Nuclear power plants are not a new idea, and unlike other renewable sources of electricity such as wind or hydroelectric powered plants, they have no extra requirements from the environment. Despite this most of power still comes from coal (39%) and gas (22%). Nuclear energy now accounts for only 11% of world electricity production and probably will be decreasing. [source]This video offers a brief introduction to the subject:
Currently, due to the Fukushima disaster, moods concerning nuclear energy are lower than ever.In Europe (mostly Germany) we experience gradual decrease of active power plants caused by protests of the environmentalists.
Currently, due to the Fukushima disaster, moods concerning nuclear energy are lower than ever.In Europe (mostly Germany) we experience gradual decrease of active power plants caused by protests of the environmentalists.
Germany under pressure of social-democratic Green government started to retreat from nuclear energy and it is promised that their last nuclear power plant will be closed before 2022. Due to hastiness of this project the demand for electricity has been mostly ensured by fossil fueled power plants (it's slowly being replaced by renewable power sources like solar panels or wind turbines).
Apart from violent accidents the most popular controversy is nuclear waste. It is hard to dispose, radioactive and almost eternal if not reprocessed. But is it the worst? Byproducts from coal fueled power stations can carry up to 100 times more radiation for the same amount of electricity produced. It is caused by uranium and thorium, both existing in trace amount in coal. But in the case of coal plants radiation emission is negligible - more relevant hazard is the emission of sulfur dioxide or nitrous dioxide, compounds responsible for acid rains and smog. ["coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste"]
If you enjoyed the first video, here you have videos presenting both sides of the coin.
Why we should use nuclear power plants
Or why we should not
One way or another, trying to build a nuclear power plant in Poland is hopeless [abandoned power plant construction in Poland]
Comments
However the leak in Japan killed many people. If there is a leak it can kill fish like in Japan. It costs a lot of money to build and take care of the plants. Still we can just use windmills, solar energy, Geothermal energy, Hydroelectric power, and bio-fuels.
According to the nuclear energy – I think that all these videos show that it has good and bad sides. I honestly have no idea which side is more reasonable. We all know that some people will respect the rules, and some will not, and in case of nuclear energy, and especially wastes, this is quite important. There always will be some accidents and we cannot prevent it. But on the other hand it is way more effective and economic to get energy from this source... Really hard to decide in my opinion.
The tragedy in Fukushima showed how dangerous consequence may be to damage the nuclear reactor . It is certainly something that we should think of when expanding this technology . But ! Future sources of supply , especially for Poland in perpective of next 50 years does not look rosy. Germany is much easier to complain about the problem of energy with about a dozen nuclear power plants. Regarding Poland its a pity that they allowed to lost money on an investment that will not be completed and the time and money devoted to this idea will be lost . It is unfortunately Polish technical thought . First build, then ask. I think that nuclear energy is a matter of time and sooner or later with no any alternatives left, at the large costs of coal mining We'll have to rethink this concept . again ...
Looking at how the technology is evolving around us I'm shocked that since the 70's nothing serious has changed in the technology of nuclear power plants. Certainly to such a state of things contributed the crashes, which over the years sowed massive destruction. However, I believe that the development of this technology can give us more good than harm.
We're not located in volcanic area, so we have only few tiny hot springs spots.
For wind turbines to work, you need strong constant winds, and we have those in some areas ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Strefyenergwiatru.gif )
And I'm not sure is biofuel ever become an efficient means for energy.
We can for sure use solar energy when we finally be rich enough ... or when solar arrays will be cheap enough.
Probably the only time when protesters knew what they were really rioting about was during ACTA affair. But when riots are justified suddenly no one is listening.
It's similar with nuclear energy. People are afraid of it because they've heard lots of stories about Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, they rarely realize how many people died because of air pollution, mining, and accidents in other types of power plants.
Personally, I'm strongly for the nuclear energy - it's really efficient and clean. I wish people knew more on that subject and cared enough to make some research.
Now the most popular are wind power, hydropower and solar power plants. They are more efficient than they had been before. This is a good solution because it does not pollute the environment (pollution is a growing problem that we have to pay attention to). An important feature is also the fact that they are inexhaustible.
As for the nuclear energy it is a very efficient energy source but has a lot of disadvantages. It is dangerous and it has problems with toxic wastes. In the future, we should give up on building nuclear plants for renewable energy sources (to be more efficient). However, we cannot do it instantly, because it is very long and expensive process.
People are aware of Nuclear Energy because of bad fame caused by Chernobyl and Fukushima. I believe that when we compare environmental degradation with energy plants fueled with coal, producing same amount of energy it will show us that nuclear energy is more friendly.
Biggest problem we have is with storing the waste from nuclear energy. One day I hope we will be able to safely send it to cosmos and place it in black hole to dematerialize it. (Maybe I should patent this idea, hey?)
To answer your questions, I'm a bigger fan of nuclear energy than of coal power plants. I see both pros and cons to it, but if we want to think about more than just 50 or 100 years of our future, nuclear energy seems to be more reasonable.
Of course I really love your videos. These are great and it was really pleasure to watch it. I still hear about this problem and I still have mixed feelings. Your videos doesn’t dispelled the doubts although their glory. I’m still in a deadlock in this topic.
Germany is the biggest exporter of parts, machines and systems used in fossil fuels extraction and solar energy production. Nuclear power is objectively the most efficient and eco-friendly technology out there, but it's popularizetion would hurt German economy. Risks of nuclear plants breaking down, especially in europe, where there are little natural disasters that could put such facilities in danger are marginal with current technology while coal mining or even solar plants are far more costly, less efficient and require way more maintnance
But at the end of the day, affairs and disasters draws more attention than actual research or proof of concept.
If people were choosing wether to buy a car focusing on tiny chance of inevitable death, the streets would be empty.
Dumping it on any lifeless planet will bring the same efects :)
So after all the negative fame of nuclear energy is carefully crafted to sell some other products? Just like christmas, birthday or valentine day is celebrated to sell some festive-themed merchandise? Damn you Illuminati.
And being unsure is also a opinion. Only sith think in absolutes :)
Even if it is not the best choice posible, nuclear power plants are better alternative to fosil fueled plants. Most of times in history 'better' was suficient enough to replace the older technologies/ways of doing things.
There is an article on Wikipedia about economics of nuclear power plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants
which says that nuclear power plants are the cheapers or the most expensive, depends on which side you're in.
From purely ideological point of view no one would ever choose any fuel-based energy source, if one could just harness energy from thin air... well... burning stars.
But since now it is still the idea we stive for, not an actual plan.
And maybe the sun / wind / water power is inexhaustible, but the machines that harness this power are. And as most of us know, soemtimes excessively complicated production process of eco-friendly devices is more energy-consuming than all the energy it can save during it lifetime. (I'm reffering to some models of eco light bulbs right now)