere is Co2 starved and for the vast majority of Earth's life giving existence have been much higher.
      In Earths most productive period of life on earth it was 20 times higher for hundreds of millions of years - no runaway warming.

    • Ihazplawe
      Ihazplawe Anos atrás +1

      ​@Dan Brown "historically low levels" Are you kidding right?

    • Kenneth Ferland
      Kenneth Ferland Anos atrás

      Unfortunately the 'facts' are highly selective here and ones that would contradict the later 'opinion' are consistently absent.

  • Xianxia Emperor
    Xianxia Emperor 4 dias atrás +1

    Imo Nuclear Power, Hydrogen Fuel and Renewable Energy sources should be used simultaneously to help in combatting/stopping climate change.

  • Black Cat
    Black Cat 6 meses atrás +1

    These animations are SO GOOD! I love watching the videos, sharing them with my friends, and tracing the cute animals! Does anyone else trace them, or is it just me?

  • bobucc man
    bobucc man 4 meses atrás +1

    you forgot to mention that nuclear reactors can produce massive amounts of energy quite fast

  • Colin MacPhail
    Colin MacPhail Mês atrás +2

    Exactly why we should be building more nuclear power plants.
    Safe, clean and they produce more electricity than anything else we have.
    Wind and solar are wasteful, inefficient and still pollute more than nuclear, when you take into account building them and recycling them when they expire. Which wind and solar have a much shorter life span than nuclear power plants.

  • Matteo Canducci
    Matteo Canducci Anos atrás +399

    I'm a nuclear engineer and I approve this message ❤️

    • VAST
      VAST Anos atrás

      @Electron Resonator Apart from countries like Iceland and some other areas, this is not scalable to a nations energy requirements.

    • Frank Lee Madeere
      Frank Lee Madeere Anos atrás

      Your thoughts on Thorium?

    • Electron Resonator
      Electron Resonator Anos atrás

      geothermal is doing the same thing, you just criminally underestimate the power of Earth's core

    • L.S_Aviation
      L.S_Aviation Anos atrás

      @cavv0667 Same, I live next to a nuclear power plant in Ontario

    • A Č
      A Č Anos atrás

      @Pratham Nishad it is not even going to read anyone of your replys

    CATTO LEONCE 6 meses atrás +41

    I hate how anything with the word "nuclear" will make people jump to conclusions even when nuclear energy is efficient and clean (if handled properly) and people against it. I can understand if you dont want nuclear plants in disaster prone areas, but i hate how people associate nuclear plants with pollution even when its the opposite

    • Ad Bobo
      Ad Bobo 3 meses atrás +1

      @CATTO LEONCE I worked in nuclear plants. I even helped build a couple.

      CATTO LEONCE 3 meses atrás

      @Ad Bobo that's only if it leaks or malfunctions :/ you don't even know how nuclear energy works when handled properly

    • Nathan Crudup
      Nathan Crudup 3 meses atrás

      @CATTO LEONCE guy was a troll or had absolutely no idea what he was talking about

      CATTO LEONCE 3 meses atrás +1

      @Ad Bobo and what does it do that pollutes the world so badly?

  • Baker Harris
    Baker Harris 6 meses atrás +6

    Nuclear energy (both fission and fusion based) is the future.

  • Simon Johansen
    Simon Johansen 4 meses atrás

    This is a dispute I frankly don't know enough about to take a qualified standpoint on, at least until now, so thanks for making videos that explain the topic so concisely. I guess I should also watch your video about the worst nuclear accidents in human history. As usual I also think your videos are worth watching for the animation and aesthetics alone - extremely inventive and colourful with a great sense of humour. I appreciate these because I paint in my spare time, and I constantly get new ideas when watching them.

  • Rashida Anjum
    Rashida Anjum 9 meses atrás +10

    This video was a great refresher for the whole climate change universe! Really helped me with my nuclear fuels topic in physics at school as well.

    • Rick TD
      Rick TD 6 meses atrás

      Too bad it's a scam.

  • nero vanguard
    nero vanguard Anos atrás +1313

    That last bit where wind, hydro and solar energies fighting a CO2 Monster with nuclear being trapped was a genius metaphor

    • Rolston Dyer
      Rolston Dyer 9 meses atrás

      @Chris G No you misunderstand before subsidies it is even cheaper. The fact of the matter is coal and solar are the cheapest energy options we have today.

    • Chris G
      Chris G 9 meses atrás

      @Rolston Dyer It's not actually cheaper in your state. Most of the US has heavy subsidies for renewable that don't apply to nuclear.

    • Emon 64
      Emon 64 11 meses atrás +1

      @Michael MooreYou clearly don't own an Air Fryer

    • Chris Delzell
      Chris Delzell Anos atrás +2

      @Rolston Dyer unfortunately, hydro isn't scalable. You can only get a very small amount if energy out of most water features before doing irrevocable damage to the local ecosystem.

    • howard baxter
      howard baxter Anos atrás +3

      @Rolston Dyer yes, they are a thing, but they are also detrimental to the environment and cannot be used everywhere. While I am a fan of hydro power, it still has many more problems than that of nuclear.
      Also, interesting fact, the worst hydroelectric disaster the Banqiao Disaster in 1975, has accounted for more deaths than all of nuclear in its entire history. Using the most liberal and extreme estimates for Chernobyl (roughly 60,000 deaths), this disaster is anywhere between 1.42 times to 4 times more deadlier (85,600 to to 240,000)

  • TheNinja
    TheNinja 3 meses atrás

    I appreciate the "opinion part starts here"
    It would have been easy for you to just push your opinion, but saying "these are the facts, there are good arguments for both sides, but here is my personal view" and not getting it mixed in the facts part takes true strength

  • Lang Ni
    Lang Ni 9 meses atrás +4

    When I was 11, me and another from a certain very nerdy club were arguing about nuclear energy. I argued that it is efficient and safe statistically as accidents are few and far between. He kept arguing using the three fission accidents. He ended up spitting in my hair. And we were debating on a public bus. :/

  • Thomas Ebeling
    Thomas Ebeling 11 meses atrás +1

    Liebes kurzgesagt Team, ich feier eure Beiträge jedes mal hart ab. Die 10 - 15 Minuten bevor ich mich meiner Lohnarbeit widmen muß ist immer für euch reserviert. Ich habe mich selten so gut unterhalten und gleichzeitig informiert gefühlt. Macht bitte weiter so.

  • nonnomir
    nonnomir 8 meses atrás

    Interesting video. There's one option not considered: lower our consume. Its a technological challenge we can accept: making same stuff (or more) with much lower consumption.
    Share transport and goods, lower consumption with long lasting products, give up of inducted needs. Humanity has to change in this way, to overcome this evolution step.
    I find funny and terribile its what i consider the most important point and its sistematically ignored.
    Edit: in one concept, we are ignoring the possibility of being rational. Thats sad.

  • Duarte GB
    Duarte GB Anos atrás +768

    Fun fact, the word nuclear was removed from the term magnetic ressonance (it used to be magnetic nuclear ressonance) because people were afraid of doing it due to the conection to "nuclear"

    • danielle desbiens
      danielle desbiens 3 meses atrás

      I've seen this same comment

    • ofvddsdsdsf
      ofvddsdsdsf Anos atrás

      Um no, incorrect much, it wasn’t removed, but it’s just only used by professionals who knows ehat they’re talking about now.
      Stop spreading false information, any chem-, bio-, biotech student or ph.d will know that it’s NMR and not MR.

    • I live in your walls
      I live in your walls Anos atrás

      @jogandsp Maybe in english speaking countries but in France in the medical field it's hasn't changed.

    • jogandsp
      jogandsp Anos atrás

      @Anonymous well, especially since NMR and MRI have nothing to do with radioactivity

    • Anonymous
      Anonymous Anos atrás

      @jogandsp Yeah, I hope that there is no chemists that are scared of the word "nuclear" lol. They would be in for a bad time...

  • • they call me a space hamster • 17 yrs ago

    I hear thorium reactors are poised to be a revolution in the nuclear industry. They appear much safer and more efficient than traditional methods. I've read and watched a bit about them so far and they seem like the no-brainer next step in the nuclear power field. Apparently the only major thing holding them back at this point is a lack of perceived commercial viability. Hopefully that will change soon.

  • cinder
    cinder 4 meses atrás +1

    Nuclear energy has its downsides most of which are the concerns that nuclear waste being misshandled and improperly disposed of, but nowadays nuclear waste is carefully disposed of deep underground, in basically massive storage units, and then filled with concrete and buried, and the history of catastrophic nuclear reactor failures the most notable being Chrynoble, but as long as we foucs on the idea of making these nulear reactors safer and reduce waste product to an absolute minium then truly nuclear is the way to go, and as stated in the video this could be a great way to bring in better versions of renewable energy that casuses less damage to the enviroments that they are placed in both when being constructed such as the large amount of achers needed for both wind and solar farms, and when there are being disposed of such the fact that some windmills are made up of fiderglass and solar pannels being made up of several toxic and enviromentally damaging chemicals that are either disposed of in burn pit or buried under soil where the toxic chemical can spread. I in general believe that we as humans need to get rid of all if not most fossil fuels and only ever really of them for emergency purposes in the future, but starting now we need to put the past behind us and lok at the facts decide what is truly the next best step in order for everyine to achieve the goal of making this little blue rock a little bit healthier.

  • Iraturoco
    Iraturoco 27 dias atrás

    Part of Japans rapid decline when it comes to their use of nuclear energy is due to the countries geography. Japan sits above various tectonic plates that mesh into each other to the point of causing a high amount of quakes. They are also prone to typhons and tsunamis, one of which along with an earthquake caused the Fukushima disaster. A nuclear disaster caused by the quakes and tsunamis that killed several thousand. People protested the use of nuclear energy and since then their use has slowly been declining.

  • Azeric the Traveller
    Azeric the Traveller 6 meses atrás

    I think that using nuclear as a buffer and substitute to fossil fuel while we hammer out the problems with renewable is the best bet.

  • Fall
    Fall Anos atrás +1253

    These animations are getting insanely good lately

  • KidozyGAME
    KidozyGAME 10 meses atrás +1

    Renewable sources don't have the inertia that the grid needs. Nuclear does, Nuclear super-boils water to run 2-3 ton(s) steam turbines to generate electricity. A combination of nuclear-breeder reactors and renewable would be best.

  • Ethribin
    Ethribin Mês atrás

    Something important to keep in mind.
    If we can replace fossile fuel power with fission power.
    We will be able, and most likely more willing, to replace fission power with renewable power once we have the infrastructure for it.
    Because we've already replaced a power production method with anotherone before.

  • Atlas
    Atlas 2 meses atrás

    While i agree that we can't abandon nuclear as of now, i'm for replacing fossil fuels with renawables, maybe extending nuclear reactors lifespans, and just after that shutting down the reactors.

  • Billy Goat
    Billy Goat 5 meses atrás

    I just did a paper about exactly this and researched from many peer-reviewed articles and books from the library. This is an excellent video.

  • Gavin Jones
    Gavin Jones Anos atrás +1176

    I am 99% sure that every Kurzgesagt video starts with “well, it’s complicated”

    • Mithel_Celestia
      Mithel_Celestia Anos atrás

      real life generally is.

    • A-Prevail Beats
      A-Prevail Beats Anos atrás


    • BL4K4TT
      BL4K4TT Anos atrás

      @Rochelle Villafuerte tf are you talking abt

    • BL4K4TT
      BL4K4TT Anos atrás

      @Tactical Lemon true

    • Rod Landaeta
      Rod Landaeta Anos atrás

      That's because, in a nutshell, most things are complicated in our current world.

  • PetsnStuff
    PetsnStuff 10 meses atrás +1

    The switch will most likely happen when there is no turning back and no other solutions. Hopefully, the future generations will make the move that past generations couldn't make.

  • Shawn Wesley
    Shawn Wesley 6 meses atrás

    Nuclear can be a great crutch while renewables get the sort of focus and attention needed to become better. The problem right now is that all the political/wealth power is based around fossil fuels. A small, small minority of extremely wealthy individuals will continue to stand in the way of addressing (let alone solving) our climate crisis because there's more money to be made while making the problems worse.
    Besides that, the main concern I have with nuclear power is the people who will be in charge of it. If corners are cut, if profit is pursued at the cost of safety, then it can be a massive problem. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be used, but... well mostly I'd like to see the whole idea of profit-based utilities completely scrapped. That's what got us into our current mess (well, a bit part of it) and it doesn't matter what we switch to, profit-oriented thinking will find new ways to cause massive problems (renewables can be done badly, too). As long as we try to hang on to the system that got us to this problem -- capitalism and the various incarnations of oligarchic rule usually disguising itself as something else like "flawed democracy" -- I highly doubt any effective changes will occur. We're more likely to keep wishing the rich and powerful will stop being the absolute worst while doing nothing about it and the rich and powerful will happily watch our climate complete collapse and the extinction of most life including ourselves.

  • Stephanos Loizides
    Stephanos Loizides 4 meses atrás

    As you mentioned very well in the video, renewable energy sources require a lot of batteries to supply the energy. Does this seems like another problem to you? I would really like to know you opinion as a channel upon batteries.

  • space
    space 3 meses atrás

    Well it would be easier to focus on using LESS electricity for our daily lives. Also focusing on new ways of generating the power. Best way right now is to deploy smaller safer reactor types, and once thats done focus more on renewables.

  • J C
    J C Anos atrás +1330

    It annoys to me to think the only reason nuclear is getting removed in a lot of places is because of a scared and misinformed public which politicians then cater to for their own personal power.

    • Jace Criste-Ravidaz
      Jace Criste-Ravidaz 8 meses atrás

      @NAUI'S ART overproud

    • Mr. Lengo
      Mr. Lengo 10 meses atrás

      @Shumnee Actually the worst case scenario in Chernobyl was the fact that we had no idea what the hell we were doing with radioactive materials.
      Fukushima actually did have the worse case scenario thought out. A tsunami. But corporate greed and lack of regulations got in the way to stop the redesign of the reactor before it was built. Basically there was a backup generator that was at the waterline. Engineers pointed this out saying “hey this ain’t a good idea” but since the reactor was already fully designed by GE, the company contracting GE didn’t want to pay more money to have it redesigned and they built it anyway. Then a tsunami floods the backup generator and then bye bye Fukushima.
      Any modern reactor does have every single worse case scenario designed into it, unlike the old ones which were honestly pretty scary. Coupled with the safer and more reliable failsafes if something unplanned does happen, the chances of a new reactor failing are fundamentally impossible.

    • kaiqi yang
      kaiqi yang Anos atrás +1

      @matt frank you realize a day in Chernobyl does nothing to you unless you’re literally not the reactor right? There’s even tours you can go on to Chernobyl. The dangers of radiation mostly comes from long term exposure. Exception being extreme radiation dose due to an accident.

  • Din
    Din 2 meses atrás +1

    5:19 I can’t believe they put the detail of blocking the sunlight every time the windmill blade passed over it

  • MrMeoow91
    MrMeoow91 4 meses atrás

    After watching Michael Shellenberger's Ted talk, I am 100% for nuclear since then. I am from Australia and we still burn tons of coal for electricity. Nuclear is a taboo word over here, not coal.

  • Fredrik Wiberg
    Fredrik Wiberg 9 meses atrás +4

    While Sweden does produce alot of renewable energy, sadly it falls short during the winter. Which means we have to resort to buying electricity that is probobly made from fossils. This is due to us closing down some of our nuclear plants. So while statisticily we produce very eco friendly, we consume fossils like everyone else.

    • Not a summoner
      Not a summoner 7 meses atrás +1

      A major issue is that all Hydro is in the North but our population is mainly in the south so we have a major issue of energy in southern Sweden. We had two nuclear power plants but one got shut down because of those bloody Danes and the other because we're running away from nuclear.

  • diveunder
    diveunder 11 meses atrás +1

    The one thing I'll agree to disagree with is stating we need, "more battries!" The mining process to even the disposal of lithium or colbalt is down right horrible business! Leaching pits everywhere isn't something the environmentalists will say yes too!

    • Pablo Cruz
      Pablo Cruz 11 meses atrás

      Issue is, we do still need more batteries. We do not have the technology (yet) to allow a non battery operated electrical device everywhere. We need batteries (which have lagged behind most other modern technologies) to get better. There have been processes for new batteries tested, such as a nano cellulose battery I believe which is 100% organic, as well as a graphine based battery.

  • Diego SS
    Diego SS 5 meses atrás +2

    France is the country with the most nuclear energy percentage in the world, and one of the countries with the cheapest energy costs, plus one of the least pollutant. What other example do you need?

  • King Harlequinn
    King Harlequinn Mês atrás

    Im surprised they didnt mention the transmission of electricity. Its a big reason we in the US havent transitioned faster. Our transmission lines are beyond old, and we need to upgrade/reinforce them. Transmission lines are those HUGE wooden "logs" you see along the highway with huge wires connecting them.

  • capthavic
    capthavic 9 meses atrás +1

    While nuclear isn't without drawbacks, I think the benefits outweigh them if we are to transition away from fossil fuels.

  • heyyo titties
    heyyo titties 10 meses atrás

    You also have to consider reliability/maintenance as well as the environmental impacts that mining for the battery metals has. The planet will be destroyed doing that. I dont see planetary renewables being realistic on large scale. Maybe as generators for key areas of importance like hospitals and other emergency services, but not at the risk of going global with it.

  • BleachMartini
    BleachMartini Anos atrás +470

    I love the clear disclaimer the Kurzgesagt team does when going from relaying information to sharing their own opinion. I think a lot of other channels and even mainstream news could learn from that, isolating the two from each other really helps progress difficult discussions

    • Gábor Rigó
      Gábor Rigó Anos atrás +1

      @Kenneth Ferland Can you actually counter the points made or...

    • BleachMartini
      BleachMartini Anos atrás +2

      ​@Kenneth Ferland No-one is interested in listening to those who seek to poison wells rather than engage with ideas. If you wish to criticize the ideas, then criticize the ideas. Mind reading & attributing malice are nasty habits that only degrade your critical thinking skills over time

    • Kenneth Ferland
      Kenneth Ferland Anos atrás

      That's just a deceptive practice, because the 'facts' presented earlier were highly selective to support the later 'opinion', in reality the whole video is a nuclear puff piece of the kind that's being pushed hard by the Nuclear industry to get subsidized at public expense.

    • Antimetagen
      Antimetagen Anos atrás +3

      Kurzgesagt mainly seeks to inform, whereas most outlets seek to incite a specific response. Clearly showing the line between evidence and opinions would be counteractive to sensationalism.

    • Pedro Braga
      Pedro Braga Anos atrás

      @ĶévïņBB Přõďùçţìőñş you're doing great

  • Theodor Sonfors
    Theodor Sonfors 9 meses atrás

    Finally someone who did research before uttering their opinion in the matter.
    It's just like some influencer decided nuclear energy was evil and that became the norm. Imagine how efficient the reactors would be, the discoveries that could have been made if the research funding wasn't gutted.

  • mmm hmmm
    mmm hmmm 10 meses atrás

    My country (🇵🇭) built a nuclear power plant once, but due to the events that happened in Chernobyl international opinion made it impossible for us to use it. It's a bit of waste leaving the power plant in legal limbo when it could have been used to create electricity.

  • Solaris
    Solaris 9 meses atrás +1

    Hi, I've seen a lot from this channel, and both the narration and the graphics are really top notch overall, but I have several complaints here. Narration suggests that Nuclear power could be used at least temporarily till we get to 100% renewable, and then switched off somehow. Sorry but no. Given the nature of renewable sources being much variable and not uniform, with a terrible capacity factor and given you need accumulators for too many sheer energy to be sustainable, the only solution is to keep nuclear for the baseload and renewable for the peak consumption. Only alternative to nuclear for baseload is, sadly, "natural" gas (which is indeed "natural" but not that green at all).

  • Jimmu Tenken
    Jimmu Tenken 4 meses atrás +1

    I usually use coal burning machines in my modded Minecraft server, but then switch to nuclear generation the second I gain all the materials and required machines. The reactors pay for themselves in no time (energy-wise). Come on, nuclear, we need you, I don't want to drown in my own lungs.

  • 205up90down
    205up90down Anos atrás +507

    The animation team has really outdone themselves on this video. Absolutely stunning visuals, even on clips that only appear for a second or two

  • Samantha🌿
    Samantha🌿 3 meses atrás +1

    Y’all should make a game about the catastrophes, would love to play it
    Still, people in this situation need to pay attention.

  • Cris py
    Cris py Anos atrás +1

    One of the factors is an increasing population, this needs to be the primary focus of developing countries.
    Most Far East Asian and European populations are not growing at a rapid rate.
    It’s the rest of the world that needs to put policies in place to limit population growth.
    Admittedly though the wastefulness of energy needs to be addressed in these developed nations…

  • Vox Cruora
    Vox Cruora Anos atrás +1

    I'm all for nuclear power, even as someone who lives relatively close to Three Mile Island. The main concern I have with jumping all in on it is that nuclear waste is still a massive problem. That also needs to be invested in at the same time, otherwise we'll continue to have the same issues we do now with the waste.

  • Praevasc
    Praevasc 3 meses atrás

    The problem with those 16% of our energy use coming from carbon-neutral sources is that in reality it's a lot less. Those have to be built, and maintained, and that itself uses a lot of energy.
    Also, other problems might bite us in the butt a lot sooner than the problem of energy and emissions: rare earth minerals necessary for our technology, and phosphorus necessary for our food production. Those will run out very soon, and unlike energy, no viable alternatives have been found yet.

  • Codem
    Codem Anos atrás +2727

    Germany: - Let's replace Nuclear by Coal to fight climate change!
    _Something's wrong, I can feel it_

    • france icoy
      france icoy 9 meses atrás

      @BnORailFan the irony there is that Germany is SUPER inland whilst Fukushima was most likely 70% propped up from the sea (hence the seawall)

    • france icoy
      france icoy 9 meses atrás

      @MarioXHK and others LOL

    • Silver Spoon
      Silver Spoon 11 meses atrás

      @Phoenix 𝙾𝚙𝚎𝚗 𝙼𝚢 PROFILE if even we can "fix" climate, implying its changes are anthropogenic.

    • Jim Graham
      Jim Graham 11 meses atrás

      @BnORailFan Of course, I understand, Germany is in a very geologically unstable part of the world prone to tsunami. Pity they didn't think to build them inland.

    • Jim Graham
      Jim Graham Anos atrás

      @BnORailFan Are German nukes on a coastline susceptible to earthquakes and tsunami?