44 Comments

1. 

   @ahmadfaisalmuhibzada4520

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Could you make a video update on this

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   @DaveCorbey

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Proved to be complete rubbish 2.5 years later.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   @johnjackson8899

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Anyone who is against nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   @clarkkent9080

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Well first we have to discuss why it takes 20 years to build one of the proved tried and true large scale PWRs designs. Then admit any new design will take a decade to build and at least half that to prove the concept which only then is a starting point for building large scale plants. So your looking at it taking 35 years before nuclear can become a reasonable solution. Can the climate wait that long?

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   @forestpump

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Tbf to SNP and Scottish greens, renewables are sufficient to power Scotland as we're only 5 million people, England should use it though

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   @philhealey449

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   20 seconds in and it's "nucular". What is a nucule?

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   @anneeq008

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   I don't understand why there isn't a political will to research how to neutralise nuclear waste. Because theoretically of that could be done nuclear is as close to perfect as we can get!

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   @nagasako7

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Hello from the future, Summer had low wind and Russia increased gas prices. UK is about to collapse economically LOLOLOL

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   @Jim54_

   December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

   Humanity’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

   Log in to Reply
10. 

    @sghr220

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    So why does nuclear reactors get over budget and behind the schedule? I know some of the answers to those questions but why didn't the episode include such answers? In one particular case it took 23 years to complete a reactor in the states and it cost 18 times the original budget.
    Also what about faulty designs and components? I am not talking about ancient technology or unsafe solutions but you know, the typical rubber stamped certificates and old new stocks of parts, etc. Remember that your local reactor was built by the lowest bidder. Now how can Kepco's bid for the Barakah project be half that of Areva?
    It's a very good starter don't get me wrong but lacks teeth for a topic this vital.

    Log in to Reply
11. 

    @joshuabotham9103

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    The UK is an island nation, meaning we have the ability to rely on tidal power systems, like the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea, South Wales. I think this is what we should rely on, with only limited nuclear plants where necessary.

    Log in to Reply
12. 

    @christianthomsen6701

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Increase use

    Log in to Reply
13. 

    @sk8899

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    If UK truly wants to reduce its Energy dependence then its best to invest in:-
    (1) Nuclear Reactors (PWR +FBR)
    (2) COAL based thermal power Plants with CCS

    UK still has huge Coal Reserves & this industry can insure mass scale employment especially for Less or Unskilled Workforce.

    Renewables like Solar & Wind are only good for "Green Hydrogen" production.
    Apart from this it makes No sense to use them for "Grid Electricity".

    Future of Mobility will depend upon both:-
    (1) Battery EVs
    (2) Hydrogen FCEVs

    Nuclear Reactors in both Fukushima & Chernobyl were both of 2nd Gen & hence its not sensible to make comparison with the current 3+ gen Reactors.

    UK needs to invest in "Nuclear Energy" to have a Civil Nuclear Industry & Workforce.
    This can help UK in maintaining its "Nuclear Submarines & Weapons" in the Military.

    UK didn't invested in Ballistic Missiles & now its the only P-5 Nation incapable of launching its own Satellites.
    As Ballistic Missile technology transitions also to a National level Space program.

    This video didn't mentioned Russia's" BN-800 FBRs" that are a viable solution for disposing of Nuclear Waste.

    Hinckley Point C Nuclear power Plant's Additional cost is also due to the Capacity of its Nuclear Reactors (1650MWe).

    If UK had gone for Nuclear reactors with a capacity for "1000MWe" then the cost could've been reduced to some extent.

    If possible UK must for for the "EPR-2/ New Model EPR" is a capacity configuration of 1000MWe.

    Its also a possibility that "Nuclear Energy" may be used to propel Spacecraft till the end of this Century & thus UK should be in a position to invest in such technologies both by Money & Workforce.

    Germany is not a member of UNSC & has No Overseas territories, yes its Economically well off but that isn't the only thing that matters.

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    @Jack-dc2rv

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I would rather fund renewables if they are indeed cheaper and then pump the difference in cost into developinging nuclear fusion which should be humanities long term electricity generation solution

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    @entwistlefromthewho

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Nuclear isn't needed. Building nuclear stations is far from carbon neutral, nor is decommissioning them when they become too old to be viable. Instead, the money should be ploughed into renewables. The UK has a huge potential to be a World leader in renewable energy.

    Log in to Reply
16. 

    @BrianD146

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Really enjoyed the episode on November 25th the Politics of Culture.
    Particularly ending with the idea of a future where people do not lack from resources.
    Really want you to consider portraying nuclear power as part of that future.
    So many people are afraid of it and it'll take popular culture to break that fear.
    Look at how few people died due to radiation from two of the most horrific accidents with old technology. A gigantic earthquake and a huge tidal wave.
    Look at the half-life of nuclear waste and how it's really not the scary thing that the media likes to sell copy advertising with.
    Look at how much human suffering is caused by extracting cheap labor from slaves or others versus an abundant power source that truly could be delivered on assembly line process.
    You would have a society that has an abundance of energy.
    When humans are not taxed with having to produce energy with their sweat and detriment to their health with pollution, the quality of life goes up.
    Look at the advances in nuclear power and generation 4 reactors.
    Look at the advances of small modular reactors and how they can be as common as a Walmart for truly a local power grid. These could be cycled up and down as needed based on the lack of wind and solar.
    Think of nuclear submarines and how they spool up their power.
    The age of these gigantic reactors is truly over.
    The cost overruns with these gigantic projects is wasteful.
    Small modular reactors can be delivered on trucks and assembly line built as fast as a walmart.
    Look at how this new technology is truly walk away safe.
    Look at the advances in using up spent fuel faster than what they produce.
    Look at the nonproliferation factor.
    Look at the greenhouse gases and the number of deaths that come from mining coal or extracting petroleum. Nuclear is far less deadly and truly clean.
    There are forces that want to make nuclear so scary and so safe that it's so expensive it'll never be built.
    Be wise to all this.

    Log in to Reply
17. 

    @tommorris3688

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    The Fukushima Dai'ichi (avoidable) accident is an extinction level event. Birds, fish and other ocean life are being decimated. The problem is that there has been such massive investment in military nuclear and civil nuclear that the "establishment" has such momentum that it cannot change course. As a result, there is denial at a time when massive international resources should be used to try to contain the Fukushima contamination. However, the present situation correlates with Dr Richard Duncans Olduvai Theory that fossil fuel depletion, human population increase and pollution will cause a massive decline in energy per capita from year 2010 onwards from which the anthropocene will never recover. This is the end folks ! If only a small fraction of the money spent on nuclear armaments had been used to improve safety systems at Fukushima Dai'chi to ensure that there were safe and reliable backup generators (for example on higher ground and made tsunami proof so that the Fukushima reactor decay heat could have been dissipated safely). A higher defensive wall at Fukushima Dai'ichi could have been built at relatively small cost relative to military budgets. However, .the Japanese government has not learnt its lesson: other existing nuclear reactors in Japan are being allowed to restart without massive tsunami defence walls being built. The biosphere and the anthrpocene are sacrificed at the altar of money, just like Judas sold Jesus for three Gold coins.

    Log in to Reply
18. 

    @Kenerix

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    At the moment – Yes, we should use more to tackle climate change and generate enough electricity. Tho when a new way of generating electricity comes, then we shouldn't.

    Log in to Reply
19. 

    @TinyGiraffes

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Why are they calling it unclean? It's 100% clean. You take radioactive stuff out of the ground, make it less radioactive, then put it back under ground. There is no Co2 made, any carbon foot print it has is from the vehicles and such used which is a bullshit thing to include because by 2050 we'll have plenty of electric vehicles to replace them.

    Log in to Reply
20. 

    @theadam7598

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    More unless you’re france

    Log in to Reply
21. 

    @magnuswettermark8293

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    No we dont. Becouse nobody want to take care of the nuclear garbage. Simple as that.

    Log in to Reply
22. 

    @irtwiaos

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Yes. No brianer at this point if we want to do something about climate change fast.

    Log in to Reply
23. 

    @heinrichkrull2523

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    At 13:16 I face palmed so hard it hurt.

    Log in to Reply
24. 

    @acegarcia3719

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    What I like about nuclear power is it's one of the few renewable energy that provides permanent jobs. A windmill or solar panels are left alone after construction but a nuclear plant constantly needs employees to operate it which creates jobs.

    Log in to Reply
25. 

    @Lee_303

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    At first I'm like: nuclear power, noooooo, keep the gates of hell firmly undergound.
    Then I'm like: human race is trying to murder itself anyway, so… meh

    Log in to Reply
26. 

    @KermitFrogThe

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I support utilising more nuclear, not building new sites. It is only green if using existing infrastructure.
    The nuclear weapons worry made me laugh. The stuff used in power stations is nothing like that used in a bomb, because they have different aims. In a power station you want the energy to release in a slow controlled and prolonged manner to allow easy collection, the polar opposite to weapons grade nuclear material.

    Log in to Reply
27. 

    @hariseldon2577

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    What happens when people realise that decarbonisation is a political aim not backed by science?

    Log in to Reply
28. 

    @stephanhazeu7317

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I believe firmly that the discussions around nuclear energy firmly needs to be updated with some facts from the past; almost all reactors are some iteration of the PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor), obviously improved upon over the years, but always contains the fatal flaws of this particular reactor design. Furthermore the Light Water Reactor (LWR), the most common PWR reactor type had been invented originally as a power source for the US Naval ships (Aircraft Carriers and Submarines) but eventually having a life afterwards as a source of electricity back since the 1950's. These designs are old and the concept is old, even scarier is the fact that the original design parameters of the LWR was to power a ship or submarine, which was a far smaller reactor size than what is needed for electricity generation, flawed the the design was, the size meant that any potential risk, particularly due too the pressures involved were more manageable and mitigated. Long story short, the reactor design was never perfect for the role it was eventually given, and this was even admitted by the creators of the Light Water Reactors, Eugene Wigner and Alvin Weinberg back since Oak Ridge National Labs.
    Even the US knew this and had several options and research reactors running to find a way to potentially bring forth a completely new Reactor Concept/Design to replace the LWR as it was considered a stopgap for further reactor designs. Eventually out of all the options the US chose for a different type of reactors most commonly known as "Fast Breeder Reactors" an umbrella term for several designs that came forth, but mostly all functioning on the same basic principles of reactor physics. This turned out not to work as well as the western world had hoped for having seen attempts by Russians, Germans, french and the US. Ever since we have been stuck with Light Water Reactors, as public opinion crashed hard after Chernobyl.
    Any new iteration of the LWR we have seen, have been to mitigate the inherent risks of the reactor design, however, the inefficiencies of this reactor could not be altered without literally changing the whole design from the ground up. This is why it is exceptionally crucial to take current assessment of nuclear reactor discussion with a mountain of salt. What hasn't been told to you in these assessments is that the Nuclear industry has been going through a dark age, repressed in fear and lack of funding. Luckily away from the mainstream media, there has been some development and some unearthing of American Research data of the Nuclear Golden Age, back in the 1945 – 1970 which have brought to light other alternatives to the LWR which haven't seen the light of day since originally being de-funded. And this, if nothing else, is what you need to remember, any of the costs projections, any waste analysis, any current concern is based on a reactor design from the 1950's! Hinkley Point C Nuclear Reactor is a ("European Pressurised Reactor" or "Evolutionary Power Reactor" in short it is known as a EPR) Third Gen Pressurized Water Reactor, still a direct descendant of the 1950's designs! let that sink in! we are still in a nuclear dark age!. And worst of it all… most of the true costs, true risks, and true reasons why it is still in dark ages are actually very different than you might think.
    part 1/2

    Log in to Reply
29. 

    @supernerd1999

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I’m sorry, the moment anyone cite Greenpeace on anything involving nuclear power or GMO is the moment they lose all credibility

    Log in to Reply
30. 

    @rayred74

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    there is an Imperial College Study on the carbon footprint of Nuclear saying that it will only achieve 50g/mwh if uranium deposits are high, currently uranium is being mined at a tenth of what it should be so the carbon footprint is more realistic at around 35ogr/mwh. I read the study some time ago so please fact check it

    Log in to Reply
31. 

    @KathyClysm

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    The fact that we still have no plans of how to handle the nuclear waste is the reason why I cannot support nuclear energy production. I can already see us dumping this stuff somewhere underground and like 100-200 years from now our decentants are gonna curse us for being so stupid and short-sighted because everything has become just exponantionally worse. The again, it's easy for me to say because my country can run pretty mucn entirely on river turbine powerplants (and we've done so for a couple of decades now). We've never had nuclear power, so we don't know what we are missing out. Still, I cannot help thinking that shoving tons and tons of nuclear waste down cave shafts and hoping for the best is maaaaybe not the most forward thinking solution.

    Log in to Reply
32. 

    @raphaelnikolaus0486

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I was born three days after the Chernobyl Disaster in April 1986, 34 years ago. Has the world learned since? Well, the Fukushima Disaster happened in March 2011, 9 years ago and 25 years after Chernobyl. I think the answer to the question mentioned should be No.
    We could only hope that the world has learnt now . I don't want to hope, I would like to ensure.
    As you can think, my life has been dominated by the fact that handling Nuclear Power is very critical . What happened when I was turning 25 wasn't really reassuring, was it?

    Log in to Reply
33. 

    @raphaelnikolaus0486

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    So, if you add up the days of Hydroelectric, Wind, and Solar, you get 358 days or a factor of 98.08% compared to Nuclear's 341 days or 93.5%.

    Log in to Reply
34. 

    @robinvanveldhuizen7887

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    We should definitely get more nuclear power, but it is really expensive to build. So if that won't happen then at least do this 1 thing…

    Do NOT shut down existing power plants.

    (Bad reactors such as Chernobyl don't exist and Fukushima happened because of a natural disaster, not a faulty reactor, and nuclear waste is fairly easy to store, compared to other power sources that throw their junk into the air)

    Log in to Reply
35. 

    @BlueEyedVibeChecker

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I mean, one accident in a nuclear factory and everyone within a 500 mile radius is dead…
    blow up several generators, and well… a black out won't kill anyone (hospitals have back-up generators)
    and let's be real, some sour milk isn't deadly, just a minor inconvenience, while nuclear explosions can and will kill you either instantly, or painfully over time.

    Log in to Reply
36. 

    @ThomasEJensen_TEJ

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    "Should" has nothing to do with it. If a Billionaire can get richer by having more nuclear power. It's gonna happen no matter what.

    Log in to Reply
37. 

    @geonerd

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    A respectable video! But WHY must you mix in the damnable music? I find it tremendously intrusive and distracting.

    Log in to Reply
38. 

    @AshLewis500

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    I live near Hinckley pointed. It is being funded by the French and Chinese. Also, the demand for housing locally has increased for the thousands of construction workers. The main town closest to Hinckley has seen millions of pounds in regeneration and expansion, and is one of the quickest expanded towns in the country, with alot of international companies being attracted to it (including recent rumours of a Tesla factory)

    Log in to Reply
39. 

    @wida2775

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Use more nuclear power, its cheap.

    Log in to Reply
40. 

    @allangracias1

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    The reality is that renewables is a dream that will never come true because physics will need to change. Unfortunately leftists just want to chase dreams. Nuclear is the safest option there is and should be focused on

    Log in to Reply
41. 

    @MrChainrule

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Work on molten salt thermal breeder reactors is promising and when developed will be much cheaper, safer and more scale-able than traditional reactors. These can run off of spent fuel and produce much less waste.

    Log in to Reply
42. 

    @Steven-og8jj

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Everybody research Thorium Energy. You will not be disappointed.

    Log in to Reply
43. 

    @mrjonnylowes

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    Yes we need more nuclear power. Especially if we are going to meet zero emission targets. We can do it smarter, cleaner and safer with 5th and later 6th Gen nuclear power. It doesn’t deserve the bad rep it has, anyone that looks into the details can see it’s a no brainer. Even the economics of nuclear win out in the end, it’s just a large upfront investment with a long payback time; this shouldn’t put us off. It’s a multifaceted way we will need to overcome this challenge, nuclear has its part to play alongside renewables to provide a safer future for our kids and their kids. It’s part of the solution, not the problem.

    Log in to Reply
44. 

    @3bdo880

    December 31, 2023 at 5:21 am

    God u hate those circles

    Log in to Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment Login