Nuclear Physicist Explains - Nuclear VS Renewable Energy

Wind and solar at the scale proposed would mean a 7000% increase in mining globally..hardly carbon neutral I'd say. Great channel,I'm a nuclear power evangelist too. We need to build our movement and channels such as yours are super important. It's also great you are not the stereotype "Mr Burns" charicature that many people think of at first.😊

In a my country, Sweden, we are lucky to have so much hydro. I wish we would make it more environmental friendly though. But about 43% of our power come from hydro. 31% from our nuclear reactors, 17% from wind, 9% from thermal and only 1% from solar. As you say, a mix is probably best. Side note: We also burn trash to heat our homes 😁(Which also give us power, 0.5% of our total power production)

These videos are so great! Thank you Elina!

love this comparison and intro video!!

I think nuclear power plant cooling towers are a thing of beauty.

Geothermal should be considered more especially on the Pacific rim countries. In Canada up until recently we were the only country on the Pacific rim not using geothermal. Now we have a few small plants but definitely have a lot of potential for more

Loving your videos. I would love to hear your take on thorium reactors. There have been many videos and articles about them but I would like to hear from you as a scientist.

Great Video. Thank you very much. Got a good Comparative idea of nuclear vs renewable energy.

Great video! I felt the efficiency comparison wasn't quite fair though--especially for renewables it maybe isn't that important what % of incident sunlight actually gets converted to energy, since sunlight is free. A better comparison might have been amortized cost per MWh generated, or else amount and toxicity of waste produced per MWh

Another great video.

The waste section got me curious, when you take into consideration the materials needed to manufacture and the mining of said materials for solar panels, turbine blades, batteries, fuel rods and all that stuffs, what is the environmental cost once all that is taken into account as well? Food for thought.

Great video, let's use them all.

Congrats on the video, it's great to have someone talking about these topics in a way that is accessible to most people and yet covers what is actually relevant for energy generation. I'm no expert, but I've worked a couple years at an interconnected systems operator (grid manager in my country) and it baffles me how people arrive at unrealistic conclusions based on simplistic views of energy generation. Things like thinking the entire matrix should be wind and solar, or that we should not have nuclear energy. Here in Brazil we have a mostly hydro matrix, yet we also have a nuclear plant that holds the highest capacity factor in the grid (98%+). It's important to discuss things like this to prevent energy matrix planning from becoming a political arm wrestle where misinformed arguments fuel bad decisions.

I like this video. Entertaining and informative.

This honestly just showed now we need both and not just pick one over the other

At minute 1107, it would be interesting to know how many hours of wind and how many hours of solar are in that pellet?

When considering the total cost of ownership plus Co2 and ecological equivalent cost across the supply chain (including end of life disposal and full recovery cost), I suspect Nuclear will win the race hands down

Elina, how about the LFTR technology? Do you have an opinion about the aspects of using it against the traditional nuclear fission technology?

Hi Elina, here is a little suggestion: If you added all your sources to the video descriptions, this would make you and your videos a lot more credible and informative. :-)