Is Nuclear Energy the solution?

In this Our Changing Climate environmental video essay, I look at what role nuclear energy has to play in a renewable energy transition to combat climate change. Specifically, I figure out whether nuclear energy is emissions free or low carbon. I look at the problem of nuclear waste by weighing the differences between long term storage, on-site storage, and reprocessing of nuclear waste. I also look at the prohibitive cost and construction barriers to nuclear energy in order to understand whether it's actually a feasible solution to climate change. Finally, I look at the issue of safety in relation to nuclear energy by comparing the death tolls of other energy outputs to that of nuclear energy.

A huge thanks to Dr. Arjendu Pattanayak for helping me out with this video!!

________
Resources:

[OurChangingClimate]

Are you pro-nuclear energy or against it? I would love to hear your thoughts. Rebuttals and counter-arguments are welcome!

[Reptiguy]

“once we’ve sorted out battery storage”

ok...

[ernie]

I usually love your videos but I heavily disagree with you in this one. You talked about the heavy costs of building nuclear power plants but failed to compare them to the costs of building coal plants. In the end the two are comparable and France which only has 5% of its energy come from fossil fuels has electricity costs similar to the US. You made it sounds like nuclear power was not feasible because it takes a lot of work to put in place and US politicians are too lazy to do it. Furthermore you talked about nuclear waste but failed to mention that one person only produces the equivalent of a can of soda of waste if they only relied on nuclear for their entire life, not to mention solar panels, batteries and even wind turbines produce crazy amounts of waste at the end of their life cycle (about 20 years). Nuclear is without a doubt a solution to a carbon free future, at least for now while we figure out cleaner ways of producing energy

[matthewmcbryan]

How is France not an example of what nuclear power can be? Instead, you list it as an outlier. You mention that it is France’s strong government stance on nuclear that allows them to use it effectively.

If the United States is going to make any significant difference with climate change, it is going to need to have a strong and willing government.

Additionally, you mention proliferation and radioactivity as negatives, when the data clearly states it is safer compared to other energy sources.

I think you could have just as easily said nuclear was a viable option using the same statistics that you showed. This was ultimately not convincing.

Also, I love your stuff and respect all the work you put in. This is just some criticism I have or your argument.

[paulvoiry]

i live in france and no one is scared about nuclear. once the technology to reuse nuclear waste is found and secure it is by far the best option. extremely strict regulations is the key to avoid any trouble.

[knowledgeiskey]

*Those nuclear reactors shown in the video are like 50 years old.*
*_Theres newer, safer, and more productive nuclear powerplants._*

[evilwarrior]

What I can tell you is that I live in Ontario, where 90% of the electricity is carbon free. Thanks to hydro and nuclear.

[jamesodonnell]

We do have viable nuclear waste storage, and the current methods are not only sufficient, but massively excessive. The Oklo natural reactor shows that, in a reducing environment, the waste will hardly permeate the rock as it will react with the rock, becoming embedded. Even the bad conditions of massive thermal flux and water flow didn't lead to any leakage. Our current storage technique is digging a massive borehole into stable bedrock with no water flow, and putting the waste, which is in an alloy, into extremely durable and watertight containers into the hole, and sealing it. The chances of it leaking are tiny, and the chances of it being accidentally dug up again are equally tiny.

[fredrikgustavsson]

”Once we have sorted out battery storage”. Yeah, betting it all on technologies that do not exist and may never be scientifically possible is definately smarter than investing in the buildout of nuclear...

[hamg]

Doesn't the graf at 2:25 show that nuclear emissions seem to be around half of solar, and just a fraction of wind? Sure, it's a big leap up to fossil fuels, but according to that very graf, nuclear is by far the best option regarding emissions. Or am I missing something?

[Unicornlover]

France is said to be an outlier when it comes to nuclear energy but it's not really explained. I'd like to know why the US or other countries can't replicate or learn from France. It seems like France's success with nuclear energy was severely overlooked in this video. I don't see why other countries can't learn from France but I would really like to find out why if there is a good reason.

[ZachValkyrie]

The more I learn about nuclear power, the more convinced I become that not only is it the best solution for climate change, it is the _only_ solution.

[garator]

What you forgot to mention is, that nuclear provides energy 24/7 and more or less constant but solar and wind are very unstable and at night solar does not generate any power. Therefore you have to compensate for the "down times" of wind and solar which is mostly made with natural gas, which creates more CO2.
And not to mention all the damage to the environment solar farms and wind parks create

[dcokimu]

You also didn't mention the ridiculous amount land and resources solar and wind need and how that causes a serious enviornmental problem.

[zachzulanas]

I usually love this channel but in my opinion this video is somewhat biased towards renewables and doesn't seem to give nuclear a fair chance. Despite the financial cost, we cannot afford the environmental cost anymore. France and Sweden have flipped their energy sources to mainly nuclear in recent years through lots of proactive initiatives, why can't the US or China? Renewables are a good source of energy, but like you said, they haven't reached their full potential yet until we "figure out batteries". Well how long will figuring out battery tech take? The current nuclear reactors we have now are the most safe form of energy production, and the cleanest. Renewables will not produce enough energy to offset our current carbon emissions before it's too late. The only option if we want to have a chance of reversing our carbon emissions is converting mainly to nuclear. Also the point you made about the big nuclear disasters that everyone fears, other than Chernobyl there were no casualties caused directly by the radiation. The deaths in Fukushima were caused by a botched evacuation. Three Mile island, there were no deaths. Chernobyl is the only meltdown that directly had adverse health effects on the nearby people, and that was an operator error that we've learned from and incorporated into power plant designs. I could go on longer but Nuclear is definitely the future, no matter the cost. If you're interested in learning more about this I'd recommend reading, A Bright Future by Joshua Goldstein.

[cooperhawk]

Germany: Hey we need less CO2 and more clean energy
*precedes to get rid of only viable clean energy source and replace it with coal*

[bradleypost]

Where did this guy grow up? I live quite close to Indian Point and I’m actually upset it’s closing since it’s good for the environment.

[bigjosh]

Nuclear is expensive but considering its huge power output, wouldn’t it mean that it has a good power output to cost ratio?

[PJSM]

I like how people expressed such irrational fear over nuclear, that his mother will go to the extent and mapping out an evacuation plan, but the only 3 plants in 60 years of history that they can reference are chernobyl, fukushima, and TMI, despite the fact the the latter 2 had no radiation deaths, especially TMI. Nothing even came of it and it was completely controlled.

Let's ignore data that shows it is statistically the safest, claim that France is somehow an outlier of what nuclear can accomplish (????), and resort to fear-mongering. France is what happens what nuclear is EMBRACED and not feared. Outliers are chernobyl and fukushima. They are statistical anomalies.

Why does hydro not receive the same criticisms and fear when the Banqiao dam collapsed in China during the 70s, that resulted in 200, 000 deaths and the displacement of millions of others? That event alone has more casualties than the entire history of nuclear's power plants, normal operations and accidents.

Fear. Mongering. Stop it.

[dcokimu]

French electricity price is about half of Germany's btw. So much for that "fucking expensive nuclear".