Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment | Michael Shellenberger

How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment | Michael Shellenberger

Have you heard the news? We’re in a clean energy revolution. And where I live in Berkeley, California, it seems like every day I see a new roof
with new solar panels going up, electric car in the driveway. Germany sometimes gets
half its power from solar, and India is now committed
to building 10 times more solar than we have in California, by the year 2022. Even nuclear seems to be
making a comeback. Bill Gates is in China
working with engineers, there’s 40 different companies
that are working together to try to race to build the first
reactor that runs on waste, that can’t melt down and is cheaper than coal. And so you might start to ask: Is this whole global warming problem going to be a lot easier to solve
than anybody imagined? That was the question we wanted to know, so my colleagues and I decided
to take a deep dive into the data. We were a little skeptical of some parts of the clean energy revolution story, but what we found really surprised us. The first thing is that clean
energy has been increasing. This is electricity from clean energy
sources over the last 20 years. But when you look at
the percentage of global electricity from clean energy sources, it’s actually been in decline
from 36 percent to 31 percent. And if you care about climate change, you’ve got to go in the opposite direction to 100 percent of our electricity
from clean energy sources, as quickly as possible. Now, you might wonder, “Come on, how much could five percentage
points of global electricity be?” Well, it turns out to be quite a bit. It’s the equivalent of 60 nuclear plants the size of Diablo Canyon,
California’s last nuclear plant, or 900 solar farms the size of Topaz, which is one of the biggest
solar farms in the world, and certainly our biggest in California. A big part of this is simply
that fossil fuels are increasing faster than clean energy. And that’s understandable. There’s just a lot of poor countries that are still using wood
and dung and charcoal as their main source of energy, and they need modern fuels. But there’s something else going on, which is that one of those clean energy
sources in particular has actually been on the decline
in absolute terms, not just relatively. And that’s nuclear. You can see its generation
has declined seven percent over the last 10 years. Now, solar and wind have been
making huge strides, so you hear a lot of talk
about how it doesn’t really matter, because solar and wind
is going to make up the difference. But the data says something different. When you combine all the electricity
from solar and wind, you see it actually barely makes up
half of the decline from nuclear. Let’s take a closer look
in the United States. Over the last couple of years —
really 2013, 2014 — we prematurely retired
four nuclear power plants. They were almost entirely
replaced with fossil fuels, and so the consequence
was that we wiped out almost as much clean energy
electricity that we get from solar. And it’s not unique to us. People think of California
as a clean energy and climate leader, but when we looked at the data, what we found is that, in fact, California reduced emissions more slowly
than the national average, between 2000 and 2015. What about Germany? They’re doing a lot of clean energy. But when you look at the data, German emissions have actually
been going up since 2009, and there’s really not anybody
who’s going to tell you that they’re going to meet
their climate commitments in 2020. The reason isn’t hard to understand. Solar and wind provide power
about 10 to 20 percent of the time, which means that when
the sun’s not shining, the wind’s not blowing, you still need power for your hospitals, your homes, your cities, your factories. And while batteries have made
some really cool improvements lately, the truth is, they’re just never
going to be as efficient as the electrical grid. Every time you put electricity
into a battery and take it out, you lose about 20 to 40
percent of the power. That’s why when, in California, we try to deal with all the solar
we’ve brought online — we now get about 10 percent
of electricity from solar — when the sun goes down,
and people come home from work and turn on their air conditioners
and their TV sets, and every other appliance in the house, we need a lot of natural gas backup. So what we’ve been doing is stuffing a lot of natural gas
into the side of a mountain. And that worked pretty well for a while, but then late last year,
it sprung a leak. This is Aliso Canyon. So much methane gas was released, it was the equivalent of putting
half a million cars on the road. It basically blew through all
of our climate commitments for the year. Well, what about India? Sometimes you have to go places
to really get the right data, so we traveled to India a few months ago. We met with all the top officials —
solar, nuclear, the rest — and what they told us is, “We’re actually having
more serious problems than both Germany and California. We don’t have backup;
we don’t have all the natural gas. And that’s just the start of it. Say we want to get
to 100 gigawatts by 2022. But last year we did just five, and the year before that, we did five.” So, let’s just take
a closer look at nuclear. The United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change has looked at the carbon content
of all these different fuels, and nuclear comes out really low —
it’s actually lower even than solar. And nuclear obviously
provides a lot of power — 24 hours a day, seven days a week. During a year, a single plant can provide
power 92 percent of the time. What’s interesting is that
when you look at countries that have deployed different
kinds of clean energies, there’s only a few that have done so at a pace consistent with dealing
with the climate crisis. So nuclear seems like
a pretty good option, but there’s this big problem with it, which all of you, I’m sure, are aware of, which is that people really don’t like it. There was a study, a survey done
of people around the world, not just in the United States or Europe, about a year and a half ago. And what they found is that nuclear is actually one
of the least popular forms of energy. Even oil is more popular than nuclear. And while nuclear kind of
edges out coal, the thing is, people don’t really fear coal
in the same way they fear nuclear, which really operates on our unconscious. So what is it that we fear? There’s really three things. There’s the safety
of the plants themselves — the fears that they’re going
to melt down and cause damage; there’s the waste from them; and there’s the association with weapons. And I think, understandably, engineers look at those concerns
and look for technological fixes. That’s why Bill Gates is in China
developing advanced reactors. That’s why 40 different entrepreneurs
are working on this problem. And I, myself, have been
very excited about it. We did a report:
“How to Make Nuclear Cheap.” In particular, the thorium reactor
shows a lot of promise. So when the climate
scientist, James Hansen, asked if I wanted to go to China with him and look at the Chinese
advanced nuclear program, I jumped at the chance. We were there with MIT
and UC Berkeley engineers. And I had in my mind that the Chinese would be able
to do with nuclear what they did with so many other things — start to crank out small nuclear
reactors on assembly lines, ship them up like iPhones or MacBooks
and send them around the world. I would get one at home in Berkeley. But what I found was somewhat different. The presentations were all
very exciting and very promising; they have multiple reactors
that they’re working on. The time came for the thorium reactor,
and a bunch of us were excited. They went through the whole presentation,
they got to the timeline, and they said, “We’re going to have
a thorium molten salt reactor ready for sale to the world by 2040.” And I was like, “What?” (Laughter) I looked at my colleagues and I was like, “Excuse me — can you guys speed that up a little bit? Because we’re in a little bit
of a climate crisis right now. And your cities are really
polluted, by the way.” And they responded back, they were like, “I’m not sure what you’ve heard
about our thorium program, but we don’t have a third of our budget, and your department of energy
hasn’t been particularly forthcoming with all that data you guys
have on testing reactors.” And I said, “Well, I’ve got an idea. You know how you’ve got 10 years
where you’re demonstrating that reactor? Let’s just skip that part, and let’s just go right
to commercializing it. That will save money and time.” And the engineer just
looked at me and said, “Let me ask you a question: Would you buy a car that had never
been demonstrated before?” So what about the other reactors? There’s a reactor that’s coming online
now, they’re starting to sell it. It’s a high-temperature gas reactor. It can’t melt down. But it’s really big and bulky,
that’s part of the safety, and nobody thinks
it’s going to ever get cheaper than the reactors that we have. The ones that use waste as fuel
are really cool ideas, but the truth is, we don’t actually know how to do that yet. There’s some risk that you’ll
actually make more waste, and most people think
that if you’re including that waste part of the process, it’s just going to make the whole
machine a lot more expensive, it’s just adding another complicated step. The truth is, there’s real questions about how much
of that we’re going to do. I mean, we went to India and asked
about the nuclear program. The government said
before the Paris climate talks that they were going to do something
like 30 new nuclear plants. But when we got there
and interviewed people and even looked at the internal documents, they’re now saying
they’re going to do about five. And in most of the world,
especially the rich world, they’re not talking
about building new reactors. We’re actually talking
about taking reactors down before their lifetimes are over. Germany’s actually pressuring
its neighbors to do that. I mentioned the United States — we could lose half of our reactors
over the next 15 years, which would wipe out 40 percent
of the emissions reductions we’re supposed to get
under the Clean Power Plan. Of course, in Japan, they took
all their nuclear plants offline, replaced them with coal,
natural gas, oil burning, and they’re only expected to bring
online about a third to two-thirds. So when we went through the numbers, and just added that up — how much nuclear do we see
China and India bringing online over the next 15 years, how much do we see at risk
of being taken offline — this was the most startling finding. What we found is that
the world is actually at risk of losing four times more clean energy
than we lost over the last 10 years. In other words: we’re not
in a clean energy revolution; we’re in a clean energy crisis. So it’s understandable that engineers
would look for a technical fix to the fears that people have of nuclear. But when you consider
that these are big challenges to do, that they’re going to take
a long time to solve, there’s this other issue, which is: Are those technical fixes
really going to solve people’s fears? Let’s take safety. You know, despite what people think, it’s hard to figure out how
to make nuclear power much safer. I mean, every medical
journal that looks at it — this is the most recent study
from the British journal, “Lancet,” one of the most respected
journals in the world — nuclear is the safest way
to make reliable power. Everybody’s scared of the accidents. So you go look at the accident data — Fukushima, Chernobyl — the World Health Organization
finds the same thing: the vast majority of harm
is caused by people panicking, and they’re panicking
because they’re afraid. In other words, the harm that’s caused
isn’t actually caused by the machines or the radiation. It’s caused by our fears. And what about the waste? Everyone worries about the waste. Well, the interesting
thing about the waste is how little of it there is. This is just from one plant. If you take all the nuclear waste
we’ve ever made in the United States, put it on a football field, stacked it up, it would only reach 20 feet high. And people say it’s poisoning
people or doing something — it’s not, it’s just sitting
there, it’s just being monitored. There’s not very much of it. By contrast, the waste that we don’t
control from energy production — we call it “pollution,” and it kills
seven million people a year, and it’s threatening very serious
levels of global warming. And the truth is that even if we get
good at using that waste as fuel, there’s always going to be
some fuel left over. That means there’s always going to be
people that think it’s a big problem for reasons that maybe don’t have
as much to do with the actual waste as we think. Well, what about the weapons? Maybe the most surprising thing
is that we can’t find any examples of countries that have nuclear power and then, “Oh!” decide to go get a weapon. In fact, it works the opposite. What we find is the only way we know how to get rid large numbers
of nuclear weapons is by using the plutonium in the warheads as fuel in our nuclear power plants. And so, if you are wanting to get
the world rid of nuclear weapons, then we’re going to need
a lot more nuclear power. (Applause) As I was leaving China, the engineer that brought Bill Gates there
kind of pulled me aside, and he said, “You know, Michael,
I appreciate your interest in all the different nuclear
supply technologies, but there’s this more basic issue, which is that there’s just not
enough global demand. I mean, we can crank out
these machines on assembly lines, we do know how to make things cheap, but there’s just not enough
people that want them.” And so, let’s do solar and wind
and efficiency and conservation. Let’s accelerate the advanced
nuclear programs. I think we should triple the amount
of money we’re spending on it. But I just think the most important thing, if we’re going to overcome
the climate crisis, is to keep in mind that the cause
of the clean energy crisis isn’t from within our machines, it’s from within ourselves. Thank you very much. (Applause)

100 comments on “How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment | Michael Shellenberger

  1. I really wish people would think about it for a second, the same people pushing against Nuclear are the ones who claim to have science on their side…. It is a good option

  2. When sun is not shining and wind is not blowing, your accumulators STILL accumulate the energy. Never heard of batteries?

  3. This industry is responsible for millions of cancers and illnesses. You cannot possibly think humans are capable of running this tech without catastrophe. Fukushima was to be expected. It was a nuclear explosion in unit 3 that sent fuel km into the air. Soon there will be disaster in the USA from licencing these plants 40 years past design basis.

  4. What I find quite funny is I've found at my workplace (A prominent worldwide motor control company) is this…. If I walk in to the break room and say "Nuclear power is our salvation" I get pretty much heckled by production line workers…. If I walk into the engineering office (full of knowledgeable engineers) Everyone nods and agrees. This is why Nuclear power fails/ In a democracy the ignorance of the masses overrides the knowledge of the experts. Fact is simple.. Democracy allows the idiots to reign over the Intelligent.

  5. So tell me how is JAPAN doing right now? 80+ years latter and still no realy way to recycle spent rods. 3 mile island. Chernobyl or did you forget about that little 30 year old leaking problem. And still no real idea what to do what the elephant foot once they can get remote controlled robots to get to it. So tell me again just how clean necular power is?

  6. Nit Picking, I know, but when people who sound otherwise smart use upspeak, I just cringe harder than when dopey teenagers do.

  7. If you shutdown a plant early you still have the waste but not the value and the waste emitts more radiation because it's not fully spent.

  8. If nuclear power was so good, why can't operators get funding for new plants? Why must the nuclear power industry receive the heaviest government subsidies by far of any generation process or energy source, and why must the US taxpayer be on the hook first for accidents or economic failures rather than investors or operators? There might be a future for small breeder plants, but the free market is clear that old-school fission plants have no future. This argument that we should promote nuclear power to save the environment is specious at best. The speaker's suggestion that the power grid is more efficient than a battery is so very wrong. We lose more than 7% of energy generated just in grid losses. You can fool some of the people, etc.

  9. Also the difference between nuclear waste and waste from coal, is that nuclear energy is a solid that can be stored, but fossil fuel power is just being pumped into the sky

  10. My grandpa knows a lot of scientists, a decade ago he spoke to a German one, he said: "The future of energy, is in the atom"

  11. enjoy 3 mile island….enjoy the japanese nuclear crisis ,as it is still happening…enjoy chernobyl , enjoy the nuclear weapons…hey michael we need solar and wind…we will never have anything until the oil corps stop rapeing our environment…talk is cheap

  12. Of course we're in crisis. That's because we haven't been putting every penny into solar research.

    The giant nuclear power plant in the sky is our only hope TED you moron!
    Nuclear of ANY KIND involves nuclear waste.

    Grow up and watch less TV guys. Please?

  13. Nuclear waste you say? sounds like armor for our tanks? armor piercing rounds? how abut batteries that don't lose their charge? you mean that nuclear waste that's actually is more valuable than what the power plant produces? don't sound like waste to me but what do i know….

  14. The united states developed a molten salt reactor at the same time as the standard reactor. It was built in the late 60's at Oak Ridge National Laboratories and operated through 1976. Government shut it down and went with breeder reactors because it is easy to produce plutonium-239 for weapons with them, And molten salt reactors would not work in submarines or aircraft.

  15. He never once mentions nuke fraud, I'm all for cleaner energy, but he does us no good by not mentioning the fraud that is involved that's been going on since my parents youth… I'm 56 years old… * *

  16. In the early 30's, if you had asked the average person for their estimate of the prospects for fission power, they would have told you it was not worth pursuing. But this is why we should never poll people to make decisions. Same with fusion today.

    Science is really hard. But the science part of fusion power is done. Now it's an engineering problem. And when you put a bunch of engineers on a problem, it is amazing what they can accomplish. It's just a matter of time.

  17. We had a Thorium plant that produced tons of energy in the 60's for 3 to 4 years guy that you failed to mention. We opted for Uranium because it produced reactor grade U-235 and Plutonium that we needed at the time for weapons.

  18. Shellenberger is an Anthropologists, NOT an engineer. Any engineer will be able to find the total complete errors in Shellenbergers facts and use of statistics. He is a joke. And using old statistics. In 2019 the globe will install 120 GW solar. 120 GW solar which produce the same yearly amount of electricity as 25 nuclear stations. So the globe must initiate 25 new nuclear projects EACH year just to keep up with the GROWTH of Solar electricity alone. And then Inhave not mentioned the growth of Wind power. Forget Nuclear. ITS too expensive. The world needs dirt Cheap subsidy free power, and thats where solar is now.

  19. We need new nuclear energy in USA. I was erry of nuclear until I starting looking into everything I thought was bad about it was actually just outdated info/technology. We have the tech now to pretty much get rid of fossil fuel and solar/wind. Bill Gates was on the edge of implementing his plants in China until it was backlogged by the tarrifs. So many moving parts in politicas/society but this could be a huge push!!!

  20. The man-made global climate crisis argument has little to no evidence for it, however, cleaning up the environment and being better at it is advisable no matter what. Nuclear energy at the moment is clearly the solution (and was decades ago).

    Before you climate crisis weirdos attack me, at the very least PLEASE go check all of the charts and graphs “they” use to push the man-made agenda. They always only go back just long enough to try and “prove” their hypothesis. They ALWAYS leave out the data just previously that make their statistical argument INCORRECT.

    For example: sea level rise from 1870 until now looks like it’s been going up exponentially. If you look back thousands of more years, however, you’ll see that the sea levels changed 99% more long before this time and at a much faster rate (without humans). If you take the total data into account the man-made sea level rise argument fails with simple math.

    Second example: CO2 and a correlation with temperature; all of the traditionally available graphs from school or the media only go back 500,000 years. First, this data set doesn’t agree with premise. Sometimes CO2 drives temperature first, while other times it’s temperature driving CO2. Secondly, when looking back a lot any further (millions of years), again the statistical anomaly they claim to be falls apart. CO2 and Temperatures over millions of years has less correlation than hurricanes and dog farts.

    There are examples like this for just about every graph or chart the media and globalists tout as proof of man-made climate change. Just look for videos by “Tony Heller”, one of the most brilliant engineers and scientist around. Even if you can’t trust him: LOOK AT THE DATA HE PROVIDES AND FACT CHECK IT. Do the research for yourself and make up your own mind. Do the math. See the real numbers and once you do you’ll realize this isn’t about saving the world, it’s about control, wealth, and power.

    The richest people, biggest corporations, most popular celebrities, and more of the wealthiest people in the world are NOT pushing this agenda because they care. They are addicted to POWER. Fear sells. Fear controls. What’s more to be afraid of than the earth ending?

  21. It's not fear of nuclear power that causes me to oppose nuclear power. It's the reckless disregard for safety and the lying the industry does. If burning BS will boil water, let's do that instead.

  22. Check this video out…" Fukushiuma – S Korea 393,000,000 Bq m3 133 Xe & Beijing China 3,120,000 Bq m3 Iodine 131" on Youtube. Not on the major networks. You never heard — no surprise

  23. The nuclear energy fear is concocted by the anti-industrial nature-ists. Their real aim is de-industrialisation, the outcome would be economic shrinkage and no more money for: research, health, safety, environmental cleanup, welfare…

  24. It’s time that conservatives speak up about these issues and promote nuclear power. It’s good for our economy and our environments’ ecosystems. Liberals use their “concern” for global warming as an excuse for socialism even though I know dam well those politicians don’t give a crap, that’s why they promote the types of renewable energy that will fail. Our biggest problem is how little the majority of the population even knows about environmental science and natural resource management.

  25. Retired Physics teacher. Huge frustration; I've been explaining to young pre-adults about nuclear and the huge advantage for decades. Just no one seems to get it.

  26. There already is a billion metric tonnes of Nuclear waste in the world! and growing 12,000 tonnes a year! Fear did not create a Tsunami, it was the opposite of fear than made them build a plant on a coast that has a history of tsunami's every 100 years, fear did not make the USSR build poor quality reactors that explode and almost cause a thermal nuclear explosion! Just like how all pipelines will eventually leak, all Nuclear Power stations will fail! It is not safe or sustainable, it is calculated risk. "We think this plant is safe for 50 years" then it fails inspections in 30 and gets torn down create even more waste than spent fuel. Now we have waste in ground water that will not be safe for 1000 generations! Every fish in the Pacific has some level of radiation and it's still growing! This is the worse bullshit propaganda TED talk I have ever watched!

  27. If all environmentalists were this reasonable, we wouldn't have so many people rejecting global warming as fear mongering politics. As always, "good intentions" will lead us to more problems, nuclear and hydro are the best ways to make energy, but still people seldom talk about their advantages, they only want the more wasteful and expensive processes because it's the fashion.

  28. So if we dig say three quarters the depth required to boil water and use a refrigerant instead, is it not logical one would discover a free running, bar cost of parts/wear & tear, Non-polluting source of power for driving turbines for as long as it runs..?

  29. "Can't melt down" ….are you sure. What kind of design is this? No elaboration. Unlikely.

    Nuclear power with 2 major releases of cesium and other long 1/2 life isotopes.

    How many friends and family DO YOU KNOW THATBHAVE CANCER?!


    Prematurely closed …..4 nuke plants. Theybcouldnt have closed them fast enough!

    Look the Pacific is likely dying due to fuckashima – look in revelations for more details.

    People I dont care about convenience or anything people put forward as a 'justification' for using nuclear power.

    I like how the speaker talks about how the natural gas storage failed and released into the community.

    Um hello but some natural gas into the env. Vs. Nuclear fallout. If they can't store gas in the ground without failure- why would he think Nuclear plant designs would not fail? In fact his comment about reactors that cannot melt down. It's not that simple – human falability finds its self in all systems gas storage ro nuclear reactors.

    Wow. Fear of nuclear fallout is valid and should not be downplayed.

    This is dangerous hippy think.


  30. Im sorry, but the main reason why Germany wont meet its climategoal is not because renewable energy plants wont produce enough energy, its because the political partys here dont really care. We wanted to shut down coal plants, but the plan out government made was to basically to pay the Companys money for plants that they would have shut down anyways, they didnt force them to shut down earlier than what was planed anyways. Meanwhile they stopped funding renewable energy and after public outrage they created a new climate plan, with CO2 taxes. Which is a good idea in itself, but the tax is next to nothing and wont help at all, thats what all experts say. So yeah, just wanted to clarify that quickly.

  31. What gets me is how none of these nuclear waste handlers or any of the highly educated brainiacs involved, have thought of the simple idea of putting the worlds nuclear waste at the deepest part of the Mariana Trench, and letting it get Subducted into the mantle of the planet, which is far more radioactive than the waste…

  32. Does anyone in this commentary know what a nuclear heat exchanger is or how it works; that the latest nuclear plant being built in the u.s is the ti1000 being built in waynesboro ga. And its 62 billion in the hole they would have to run for 50 years to get there money back.

  33. Thorium is more dangerous because you can't use water on them if something happens.
    Thorium eats the seals used to keep oils and chemicals separate.

  34. I live close to Hanford and it is a real threat to the Portland Metro area. It can't be cleaned up safely and it will likely leak into the Columbia at some point. If someone can solve that problem, then let's talk about nuclear energy as a good option, but don't tell me the problem is "fear". That's just insulting and ignores the actual problem–we don't know how to safely transport, reuse, or dispose of nuclear waste. If we ramp up more nuclear power plants, the results could be devastating to life on this planet. Nuclear power plants are a national security issue as well–a great target for potential terrorists. It's not like nuclear fuel comes down from heaven (like sunlight) for us to use either–it's mined in open pits, one of the most destructive ways to hurt the environment. If the main problem with green technology is storing energy, solutions to storing power exist that don't involve batteries–growing and producing ethanol being the most obvious and convenient. We don't need to play with the threat of nuclear power to resolve Climate Change (but we definitely need to resolve it!).

  35. Its ironic that the one thing that could have reduced emissions over the past few decades is also the biggest thing leftists protested against for decades.

  36. The fear of nuclear power has made nuclear power safer. So don't just blame them.
    The nuclear disasters like Fukushima happened due to neglect and corruption. We shouldn't assume that fission power is safe, since that is why have hade nuclear disasters. We should make nuclear energy safe.

  37. To think, if we'd had a nuclear future the way they thought we would back in the 60's, we wouldn't have nearly as bad of a crisis on our hands.

  38. What is hurting our environment is the increased number of humans on the planet, all increasing their consumption of the earth's resources and their waste. Stop immigration into Western countries.

  39. Thousands of heavy metal filled panels and high cost of production windmills that provide sketchy power levels vs. Constantly hot rocks that boil water with little to no effort in a controlled environment.

    Who wins?

  40. No one is talking about the EROI of nuclear which is not great …
    Of course nuclear doesn't pollute directly like petrol but there are still many issues from the excavation of minerals to the endless costs of dismantling a power plant but hey nuclear doesn't pollute it's just steam

  41. 1) Don't get China involved. Seriously!? Wtf?!

    2) The mainstream presented climate data is BS. I watched the Senate hearings etc and the data has been doctored and there is immense pressure to silence people who question it. It's disgusting. We have all been lied to.

    3) Carbon capture has cleaned so much of the "dirty" energy production and solar and wind pound for power is so resource intense, "dirty" energy is better than these two for mass production.

    4) Solar and Wind will never be able to match power for pound output of "dirty" energy.

    Nuclear and Carbon capture is the way to go.

  42. "Nuclear" power? No, nothing is scarier than "nuclear" — wow, that's scarier than black guns with banana clips. If crazy Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand it – or is afraid of it — it's a no-no. Wind, sun, I get it – nuclear power that would be negatron.

  43. A football field stacked 20ft high with one of the most toxic things on the planet, and its growing every day. Football fields in every country. Is this your idea of clean?

  44. The point about waste is a great one. The good and bad thing about nuclear waste is how concentrated it is. That level of concentration makes it more dangerous on an ounce vs ounce basis but a lot easier to control and sequester as well.

  45. Chernobyl, Fukushima and the Bikini Atoll… are all hurting or going to hurt the environment…. but yes please do go on with your ignorance and pretend we don't have nuclear disasters we already can't clean up!!!! Yeah fearing nuclear power is silly tell that to all the people killed or effected for life by nuclear energy!!!!

  46. A key fact about Japan because of the natural disasters and geography of Japan a nuclear reactor is too dangerous to be used because of the potential risks involved and this isn't a sugarcoat if the earthquakes or tsunamis were to hit the reactors it would lead to catastrophic consequences just search up the 2011 Japan Earthquake + Tsunami.

  47. Id rather have a reliable source of energy like electric then nuclear which causes radiation. We dont need another Chernobyl. But even nuclear is way better than coal or oil. Nasty crap that is.

  48. We absolutely need more nuclear. The fear of nuclear, especially on the left, comes from media hype and emotions. Solar and wind alone will not work. That's why the left always wants to force people to use less energy, in addition to using more wind and solar. They know wind and solar are weak, so people need to consume less energy for their plans to work.

Leave a Reply

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