Anyone wanting an updated version of this video's information should watch kzitem.info/news/bejne/0auhtJOJZneke20 which was posted in December of 2019. It's not up to date of course but it's a step up from this 2017 video and all the sources are supplied by the speaker.
@rainygirl65
2 жыл бұрын
How Dare You!!!
@sirsydneycamm1883
4 жыл бұрын
42:40 - If he wants 1,500 nuclear power stations by 2040 and there are 485 in 2017, then building 75 pa now with each taking 10 years to build and commission, then we are building enough for 25% of world's needs. If efficiency of devices, like the room's laptops referenced, triples then we're getting close to all nuclear with wind & solar cover the gaps. Cars, trains, ships can rubberband or electric powered, we just need something lower-carbon for planes. Then we move on to construction and agriculture....
@eerikwissenz1320
2 жыл бұрын
It is basically impossible to build 75 nuclear reactors every year starting today. Nuclear reactors take highly specialized equipment and skills to build. The basic problem is ramping up production require accepting a fairly high failure rate (think tolerances of early Tesla's), but a high failure rate for nuclear reactors is not acceptable; so, high skills and rigorous quality control is the alternative, and even then, failure rate has not been within the acceptable limits already. Fukishima could have made Tokyo unlivable if the wind was blowing that way, and both Fukushima and Chernobyl could have been a lot worse than they were (and both cost massive amounts to clean up ... and both situations aren't even resolved). However, it's not a global crisis if some windmills, PV panels, solar thermal, passive windows for heat and light, fail. 1500 nuclear reactors are also just unacceptable from a first glance risk assessment: for, even if we could ramp up the skills and heavy capital equipment needed to build 75 nuclear reactors per year today -- there are 55 under construction today, may not seem like "much more", and it wouldn't be all that much more the first year, where it's a lot more is the 75 the next year, and the next, and the next, reaching 750 concurrent constructions in 10 years-- but, for the sake of argument, let's say we invest what it takes to scale up, what happens if critical flaws in the scale-up designs and methods are discovered 7 years in (that lowest-bid-bidders turned out to be committing fraud for money), and these things simply won't be safe? These sorts of scenarios have to be considered (low-probability-high-impact events are a essential part of analyzing nuclear technology; can't just be disregarded when convenient), and it results simply in unacceptable risks to the kind of capital being invested: trillions of USD that does have a probability of ending up as scrap. If there were no alternatives, then these risks would be justified as there would no alternatives. However, there are other energy alternatives not only for producing energy but for using it more efficiently (like "naked hyperloops on tracks" that don't need costly vacuum tunnels; aka. trains) that have no continental radiation risks nor any systemic risk of simply providing no benefit at all. Also, decentralized nature of solar is only a disadvantage insofar as we don't exploit the benefits of a decentralized energy source. There's also many places in the world where it's simply a bad idea to proliferate nuclear material (and any nuclear reactor creates, and can be tweaked to create more, fissile material for nuclear bombs; improvements in off-the-shelf machiningtools and computer software simulation etc. could reduce significantly the barrier to designing a nuclear bomb), so it's a massive capital investment that isn't applicable globally, which is a large inefficiency.
@brianwheeldon4643
3 жыл бұрын
As valuable today in 2021 as it was in 2017. Solar and Wind, have improved markedly since 2017. Nano tech and batteries are striding ahead. We still can't fly or cruise around the world and engage in major international trade if we want to hold to 3 degrees. The current pathway we're on is still 3 to 5 degrees by 2100. It's crazy. But people are stirring. We've got a mountain range to climb every year for decades, but it is possible to manage the low two's to two and a half. The only way to hold to 2 with an even chance is full on wartime mitigation for real zero worldwide by 2025. Extinction Rebellion, Peter Carter, Roger Hallam, Chris Hedges are right. Every other target will be too late for that. It's full on systems change and urgently change the Extractive and deadly neoliberal capital system for Doughnut Economics-eco economics and live within planerary boundaries.
Пікірлер: 41