Nuclear Energy: Abundant, Clean, and Safe
If you truly want to save the planet from global warming, there’s one energy source that can do it. It’s not wind or solar. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either. So what is it? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, has the answer in this important video.
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: 👉https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: 👉https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: 👉https://instagram.com/prageru/
SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a new video! 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join/
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/abundant-clean-and-safe
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
Script:
France gets 70% of its power from one carbon-free source. Sweden 40%. Switzerland 36%. The United States 20%.
For those who wish to create a world free of carbon emissions, France is clearly the role model.
That source of energy, by the way, is not solar or wind. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either.
It’s nuclear.
Nuclear energy is not only cleaner than all other forms of energy. It’s also cheaper to create, abundant and safe.
Yes, safe.
So, if the world is going to end in a few years because of global warming due to rising CO2 levels, why aren’t we going all out to produce this abundant, clean and safe form of energy? Why aren’t there dozens of nuclear power plants in development all over the world?
Well, we all know the answer, right? Nuclear energy is just too risky… too dangerous.
So, even though we’re told we’re facing an “existential crisis”—which means humans may cease to exist; even though we might all wither away in unbearable heat; or starve because of world-wide droughts; or drown in rising seas; or be killed in Mad Max-style riots—nuclear energy is off the table… because… it’s too darn risky.
Hmmm.
I want to be sure I have this right. The goal is to save humanity…There’s a way to save humanity…And we won’t take it. Because we’re afraid, there might be a bad accident… or something.
Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn’t to me.
But maybe I’m not giving enough weight to the safety argument, so let’s take a closer look at that since no one, not even the most radical environmentalist, disputes that nuclear power produces massive amounts of energy cleanly and efficiently.
Safety, like everything else, is a matter of context. So, here’s some context. 1.4 million people die worldwide every year in traffic accidents, 2.3 million in work-related accidents, 4.2 million from air pollution. Deaths directly related to nuclear power? Under 200—not annually but in the entire history of the nuclear power industry.
But what about those famous nuclear disasters we’ve all heard so much about? Didn’t they poison untold thousands? Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.
Okay, let’s deal with each one.
Three Mile Island:
There was an accident at the plant, yes, but the amount of radiation that leaked was no more than one might receive taking a chest x-ray. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged as much four weeks after the initial media hysteria died down. “We goofed,” the commission told Congress. “There was no danger of any hydrogen explosion.” But that didn’t grab the headlines.
Chernobyl:
The accident developed into a catastrophe only because of pitiful safety procedures unique to the Soviet Union. It would never have occured in the West. Even so, initial reports of radiation leakage turned out to be grossly exaggerated. According to the World Health Organization, “As of mid-2005”—that’s 19 years after the explosion—“fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster.”
Fukushima:
In 2011, as a result of an earthquake and tsunami, the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant was destroyed, and nuclear radiation was released. Yet, despite the media hysteria, not one person at the power plant died because of radiation leaks. The deaths that occurred in the area were the result of the tsunami.
Well, what about nuclear waste? Surely that’s terribly harmful.
Actually, no. All the nuclear waste ever generated in the US can fit on a single football field stacked less than seventy feet high. It’s easily and safely buried in steel canisters encased in concrete.
For the complete script visit https://www.prageru.com/video/abundant-clean-and-safe
source
Big Oil and Coal Oligarch would happy to fund these green movement people to secure their position from overtaken by Nuclear Energy. Yes Nuclear Energy is a HUGE THREAT to Oil & other fossil fuels source because of it is cheaper, more reliable and have more energy density than fossil fuels, so they funded these green movement to block and protest every Nuclear Power Plant building plan. But, why these Fossil Fuel Oligarch never afraid of the green movement itself although these people also attacking fossil fuel usage? Because these Fossil Fuel Oligarch knew exactly that Green Energy like Wind and Solar is FAR LESS reliable, MORE expensive and have LESS energy density than fossil fuels, let alone compared with nuclear energy
I think this is the first time I actually agreed with something that Prageru has said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acpz3CG1xi4 maybe a little history ?
your not really a university are you ??
Go nuclear or go home!
Nuclear is definitely not the cheaper option as presented here. I appreciate the perspectives provided, but there are pros and cons to all current options. Any presentation that does not acknowledge the cons – including very high cost and issues with finding locations to store the waste – comes across as biased. This is just that… completely biased.
Being pro Nuclear isn't about Left vs Right. It's about smart vs Ignorant
…and the blind squirrel found the golden acorn! Nuclear is the ONLY way we can make the transition into a green energy future without burning every drop of oil we can find! We cannot wait until the fossil fuels are completely gone to make a decision either!
Superb documentary. The midia role frequently are show wrong way and speech political agenda. A main problem with de Woke agenda is that it is false. Nuclear energy are ultra eficient and clean. But a noise minotiry speaks to much!
THORIUM. THORIUM. THORIUM.
An actual PragerU video that is not completely retarded? Nice!
Michael Shellenberger praises France for being the "role model" of carbon-free energy. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The French government has done nothing but reducing the amount of nuclear energy in the past years. Now, the most optimistic nuclear French scenario states only 50 % of our power will come from nuclear energy. The "Green Party" (Europe Ecologie les Verts, EELV) and Presidents Hollande and Macron have done tremendous harm to our energy in the name of climate change, without seeing nuclear energy is one the best solutions to reduce climate change. It's astonishing. Bad news don't stop here though, since our electricity is now much more expensive than it was before.
With a free-market approach you could incentivize nuclear, maybe give it tax breaks.
If its a good thing for America and the world, the left will oppose it…I'm in favor of ignoring everything the left does and just going full steam ahead. They should not be consulted for anything, bc they're wrong.
I’m a leftist and it pains me to say it. But I 100% agree with prageru this time.
I still have to disagree that nuclear energy is safe after we almost lost Europe to Chernobyl and then almost lost the pacific ocean to Fukashima. Also, think about where all the nuclear waste eventually goes. Quoting the Nuclear Energy Commission for saying that the exposure from 3 Mile Island wasn't that bad would be like having a cigarrette company tell you cigs are actually good for you. To this day, Chernobyl is a ticking time bomb that could devastate Europe and it will pose a threat for 20,000 years. We only can "hope" that one day in the distant future we might come up with some alien technology to clean that mess up. Fukashima is in a similar situation.
There is no REAL evidence that increasing C02 is going to be catastrophic at all. Just keep using carbon based energy as it's cheap and has helped way more than it has hurt.
Problem is, the same people that are STILL lying to us about COVID-19 vaccines in April 2023 (WHO) are also those you quoted as saying, "Nah man, they barely got any radiation dawg. We're the experts." The research you offered us as proof is based on input from obviously compromised organizations, Mr. Shellenberger. I love your work, but you should be able to see the irony here.
nuclear power is safe, but all the times we've made it either in an unsafe location, or not completely "safe" safety protocols, or with old tech…
It's not just the environmentalists that are against nuclear energy. It's also all those tightfisted Corporate A-hole CEOs that own and operate regular coal or petrol power stations so that they can stay in business.
https://youtu.be/k9HYR5zAZWE
It summarises all what has to be said: The sad truth is, the European style green movement is actually destroying our planet and additionally will make us all poor.
Yeah nuclear is the most efficient renewable energy, the best way to implement it in America would be let the solcialist countries experiment as solcialism is really good at scientific innovations and just buy the tecnology off of them so we don't take any risks.
the only reason not to go nuclear is because tycoons will lose their billions of dollars and they dont want that.
Wait but I thought that Prager"U" was funded by oil billionaires
A welcome change I guess
Its not safe as coal. Period
this is probably the only prageru video i will agree with
For those who realize that we had developed great ways to curb emissions on smoke stacks from all our coal power plants right before they shut them all down know the ridiculousness of all the energy talk. We dont need anything new. We have oil and coal. Stop spending all our tax money supposed clean energy. We already have it. Our emissions from coal plants were 60% better than most of the world. They haven't stopped using it either
In Scotland the government chopped down millions of trees to install a windfarm
He really down-played the long term effects of Chernobyl. Disappointing.
This is one of the incredibly rare videos of PragerU actually being a legit source of info.
However most of the time PragerU is spreading lies and propaganda.
Why not? Because nuclear energy is not clean. It’s destructive, the waste takes tens of thousands of years to change to a less dangerous form. The goal is to safe all of humanity, especially the ones in ten thousand years in the future, not only now. In ten thousand years time, the concrete encased steel canisters holding the nuclear waste will have rusted away leaving the nuclear waste to spread. If you can come up with a way to neutralize the nuclear waste, than you may have something useful. As a business owner myself, this is what I demand. Nothing less.
Atomic energy is only dangerous in the hands of idiots who don't know what they are doing
It is only central powers that have wider use of nuclear power.
And fossil fuels are widely used aswell.
My point is the full truth of how big the nuclear world would need to be is never spoken about.
Every thing in the electrical power world will need to go absolutely massive.
Construction projects, Financing, operating staff, Transmission infrastructure, TIME FRAME, more power plants,
I get annoyed that engineers know how big it will have to be and say nothing.
I am an old Construction Civil Engineer contractor. I have grandchildren.
I do care.
There is a practical answer, but people are locked into their own ideas.
It can be very hard to change an Architect or Design Engineer or owners way of thinking when they just do not see the problem, but it is their money.
My diary notes and correspondence are the only thing that has saved me from their failure.
But this is bigger and more important.
I make no money from speaking out.
I could make a tonne of money if the construction world expanded.
I have worked on Large coal power stations and transmission lines construction.
Who is going to turn off $BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of nuclear power plants after they are built because safer technology can do the job.?
Who thinks technology will not develop ?
Nuclear is stupid.
Fission is an expensive joke, how many third world countries will be able to afford it ???????????
How many third world countries will turn off their fossil fueled power plants ?????
Everybody is polishing their shitty thinking and arguments.
Little little little little tiny little ideas.
Ask the USA military how they are going to enforce compliance and defend the USA in a nuclear world.
FMD, an old Australian expression.
Russia promised independence to Ukraine for giving nuclear weapons to Russia.
Now Russia is using the threat of nuclear weapons so it can kill Ukraine children without interference from the USA.
Trust Dictators? They don't trust each other.
BS, dispersed energy from the sun can be collected by the dispersed ends of the grid.
The EV batteries are coming, NEW TECHNOLOGY, shock horror.
EV batteries are huge 100kwh
Daily drive 7wkh
Home overnight needs 6kwh
Daily top up, ezi pezi.
The USA can make millions of tonnes of glass and aluminium, 99% of solar panels.
The USA can recycle millions of tonnes of glass and aluminium.
300million buildings.
All connected to the grid.
The existing grid would love not to carry the extra heavy load of electric energy in an electric world.
The USA is not stupid.
Central nuclear power plants will break the existing grid in the electric world.
Massive loading on the existing grid will break it. WTF exactly.
About 27 tonnes of uranium is required each year for a 1000 MWe (1 Gwe) pressurized water reactor.
Australia has 25GWe fossil fueled power generation. For example.
25× 27tonnes = 675 tonnes, 35m3
×3 fold increase = 2,075 tonnes, 101m3
Every year.
When everything is electrified then ×3 fold increase in power plants, in transmission, in poles and wires and the fairy pixie billionaires are going to give it all to you.
The lovely monopolies with their government guarantee profit for the next 100years. 😉
Or your socialist central government
Or your Dictator
Yep no problems for little little little…..