Thanks for Watching! What topics would you like to see in future videos? Edit: at 2:40, I apologize for any confusion. The German Democratic became a part of The Federal Republic of German to form the reunited nation of Germany.

@theguy1.090

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe Pakistani cities like gwadar which is thr future dubai . Or the capital Islamabad which is the most beautiful capital in the world you can make a video about them or about Istanbul or anything its just a suggestion

@averageodd

2 жыл бұрын

Should probably pin this chief

@CraftyF0X

2 жыл бұрын

3:33 once again showed the extreme dangers of one in a centruy earth quakes combined with unexpectedly high tsunami and a hastely botched evacuation as well as TEPCO's irresponsibility. 5:02 renewable energy supported by natural gas Fixed these for you.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe make a video on how much of German energy mix is actual renewable energy and how it compares to other countries. Or the cost of nuclear power and nuclear waste management. Or Risk management, like how risk is the sum of impact and time. Liquid salt reactors are also a fun topic.

@Gigachad-mc5qz

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek you guys use coal and gas from russia 💀

The big issue is that Germany replace all its nuclear capability with coal and fossil fuels. So now it sort of went backwards in its environmental action

@NineSeptims

2 жыл бұрын

and rely on russia

@losttale1

2 жыл бұрын

it's not about CO2, it's about socialism.

@cheesecakedoublepeanutbutt6511

2 жыл бұрын

@@losttale1 It's all about ideology

@user-pq4by2rq9y

2 жыл бұрын

Plus, every extra penny they now spend on wind and solar actually harms their emissions due to the lack of storage.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Natural gas in combination with heat pumps is very clean. Replace the gas with green hydrogen and you are much cleaner than nuclear. That’s still the plan so let’s discuss this again in 20 years.

Arguing that Chernobyl shows that nuclear plants based on completely different tech can be dangerous is akin to arguing that 9/11 shows that planes are inherently dangerous and we should stop all aviation. 🙄

@MerlossLP

2 жыл бұрын

because of 9/11 there are many things we can not take on planes anymore, "security" / surveillance was ramped up because of it So yes they basically said that. And nuclear plants have many more deficits, like mining uranium, which u can't do in many countries and countries who have uranium mines are pretty exploited + mining uranium does not only producee a lot of c02 but destroys nature around the mine as well.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

So you say 9/11 happened because of bad plane design?

@felix4833

2 жыл бұрын

@@MerlossLP And likewise nuclera plant design was deeply altered after Tchernobyl and after Fukushima to improve safety. So the point of the OP remains valid. Also you'll note that mining lithium, silicium and other rare eath materials for "sustainable" energy production poses the exact same issues as mining uranium.

@therealnocam

2 жыл бұрын

Not even that, it’s like arguing why you shouldn’t fly because the Soviet version of the Concorde was dangerous to use. Chernobyl is (as all Soviet technology was) inefficient garbage operated by overworked staff.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@therealnocam Fukushima is also a Soviet design without earthquake protection then?

It's better to invest billions into the safety of these power plants rather than lose billions just by closing them

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Even with billions you cannot make them more safe. They are at the end of their service life. And you to pay for the demolition anyways.

@beback_

2 жыл бұрын

They're safe as it is.

@Rocketsong

2 жыл бұрын

They are already the safest power known to man. I understand closing the ones in the former East, as those were problematic Soviet designs. More people die every year from falling off roofs installing solar than the total number of people killed by nuclear power in it's entire history.

@bdasaw

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rocketsong the main issue isn't the lives lost, its more the environmental costs. Its sad thought cause even from an environmental perspective nuclear is better, its just that fossil fuels ruin the environment slowly and on a much larger scale, meanwhile nuclear disasters ruin the environment quickly, localy and in a more flashy manner.The flahy disaster will always be more feared by the simple minded/uninformed.

@bdasaw

2 жыл бұрын

@@Rocketsong the main issue isn't the lives lost, its more the environmental costs. Its sad though cause even from an environmental perspective ,nuclear is still better. Its just that fossil fuels ruin the environment slowly and on a much larger scale, meanwhile nuclear disasters ruin the environment quickly and in a more flashy manner.The flashy disaster will always be more feared by the simple minded/uninformed.

A little disappointed in the nasty tone taken in this video towards nuclear. It was implied that nuclear is not safe, that all reactors are like Chernobyl and that people actually died from radiation at Fukushima. None of which is true. Germany actually uses a lot of nuclear generated electricity they purchase at a premium from France. Reminds me of California who shut down all their coal and is closing their nuclear while buying 30% of their electricity from out of state. Some of that out of state power is from coal and nuclear so other than virtue signaling to the like-minded, what are they accomplishing?

@DrrZed

2 жыл бұрын

Well, at least they didn't portray NPP as something that will explode violently if someone as much as sneezes in the ten-mile-radius, leaving behind a crater as deep as Mariana Trench, and turn several countries into a Fallout theme park.

@davidgravereaux1220

2 жыл бұрын

SoCal Edison owns 16% of the Palo Verde Generating Station in Arizona

You didn't mention at all what has been the consequence of shutting down its nuclear plants, like dependence on Russia and significantly increased carbon emissions.

@therealnocam

2 жыл бұрын

Like most shitty takes on KZread they’re likely anti-nuclear energy, therefore they don’t dispute public opinion concerns, mention efficiency, or challenge Germany’s procedures on decommissioning reactors.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Carbon emissions go down in Germany all the time. Nuclear is mostly replaced with renewable sources.

@SpectreLance

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek Nuclear has not, nor will be replaced by renewables. In every case nuclear is shut down it is replaced by fossil fuels

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@SpectreLance You should take a look at Germany. That’s not the case here sorry.

@SpectreLance

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek Your country is the reason we know that is what happens. Your carbon emissions went up as you shuttered your perfectly safe and functional nuclear plants

even when we consider Chernobyl and Fukushima, those were outlier situations that were brought about by a specific set of circumstances, even with that, Nuclear power is still considered one of the safest forms of energy production in the world, alongside Solar and Wind.

@fex144

2 жыл бұрын

It is not safe. It is dangerous. The waste product is at best horrifyingly dangerous. And sometimes it lays waste to an area and a population forever. I hope you'll never get to be near a power-plant that melts down. But with your attitude you probably will.

@fakenewspropagator7887

2 жыл бұрын

not to mention, that 3rd generation is even saver now

@ImperialDiecast

2 жыл бұрын

@@fex144 just immerse it in water dude, and all the radiation will go away.

@erikkovacs3097

2 жыл бұрын

Chernobyl didn't have a containment structure and Fukushima was because of the worst Tsunami in recorded history that killed 20,000 people. Those things can't happen in Germany. They're fools for getting rid of nuclear power and now they're paying the price.

@MarkoPetejan

2 жыл бұрын

@@fex144 Take a look at Sabine Hossenfelder video titled "Is Nuclear Power Green?"

"Extreme danger of the fukushima desaster" no one died and everything else at the location got totally annihilated. seems pretty safe to me. Also I don't think Germany is at risk of tsunamis or idiotic reactor designs plus soviet performance politics

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly what got "totally annihilated"? Nonsense is not impressive.

@issan1566

2 жыл бұрын

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk The town that was struck by the tsunami???

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

@@issan1566 The Japan tsunami wrecked havoc on lots of towns, the nuclear power plant none. The video is clearly about nuclear power plants, not tsunamis.

@ibm5155

2 жыл бұрын

nah its fine. Why poluting the world when you can export from a third party couf Russia couf and get off the blame of poluting the world.

@issan1566

2 жыл бұрын

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk I think Reahs was just referring to the destruction by tsunami not by the power plant when he said everything else was totally annihilated

I dont think its a good a idea close a reliable source of energy, maybe they could try thorium salt or small modular reactors , but having less diversity of production only leads to dependence.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Germany did that in fact and it introduced more issues than it solved. Plus: It wasn’t that reliable and cost effective in the first place.

@sebastianc4787

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek source please

@StoneCoolds

2 жыл бұрын

You need to see the bigger picture, those policies are implemented by polaticians, polaticians that can and will be bought by foreing interests

@daniellarson3068

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek Hans - I think you should reread. I do not think they built small modular reactors. I think there is a very good chance they will have them in the future.

@adalata

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps we should save the money for building renewables. It brings us a lot more kWh. Our neighboors are enough of an example that burning uranium is burning tax payer's money. A discipline we are already olympic today without that dirt.

Idk how germany could build such great country after ww2, and then young generation manages to ruin it

@fex144

2 жыл бұрын

What are you talking about? Germany is one of the best countries in the world. A light pointing towards green technology. Instead of an irradiated nuclear desert.

@thecreator6065

2 жыл бұрын

@@fex144 xd, coal kills 1000x more ppl then nuclear energy

@fex144

2 жыл бұрын

@@thecreator6065 germany is subsidizing solar energy heavily. Siemens make some of the worlds biggest windmills. So XD you right back cnut.

@daniellarson3068

2 жыл бұрын

@@fex144 Ah but the reactor in the desert can produce desalinated water to irrigate the land and to bring life. It brings heat and light to people 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. It is the beacon that points to a brighter tomorrow.

@fex144

2 жыл бұрын

@@daniellarson3068 you wrote irrigate, the correct spelling is irradiate.

Germany(and Austria) is an example of how to not do things. first build up storage and renewables and use it to shut down coal/natural gas plants. than u can slowly start to phase out nuclear. i would be ok with the grid running on a combination of nuclear, hydro and battery/hydro storage. what isn't great is digging out places people live in to get more coal coz u r scared of nuclear, being dependant on imported natural gas and releasing more Co2 than ever before.

@Bayliss21

2 жыл бұрын

Will never happen. Only reason lithium and cobalt and all the raw materials to build batteries are cheap is because of cheap fossil fuel energy. Lithium went from 14k/tonne to 78k/tonne in 2022. Nuclear is only solution due to high EROI. This is a fact of physics and not subject to debate. When energy prices cause the entire renewable industry to collapse you'll get it finally. There's absolutely nothing any of you can do to stop it. It's basic physics.

@robertlister4864

2 жыл бұрын

Austria did build a nuclear power station at Zwentendorf. Completed in 1978, it never went into operation. Due to anti-nuclear sentiment at the time, they held a Referendum: 50.47% voted against. Most of Austria's power comes from Hydro electric and is therefore quite green, but building Hydro power can have its own environmental consequences.

@crazyciler50

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertlister4864 Yes but it can never be as bad as expanding your coal mines and building new coal plants, which is what Germany is doing right now to address their electricity deficit...

@user-pq4by2rq9y

2 жыл бұрын

Storage is the first thing we should think when we hear "renewables" if we are serious about climate change.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Natural gas is very clean. Coal will be shut down soon in Germany.

Our 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

@martinv.352

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear power and brown coal can be substituted by each other, because they are base load power plants. You cannot adapt these plants to the demand, they have to work continuously. Gas plants are peak load plants. There are gas plants in Germany which are in operation only a few hours a year. Oil plants have nearly no significance in Germany. The question about nuclear plants was if the nuclear power plants or the brown coal plants are shutted down first. Initially, it was planned to use the nuclear power plants 40 years and the newest/latest one should have been out of service in 2029. This date has been moved to end of 2022.

Go Green: Go nuclear. Nuclear energy is one of the safest, cleanest, most reliable energy source known to men, people die because of our unjustified fear of nuclear energy.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Nuclear is not green. You can use it as bridge technology until you are ready to go full green but it is clearly not green. A low risk with huge impact over a long time is a big risk.

@fastertrackcreative

2 жыл бұрын

"unjustified" tell that to Chernobyl or Fukashima. They aren't green really, just replacing one problem with another (also nuclear waste). It's not a question of if something will go disastrously wrong but when, nothing can be 100% safe and the effect when it does go boom is severe.

@everythingstemporary603

2 жыл бұрын

@@fastertrackcreative You want to drive a car, but tell that to the people that died in a car accident. This is how foolish you sound. The waste of fossil fuels is in the air and is estimated to kill 1 million people per year.

@micixduda

2 жыл бұрын

As long as they store all the waste at your place i'm down with it.

@ibm5155

2 жыл бұрын

​@@fastertrackcreative Chernobyl used old nuclear tech, current ones are way more stable and safer, Fukushima got destroyed by a giant tsunami and not by the Nuclear issue, even so, if fukushima was using the same tech as chernobyl, we could easily say goodbye to the whole Japan, but it seems like none of it got affected mmmm

Germany is facing a grim future of exorbitant electricity prices and massive rolling blackouts without nuclear.

@Crashed131963

2 жыл бұрын

Germany has lots of coal.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

@Peter from NZ None of the dozens of energy storage options have proven practical for energy storage. Wind and solar are much more expensive than you meme. They also have to be replaced 2-3 times to match the lifespan of a typical nuclear power plant.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

@@Crashed131963 Germany has vowed to go 100% renewables by 2035 so coal is off the table to meet this goal. Besides, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

@Peter from NZ All addressed, you were just butt hurt by the answers given. Can't help it if you intentionally wish to remain ignorant.

@drttgb4955

2 жыл бұрын

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk not possible.

Interesting example of the protestors influencing major choices with many ripple effects. Like shutting down nuclear power and switching to supplies of energy from Russia instead. Just before a major war that effected energy prices.

@drevilatwork

2 жыл бұрын

when Fukushima happened and there ware protests in Germany about shutting down nuclear power plants, ware these Russian paid german politicians instructed by Putin to use the protests as an excuse to shutdown the nuclear power plants knowing full well they will have to replace them with Russian gas? I always found it funny how easy and fast the German government gived in to those protest demands especially considering how expensive nuclear plants are.

that's ok, on shutting down nukes, they can always rely on nice, friendly mr putin to make up for any shortfall in clean energy

@joemerino3243

2 жыл бұрын

This was always the real goal. I saw this coming years ago.

@fex144

2 жыл бұрын

@@joemerino3243 No you didn't. And it's not 'the real goal'. Take off your tin foil hat and rejoin society.

@joemerino3243

2 жыл бұрын

@@fex144 Sorry you couldn't see this coming, it doesn't take much information to figure it out once you understand 2 incontrovertible points: 1. Intermittent renewables are backed up by gas power because it's the easiest power plant to build anywhere and spin up or shut down as the energy demand changes. 2. Germany gets its gas from Russia. If you can't put these two points together don't project that on others. You can fantasize that the people in charge of Germany are well-intentioned idiots but then you have to explain how idiots got to be in charge of an important nation.

@fex144

2 жыл бұрын

@@joemerino3243 False. And no I don't have to explain (your demand of an explanation is just a very typical low-eduction american trick, and it's stupid). You're nevertheless wrong. Europe is shutting down russian gas. So is Germany. Intermittent nothing. CATL are doing salt batteries, looks promising. Going to be cheap. It's just a matter of battery capacity. Germany is utterly plastered in solar. Speaking of idiots. Boris and Trump, and the Aussie dunderhead. You english speakers really f* up your legitimacy. Now that's really stupid.

For a country producing soo much renewable energy, one could wonder why they are consuming soo much of Russian gas to the point it became a military risk. (Nowaday much more concrete and destructive for somes, that of a nuclear central accident.)

@schrodingerscat1863

2 жыл бұрын

Renewables are not reliable so need to be backed up with gas power stations.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Because it is the cleanest fossil fuel, it can be replaced with hydrogen and there is currently no alternative for industrial applications.

@schrodingerscat1863

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek Nitrogen???

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@schrodingerscat1863 Sorry, Hydrogen

@schrodingerscat1863

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek That's what I thought 👍

Personally, I never had problems with nuclear power. But that might be because I always thought fission tech was a stepping stone to fusion tech. Besides that, I looked at what numbers I could my hands on, evaluated those and came to the personal conclusion that I prefer nuclear over wind or solar and even hydro. However, doing that is rare in Germany, most Germans I know either do not inform themselves sufficiently to build an opinion so they either make up their mind on the most superficial knowledge or, even worse, they just repeat a fancy headline. Sad really, "Das Land der Dichter und Denker" the land of poets and thinkers has become the land of the sheep and shallow. But that is just my perception.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

Although hydroelectric can't be expanded much, it has the great potential of energy storage, something other renewables just can't do.

@issan1566

2 жыл бұрын

Well I think its just general fear and I dont think you can blame them for it. Lets say a person gets in a plane crash and the person does not want to use planes anymore, though chances of them being in a plane crash are very low, ya cant blame them for not wanting to trust planes anymore although it may be considered irrational thinking. I think a good solution is to just let them be provided with good and credible sources of information to let them understand its safe like trying to help them understand nuclear power from the very foundation

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

You and I will most likely not be around anymore when these decisions are evaluated.

To anyone arguing with Chernobyl: It was a poorly constructed RBMK1000 reactor. A contemporary KGB record on the quality of the assembly is freely available. The result of the investigation was more than frustrating, but the construction was flawed. As well as: A pressurized water PWR / VVER reactor does not increase its performance in the event of any failure, but reduces it due to the void coefficient of reactivity and then shuts down. To all those who argue with Fukushima: Most of Germany’s nuclear power plants are not on the coast. And what was on the shore was never threatened by a tsunami. In contrast, coal-fired and gas-fired power plants pollute the high atmosphere greatly. In addition, biomass power plants, in addition, waste biomass is not enough, so forests are cut down to feed them.

@marw08

2 жыл бұрын

Chernobyl and Fukushima are the the only two possible chains of events leading to a catastrofic accident? NO. What are the others? We’ll learn with time. Germany has chosen not to be in this learning process at least in first person.

@lmvstar3429

2 жыл бұрын

You also forgot to mention that only 1 person died from fukushima the rest were from panic and natural disaster.

@lmvstar3429

2 жыл бұрын

@@marw08 ready my previous statement hope you research the topic it's interesting

Storage is the first thing we should think when we hear "renewables" if we are serious about climate change.

@swokatsamsiyu3590

2 жыл бұрын

@Dacia Sandero guys Not only the solar panels, the windturbines as well. The blades of these vaunted windturbines are NOT recyclable. Currently, in the US they are filling entire ravines and landfills with these blades because they don't know what to do with them. Add to that that they actually emit one of the most damaging greenhouse gases (SF6, which is used as an insulator/ arc suppressant for electrical installations like...wait for it...the generators in a windturbine) out there, and there goes the "renewable" fairy-tale right out the window.

@swokatsamsiyu3590

2 жыл бұрын

@Dacia Sandero guys Yep, that's another thing. Not only the things you already mention, but the mining for these rare minerals is usually done by child slave labour. Another inconvenient truth the E-car proponents leave out. And don't get me started on the batteries after their life has expired. These aren't exactly the epitome of recyclability either.

@swokatsamsiyu3590

2 жыл бұрын

@@fransva1 Now there is the problem, we're using a thing called logic. Something that is lacking entirely with the Climate Change lot. With them it's all "rainbows & unicorns" out of your @$$. Forget tenable, forget feasibility, those are all dirty words. It must feel good, don't you get that?😜

i am german and i can asure you that our politicians are the worst we could have at this point. the great times of germany are over, at least as of now.

@Alex-vo2ce

2 жыл бұрын

the same for spain, sometimes i think they do this on purpose

@weisthor0815

2 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-vo2ce it probably is on purpose, yes

A major thing that wasn't said here, is that Germany's electricity rates are going sky high with there eliminatation of Nuclear power in favour of renewables. Meanwhile in France, where their majority Nuclear power. Their electricity rates are super low.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

They will be buying nuclear energy from France to prevent their coming massive rolling blackouts.

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

2 жыл бұрын

If you can afford it, cost doesn't matter that much. What matters is the sustainability of the resources used to power, the sustainability of the countries ability to keep paying long term, and the sustainability of its use in the land

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

2 жыл бұрын

If we fan out the production types, we'll never be stuck on a Russia again. If we used Solar as a complimentary for rural roofs fanned out to cover a distance relatively thinly, improved our wind turbines so they can take faster renewing oils in place of crude for use in both the small and medium small areas, and kept using gas/oil we would have never been dependent on Russia enough to reach this point

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

2 жыл бұрын

If power was produced locally on roofs, especially those that have to import and ship power from long distances, travel waste from shipping and power lost in line travel would have been greatly reduced. Wind turbines produce enough power so cost isn't to bad just as long as their kept where wind is consistent, and always with much more potential if we keep refining their designs and working up newer oils. Put some SAFE nuclear after we make sure China can't sabotage it and after Russia can't bomb it and we'd be able to spread out oil/gas for centuries longer

the point you've completely missed is the choice is not between renewables or nuclear its a switch from nuclear to fossil fuels - until renewables would develop enough to fill those gaps. and there is absolutely no chance renewables would be ready to fill these gaps before 2030. their decision is completely irrational - especially now when supply of russian fossil fuels turned out to be... problematic to say the least... also, there are numerous studies that clearly indicate nuclear is one of the safest, if not the safest, forms of energy production. so drop your arguments about them being extremely risky. chernobyl happened entirely because of soviet mentality fukushima because 50 years old reactors were not passively safe - every single modern reactor is

Can you please do a video explaining solar energy?

2:40: East Germany was the German Democratic Republic (GDR), which reunified with West Germany. The GDR ceased to exist, it wasn’t the new combined country.

@beback_

2 жыл бұрын

Shows how well researched the video is I guess.

@ArkiveYT

2 жыл бұрын

I apologize for the error.

Very great video! I appreciate that you don't drag videos out and include very valuable information!

@koanbonwa

2 жыл бұрын

Bravo! Plurple earns a ❤️. 🤣

@DucklingGaming

2 жыл бұрын

@@koanbonwa so do I

@AudunDragland

2 жыл бұрын

Except he forgot to mention that the phase out of nuclear now means more dependency on Putin, increased coal plant activity, less electrical powergrid reliability and increased energy prices.

@Plurple

2 жыл бұрын

@@AudunDragland Why mention something that is extremely obvious? It’s extremely clear that phasing out nuclear energy is idiotic, and only results in more reliance on oppressive regimes.

Informative, perfect thx.

Who’s here now that they are shutting down the last few plants?

I learned a lot! Great job mr. Arkive! -walmart employee Derick

@therealnocam

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you Walmart Employee Derick!

And u buy nuclear power from France to replace par of energy needs how did dat fix things?

This is their worst idea since WW2

Where is all the electricity going to come from? Given current gas prices and the meagre advance in eolian and photovoltaic power plants, it's either coal from the Rhineland, either inports of electricity from France/Belgium/Netherlands/wherever it is possible to obtain it from.

@swokatsamsiyu3590

2 жыл бұрын

Germany is heavily dependent on Russian gas due to their closing their NPPs. This is one of the biggest reasons Europe hasn't been able to put an import embargo in place for Russian gas yet. Because if they do, Germany will be up sh!t creek without a peddle in a hurry and they know it. It was utter folly to shut their NPPs without having a proper replacement in place. Most certainly with current world event in mind.

I would have loved to see some actual statisticks from the poles about the nuclear energy at the times they decided to close those plants.

Nuclear power stations are not inherrently more reliable than coal powered power stations. However both are so much better than renewable power stations. Germany's mistake, as is the U.K.'s, was to build so much renewable generation which is a negative for running a stable and reliable grid. Germany is fortunate in being grid connected to so many neighbours which masks much of this unstable and intermittent power.

@Nill757

2 жыл бұрын

“Nuclear power … not inherently more reliable than coal” The numbers show that nuclear power is more reliable than any source, as we would guess. A big coal plant needs a large coal train delivery every *day*. All the coal plant emissions controls need to be regularly cleaned. That mountainous ash pile needs to be hauled away. Nuclear plants run 1.5 years continuous or so on one fuel load brought in by a semi trailer. There are no emissions. In the US, average uptime is 93%. Nothing, not even hydro comes close.

@iareid8255

2 жыл бұрын

Falstaff, while both plants have their complexities and yes there is significant supply requirements for coal stations, they can and often do stockpile coal on site. Looking at uptime is misleading as nuclear runs differently to coal, gas and hydro, simply because nuclear is base load and runs at near maximum as much as possible, scheduled down time obviously impacts that figure. The other gerators balance the grid demand and supply so modulate output, this does impact uptime but generally all can increase power at will when required. It is not a fair comparison.

@Nill757

2 жыл бұрын

@@iareid8255 Onsite coal stockpile is counted in days. At the end you’re referring to load following. Reactors designed to do so, can. German, French reactors ramp when necessary.

"with renewable energy taking over as the primary source of energy " wishful thinking, there is not solution for the storage issue. Energy is not the problem, storage is.

Not sure if the KZread algorithm recommended this video, or the comments to this video...

Or they could modernise the plant and reduce the risks to basically zore, while no longer relying on Russian gas (which also produces a lot of co2).

As a German I have to say: We f*ckd up!

@Labyrinth6000

Жыл бұрын

You voted for it! That’s collective culture!

@jakobj55

Жыл бұрын

@@Labyrinth6000 well I didn't

@Labyrinth6000

Жыл бұрын

@@jakobj55 blame your fellow people who apparently made it illegal to make fun of people.

the end game for the world. high cost intermittent energy, under the guise of 'loving the planet.'

@joemerino3243

2 жыл бұрын

You Vill Own Nossing Und You Vill Be Happy

@katys.7767

2 жыл бұрын

ya. the high costs eradicate the poor and pushes the middle class as low income class. i wonder how that solves the issue. its evident, that germany has too many taxes and costs on renewables and they arent even green, considering you have to build cement on shores and in forests and therefore you kill the environment there - forever. its just a dangerous ideology but the greenies dont want to get slapped in their face with the truth. nuclear power plants are much safer nowadays and also offer less emmission than renewables. renewaqbles are also made out of material which isnt recycle-able so ya. I dunnow how much lobby money these german idiots got from renewable lobby to talk nuclear power plants down and misinform the folks for making it happen that renewable dominate our country in a danger energy monopoly instead of diversity.

Now they just get all their energy from Russia 🥴🥴🥴

@Crashed131963

2 жыл бұрын

This guy makes it out like renewables will replace these Nuclear power plants soon. Gas contracts with Russia replaces them .

@mimimi8238

2 жыл бұрын

Not really..

@MrZurkon

2 жыл бұрын

​@@mimimi8238 Please elaborate..

@2jsanc681

2 жыл бұрын

@@mimimi8238 yes really

@walterpineda7773

2 жыл бұрын

@@mimimi8238 google Nord Stream 🤡

Hallo from Germany 🇩🇪 Good Video BTW

Until the last coal, oil, and fossil gas plants are shut down no one should shut down a nuclear power plant early. Indeed, if one can add new reactors to your infrastructure in a cost and time efficient way to replace fossil fuels they should. This is such a mess.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Fun fact: Nuclear is also fossil.

@Dr.Gehrig

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek I am curious how you come to this thought.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dr.Gehrig It’s of cause not fossil I got that wrong. But it is also mined like fossil fuels mostly in political unstable regions like Kazakhstan.

@Dr.Gehrig

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek it's mined in alot of places. And a little fuel goes a long way for a long time. Easy to buy when cheap and save up... and many sources all over the world. But most importantly, very low carbon.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@Dr.Gehrig It becomes rare and the largest occurrences are in Russia and Kazakhstan. Plus the making of the fuel is energy intensive and has a huge environmental impact. Not to speak of the waste for which we have no solution yet and all the plants we have to dismantle in the coming years without having a efficient way to build new ones.

Pretty shallow video.

Incredible vid 👏 -Walmart Employee yddet

we are talking about 17 npps, we are alting about a fiew coal driven plants.... in the mean while there are more than a thousands coal - and stone coal plants in develpoment on the lagrest continet planed: africe....

Nuclear power is a reasonable way to make power.. Safe nuclear plant design with a safe way to store the waste can be achieved.. But recent accidents and below par waste storage has put a big stigma on this type of power generation...

Sounds like Germany needs Tesla to build 3 MW grid batteries throughout their country to balance all their intermittent renewably powered electricity from wind and solar pv facilities.

@aaronvallejo8220

2 жыл бұрын

@@fransva1 Let's say a 3 MW megapack grid battery can power 1,000 homes. Then when it is sunny it can be recharged with solar pv electricity and same for wind generated electricity. These grid batteries save the excess electricity from being wasted and discharged when the grid is full. My first step is super high insulation.

The thing is solar energy is not very efficient there due to weaker sunlight so it will be quite a challenge to make it work on such a scale for them, and the wind is unreliable. So they will have to build about 3X more panels for the same results than in Africa. So you would need a lot of those panels, but maybe they can make it work despite that idk we will see.

This aged well.

Please make a video on GIFT City, Gujarat, India

So they end up in porting a load of nuclear generated power over the interconnector from France and make up the rest by generating with inported Russian gas.

The fukushima nuclear accident of 2011 was the turning point!

I wonder if Russia had a hand in steering towards the shutting of German nuclear!

Germany should start those reactors back up.

That's what you get when you let public opinion dictate decisions that should be taken by scientists and specialists...

80 million citizens?solar and wind farms would only take care of around 30 thousand or less.

400 plants will be at the end of their service life by 2040. Cost of decommissioning is 100 billion dollars at least.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

Then the massive rolling blackouts begin.

So ​ @fex144 please tell us all what is the answer wind mills and solar panels are not working please tell us all.

0:20 you mean 11% of power production. The amount of "primary energy" of nuclear is even lower in germany 1:00 "8000 times more efficient" no, that is not what efficient means in that context, efficancy means how much of the energy created is usable, both coal and nuclear have efficiancy rates around 60-80%. 2:53 "All nuclear power plants in eastern germany were forced to close" yes the 1 nuclear power plant Greifswald in eastern germany was closed, because of SEVERE safety issues. This was only 2GW of 24GW nuclear total, not like half the nuclear power you make it sound like. 5:05 "With renewables taking over as the primary power" nuclear was NEVER the primary power in germany, that was coal and renewable took over as the primary power source in 2018. And you miss out that in the time we shut down those 17 reactors, the renewable got from 10% up to 50%, so we build nearly twice the amount of renewables we loose by shutting down the nuclear reactors, so we didn't substitute it with coal plants like you imply in the video, but also reduced the amount of coal plants used at the same time.

@000sakis

2 жыл бұрын

Since when did renewable power take over germany? Since when is russian gas renewable? Since when can solar panels and wind turbines power the whole grid of germany?

Is Nuclear Power Green? Sabine Hossenfelder is a good video on this topic. She points out, as hinted by the current video, that Germany imports electricity from France, which is nuclear powered. So Germany imports some politically unpopular in Germany nuclear power...from France.

@beback_

2 жыл бұрын

Yes she actually understands the science and fairly weighs costs and benefits.

@leonpaelinck

Жыл бұрын

yes nuclear power is green, safe and reliable.

FYI more people have died from windmills than nuclear energy per TWh

you should have mentioned the practical consequences of this, where Germans pay highest price in the world for electricity - twice as much as France, for example. What are the consequences of this? Will the Germans try to "recoup" this by forcing other EU countries to pay for this using their hegemon position?

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Let’s see how prices develop when France begins to dismantle its nuclear plants, builds new ones and tries to find a storage for the waste. In Germany the company’s that run the plants have to hold back money for that. In France it is the responsibility of the state to handle that.

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

2 жыл бұрын

@Futura We do the same with the U.S and Brittain. If it means getting of Russian gas and securing our place so we can't be displaced by a probably aggressive Russia and China, and just as long as we socialize it though to streamline the economies for efficiency along with it I'd say it would be well worth it all

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

2 жыл бұрын

@Futura World bummed of France a few decades ago. Come 2000s we here in the U.S bit the bullet ourselves and secured Iraq and ultimately Saudi Arabia for a literally hell of a price establishing the safety net all of Europe and the Americas needed for its energy needs, and ever since we've been trying to move away from Iraq and take a step apart from Saudi we've been growing increasingly dependent on a aggressive Russia and China Its time we all take a bite and get off single sources, and especially in states like mine where we use up disproportionate amounts of oil where the yields and savings alternative supplies are higher

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

2 жыл бұрын

@Futura I don't ever want to live in a Chinese sub-state. My little town and the whole region around us would get a ton of benefit putting 200-800 Watt solar panel sets on the houses every couple hundred yards, and less rural areas that still require shipping would stand alot of benefit if we changed designs so higher yield wind turbines were able to take faster renew oils Then that's not mentioning the benefit larger cities would take if they started leaning into nuclear as soon as we don't need to worry about sabotage or bombings

@Gigachad-mc5qz

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek better than putting it in the air dont you think? If you dont like nuclear you can just outright say you hate human lives and dont care if they die.

by renewable you mean renewal of oil and gas contract with Russia, smart!

I really don't understand why there is so much public backslash against nuclear power

Why don’t they keep the plants open and under full load doing things like desalination to produce fresh drinking water and recharge underground aquifers and produce hydrogen for the future of transportation? They can use renewables for swings/surges/changes in demand to the energy grid, as they could be switched on and off significantly faster than nuclear power plants. In this way, it creates a full cycle for energy and places Germany at the forefront of Hydrogen fuel technology, because batteries don’t have the energy density and take a long time to charge off a dedicated fast-charging grid and the mining and refining of rare earth metals like Cobalt, lithium, tantalum, nickel and magnesium, is horrifically damaging to the environment.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk

2 жыл бұрын

Hydrogen isn't a practical option either, that's why it's not being done widespread on a utility scale.

“11% of Germanys energy production” No, of its *electrical* production, on its way to zero. German nuclear produces only 2% of total energy, all kinds, ie inc heat, transpo, etc. Solar and wind generation is also in the single digit share.

"I don't understand why Germany do it. They also said that they don't want our gas, with what will they heat their house? Woods? Those woods come from Siberia!" -- Vladimir Putin speaking about Germany free nuclear policy Like him or hate him, he got a point there.

@IceyJones

2 жыл бұрын

because ppl like you, we are in the situation we are in now. blocking the renewable revolution. if we would have invested in renewables much earlier instead investing in the extension of gas pipelines etc, we would be independent by now

@Sinista123

2 жыл бұрын

You watch too much Russian propaganda. There are only 3 nuclear power plants left that are online and every house is warm. 😂 60% of German Gas is NOT from Russia. Only half of that is used for households We don't need russian oil. It will be 0% until the end of this year. Germany has more than enough coal. Almost nobody heats with wood. But look at the map. Germany is full of woods. There is wind, solar and thermal energy all over Germany.

I think that you take an unnecessarily harsh tone on the safety of nuclear, a technology that has been shown to be comparably safe to renewable energy sources nowadays. The primary issues with nuclear are not about its safety, but with its economics. Concerns for safety are a reactionary (but politically relevant) concern that need to be chipped down by being well informed. Nuclear has potential to help push out fossil fuels and offset some the resource load that traditional renewables will be experiencing as we continue to build more. Worry about the economics, not the safety. That's what engineers are for.

Germany thought it would continue to get cheap energy from Russia...guess what!

So why after spending 700 billion on solar and wind is Germany importing nuclear energy from other counties.And gas from Russia and is considering reopening coal plants.

Didn't Poland already show how it can be done for a large population without Atomic energy? Aka burning a crap ton of coal and other crap? :(

Holy shit, how much did you pay for your modded Kermit the frog voice box?

They know something that we don't,they're not foolish

Now build them back up Germany

this was a cool video

Yay!

Nice video! Also, wouldn't it cost Germany a ton of money to take down these power plants, also wouldn't it be dangerous?

@IceyJones

2 жыл бұрын

the waste disposal cost the tax payer much more, than the dismantling. also.....all shut down NPPs were already exceeding their lifetime. only the 3 remaining could operate 5 years longer. the topic of waste disposal is a very very hot one. this "nuclear deal" was the biggest mistake of the former governments. nuclear power is only "cheap" because the tax payers have to pay for the disposal, not the power companies running the NPPs. would you add these cost on the power price, nuclear is by far the most expensive! so it directly funded by the state and its citizens.

@super_hero2

2 жыл бұрын

​@@IceyJones isn't it Germany problem alone? I mean other countries like the U.S. and France do not have much problem with waste disposal. I believe in U.S. we pay around 6 billions in total per year for nuclear waste that is something but it is just a fraction of the value of the nuclear plants.

@IceyJones

2 жыл бұрын

@@super_hero2 no its not really only a germany problem. there is still no final storage facility on the globe! only finland will have one in the next years by the looks of it. the US is just hiding the problem, by storing all high grade nuclear waste at the NPPs where its produced, and the storages are so full already, that nobody knows where to put all that. france does the same. putting the carpet of ignorance over it.... but in my opinion the waste topic is not even the most critical one......its just the overall cost of nuclear power. its just not feasable in the long run, while we have cheaper options that are even cleaner and without waste

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@super_hero2 other countries have no problems because they don’t tackle them. There is only one facility world wide where waste could be stored. In Germany we tried one place and it did not work out and the impact to the environment is unknown but likely big.

@super_hero2

2 жыл бұрын

@@IceyJones There are cheaper options but they are not there yet. It takes time to build them and shutting down nuclear plants while Germany is in need of them is madness. I am all for renewable energy but it has to be ready before you shut other energy sources down.

Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity. Thus, even when politicians, like the Bavarian minister president, asked to prolong the run of plants, energy companies declined that, as it would be every expensive to run them and make the able to run for a couple of years. With the same money 10 times the capacity in wind or solar could be built. So really there is no business case for nuclear fission reactors.

@willy4170

2 жыл бұрын

If you consider they need to be refueled only every 4 - 5 years, and it is the most energetic dense source of fuel, with 1 kilogram of uranium containing 80.620.000 MJ, more than 3 tons of coal, minus the pollution, and the radioactive traces emitted by coal fumes, with the proper tech could also be the most profitable source of energy.

@reinerjung1613

2 жыл бұрын

@@willy4170 So what? It is still a rare that we only have fuel left for 200 years if we do not increase the number of reactors. Reactors are still expensive and new ones are even more expensive. There is no business case for nuclear power plants. It does not matter how dense the fuel is. BTW. Renewables do not need any fuel (as it is directly or indirectly delivered by the sun).

@Gigachad-mc5qz

2 жыл бұрын

@@reinerjung1613 solar panels need silicon which is expensive, heavy metals which are really polluting, wind turbines are non recyclabe and their blades are buried in landfills and wont decompose, water power produces shit tons of co2 when they are built, are expensive and less energy dense than nuclear fuel

@reinerjung1613

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gigachad-mc5qz The generator, generator housing, the turbine tower can all be recycled. Currently the blades are mostly stored in landfills or reused for other purposes (down cycling). However, there are a lot of projects addressing this issue. compared to the radioactive waste that you get from reactors and reactor housing which must be also stored and cannot be recycled, this is a minor issue. Silicon is expensive as we need a lot of energy to produce it from raw materials, but depending on the cell type this has been reduced. Old style cells from 2015 produce in one year all the energy necessary for their production including aluminum production and many other elements used. Which heavy metals are you talking about? Have you compared that to the production of nuclear fuels, their transport, their excavation, etc? I Doubt that.

If war ever broke out, they don’t have to worry about nuclear facilities getting hit. No need for nuclear bombs when you could hit a nuclear facility.

Germany has proved that fear is the mind killer.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

While the rest of the world proofs that people are bad in assessing risks. Which is underlined by psychology research.

Some odd 20% of german electricity is generated with liquid gas. Geuss where the gas comes from.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong! It’s natural gas. And if you have the statistic open already can you please tell us how big the share of renewables is? Thank you!

@lilfailure2358

Жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek natural gas that comes from Russia, germany is giving money for the ukranian genocide and they're even proud of it smh

and the cost of electricity in Germany is 10 times what other nations pay.. smart move!

In 2:45, West and East Germany unified to form the Federal Republic of Germany, not the German Democratic Republic (which actually is East Germany)

Because "Die Grüben" published rubbish about nuclear energy.

Have fun staying cold

Look like a huge mistake. They need to re assess the pros and cons.

It is very unlikely that we will have no issue with that technology over the next several thousand years. And one issue is enough to make the small environmental impact so huge that the environment is not able to support human life any longer. A smal risk with huge impact over a long period of time is a big risk.

@felix4833

2 жыл бұрын

There is exactly 0 scenario in which a nuclear plant makes Earth unsuited for human life. You're safe :)

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@felix4833 You mean none you can think of?

@felix4833

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek Be free to educate me

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@felix4833 What would happen if a rocket blows up a reactor in Ukraine and makes the land unusable for farming? Or what if the wind had been blown in the direction of Tokyo on the day Fukushima blowed up? If you feel safe with hat scenarios in mind you must be very naïve.

@felix4833

2 жыл бұрын

So you described a scenario in which a few square kilometers of land becomes unhabitable for a few years. Basically the same result as a large open air mining exploitation. In the second scenario, people may receive radiation equivalent to a long haul flight. In both cases, it would not make Earth unsuited for human life. You may keep trying to come up with such scenario.

Nuclear could still be the future. Nuclear power =/= nuclear weapons, regardless of what some may want you to think.

SMR,s would be more reliable. And cost effective.

A special project you didn't talk about Jeddah Tower, the tallest skyscraper in the world, and other Jeddah projects Do you think that the giant downtown Jeddah project will compete with Dubai soon He saw the military bases in one of the most important beach areas in the center of Jeddah and ordered to change its location and invest the site to be a huge investment project He saw many of the neighborhoods inhabited by the violating workers and their location is distinguished, so he ordered their demolition and planning to rebuild them again with a civilized and globally competitive planning Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s opinion is that the military bases are located in the most important investment areas in Jeddah and on the shores of the Red Sea. He found it an investment opportunity and demanded that the army leave their site to work on building a project in central Jeddah. Prince Al-Waleed was one of the princes who was imprisoned in the famous hotel and reached an agreement with the government that the Public Investment Fund would obtain a large stake in the Jeddah Tower project, which will be the tallest tower in the world There were many slums in Jeddah inhabited by illegal workers, so he ordered their demolition and work to build a new and civilized city that would compete with the most beautiful cities in the world.

Germany not so smart this time

My Answer: it's because we are dumb... Finish.

People don’t realize that we still have no way to deal with nuclear waste and Germany is densly populated. Most nuclear power plants in Germany have reached the end of their live circle anyways. Also, nuclear power isn‘t cheap, the government has to give massive support to have these power plants built. If Germany had invested as much money in renewable energy sources as in nuclear power, they would be less dependent on fossil fuels. Besides, only 17% of the energy came from nuclear power plants when all were running.

@Gigachad-mc5qz

2 жыл бұрын

Except we have a way?

@sandywichmann9292

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gigachad-mc5qz Which is? I‘d really love to hear your solution to process nuclear waste because last time I checked a great deal of Germany‘s nuclear waste was rotting somewhere in Siberia..

@Gigachad-mc5qz

2 жыл бұрын

@@sandywichmann9292 btw since youre so pro fossil fuels since you hate nuclear: coal production causes heavy metal pollution and if you didnt know heavy Metal can NOT decay so it stays toxic forever and you drink that shit. Also the snoke causes cancer and other respiratory issues. Id rather have waste underground than ash in my lungs. Same goes for water solar and wind. Waterpower creates shit ton of carbon, solar panels create heavy netal pollution and windmill blades dont decompose and are buried in landfills. They are like plastic and cant even be reused

@sandywichmann9292

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gigachad-mc5qz What on earth makes you think I am pro fossil fuels? I am all for renewable energy sources! I am a big fan of solar power since I got my first pocket calculator without a battery. That was centuries ago and it worked about 30 years. I even support my country’s „green party“ and help when there is an election coming up, so don’t judge me wrong.

@sandywichmann9292

2 жыл бұрын

By the way, the nuclear accident at Tschernobyl over 30 years ago has lasting effects in my part of the country. We are still advised to eat mushrooms from the forest sparingly and not too much meat from boars or deer because it’s still contaminated.

Why has Putin built more and more nuclear power plants in Russia when they have all the oil and gas in the world ? Could it be because the less oil and gas Russia uses thr more it can export, and the more it exports the more power and dependency it creates

Thats fine but they went with the green deal and it not working so they opened up al there coal plants back up . So there green deal does not get enough energy from what they where told. So they burni g more coal now than a few yeaes ago .

It's called "The great reset".

Buying Russian gas is now a big issue, so maybe Germany needs to keep its nuclear reactors going until Ukraine-Russia conflict is resolved

@nauticalnovice9244

2 жыл бұрын

They should be keeping nuclear for as long as they can, look into nuclear more. It's incredibly affective and very misunderstood.

@johndair2116

2 жыл бұрын

@@nauticalnovice9244 I’m also told that it’s bloody expensive and a nightmare to get past green governments.

Considering the issue with Russia this is an even dumber idea. If there are any left they should stop and reactivate them

Bavarians were opposing the idea of end-storage so hard, that the waste had nowhere to go. So how should Germany keep running the plants without any place to store the waste. Simple as that.

1:45 nuclear accidents may take a town off the map but so can any industrial activity or - for that matter - the lack of it.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

What industrial activity could take Tokyo from the map for hundreds of years? On the day Fukushima blowed up the wind could also have been blown in that direction.

@CraftyF0X

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek Tokyo is a city, we talked about towns right?

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@CraftyF0X Oh shure, totally forgot that nuclear fallout does no harm to cities. 🙈

@CraftyF0X

2 жыл бұрын

@@HansTheGeek But a chemical plant can wipe a small town easily while its unlikely to wipe a big city, right ? Its not my fault that you can't follow a simple line of thinking.

@HansTheGeek

2 жыл бұрын

@@CraftyF0X Yes a chemical plant could do that. Cannot think of one that could render a city like Tokyo uninhabitable for decades or whole countries unsustainable for farming even longer though. So what’s your point?