For the most part, this is a good, informative video about the advantages of nuclear energy.
Then, at 9:00 they talk about the danger of nuclear weapon proliferation. Obviously, this is a scary subject and requires scary footage. Guess what they chose?
Nuclear weapons test footage?
No.
Muslims praying.
Marg Bar The Economist.
Safe nuclear technology wasn't "research" at the time. It's always been safe. People had been building safe reactors since the 60s.
Reactors are not prone to exploding. You have to try to make a reactor even capable of exploding, then make it actually explode. That's what the Soviets did. They made an incredibly stupid in their design, knowingly deviating from an established standard, knowingly introducing these possibilities, then a dozen oversights and stupid decisions to actualize the failure.
Nature has, on occasion, just happened to arange Uranium deposits in such a way as to create a sustained fission reaction and these did not explode. Nuclear safety is anprim level technology.
You are severely misunderstanding the state of nuclear technology and how nuclear systems are run.
Was the plant in Fukushima built using "safe" technology?
Fukashima was technologically safe, but then it broke. The technology to prevent such damage to the reactor does exist. Sea walls and inland regions have existed for centuries, and most nuclear reactors use them.
Fukashima is addressed in the video actually (which I'm assuming you didn't watch).
The video had like 3 irrelevant sentences about Fukushima, not sure what you mean? If such preventative technology existed, why didn't they use it? Besides the "human factor", it's almost like technology only exists within the economic system that decides whether to devote resources to it. 🤔
And then there's the building time. By the time we finish any new "safe" plants, would not the window for averting runaway climate change have passed anyway?
The points they made:
-The actual reactor failure only killed one person
-Nuclear power is the safest of any reliable power supply
-Compared to coal usage, nuclear power generation has saved millions of lives
-Nuclear would have done more, had it not been for misguided environmentalist concerns
Existing plants need to be kept open for one.
Second, while new plants are major projects, they can be completed within the timeframe it will take to phase out coal. Wether that's fast enough is another question, but late is better than never.
Finally, even after a transition away from fossile fuels, nuclear power will be worth investing in. A reliable, constant power supply will always be better than a variable one (even with tons of batteries).
I guess the key is comparing it to coal then.
Only measuring immediate explosion deaths gives me "gomulizm killd 100 gorillion" vibes, it still caused massive environmental destruction, which affects human health as well.