Dr. Peterson, you are well aware of why the greens do not want nuclear energy. They are not pro environment as you have said repeatedly they are anti-human they would prefer most of us to be shuffled off from the mortal coil.
@stevepeace231 Says:
The Levelized cost of energy LCOE is too high for nuke plants. We are talking billions and decades to build a plant versus millions and years to build renewable with battery backup which also can provide base load power without having to store the high level spent fuel for 10,000 years.
@UV-mu9ox Says:
Sound quality of the guest is horrific. Jordan should send them equipment
@roycebryan1692 Says:
We have quite an extensive rail system that already transport this material.
@282XVL Says:
The modern left is NOT on the side of the poor... they merely envy, hate and seek to strip and eat the rich.
@mjmeans7983 Says:
Local energy generation and control at a neighborhood level risks groups of people coming to a conclusion that independence and freedom is much more desirable than large regional or centralized control. Governments don't want to allow their population to realize that with actual local independence; only the perception of local independence is allowed.
@ef7480 Says:
A ceo of a nuclear reactor company at the cutting edge with a potato for a microphone and using a toilet for a studio...
@mickboyce386 Says:
Australia has massive amounts of Uranium in the ground
@Waldemarvonanhalt Says:
Small correction, it's deaths per kWh, got GWh.
@rodkeh Says:
Nuclear is a radioactive toxic swindle! Fossil fuels are the only real safe and secure solution to our energy needs and they even enhance the ecosystem as a direct bonus! Peterson is just a scientifically ignorant and braindead shill for for big business con artists!
@JohnMegaton2062 Says:
Why isn't nuclear energy promoted? Nuclear would drop costs of energy across the board for a lot of giant conglomerates who've gotten used to no competition, and disperse prosperity widely, which diminishes centralized control of people. Obviously it makes tremendous sense to implement all things equal.
@X_Peter_Joseph_X Says:
Dr Peterson definition of Heaven: "Incrementally improving in an intelligent manner that feeds on itself."
Christian definition of Heaven: Where the blessed 'live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face."'
I will stick with the Christian definition myself and by God's grace I will help the poor without looking for my heaven on this earth.
@hyyne Says:
The Left is not for the poor. They are for them selves and only using the poor. The Left does not want the poor to get wealth because they would loose their power and positions.
@clivemarriott7749 Says:
Enjoyable fascinating, informative and innovative discussion, as usual with Dr Peterson. I hope AI could help to set up all the paperwork for a proposal or environmental risk assessments and all the red tape that delays projects so much. It seems that its in some sense a coaching session. I think its an excellent idea. I see a lot of progress in people he has worked with.
@fishyclouds Says:
D of G gave 250 billion to
joker building a dirty npp in Wy
@bastrous9121 Says:
It’s in the National Interest, World Interest.
Write the document for the legislation to be approved and use every thing and contact you have to promote and get it implemented.
@bastrous9121 Says:
Jordan, you are my hero, you must learn to parse your sentences.
Give you interviewees a chance to answer before inundating them with your extraordinarily fast thinking and associated examples.
@mushroomhead86117 Says:
Thorium people, these micro reactors are a half measure, even if they are better than wind and solar combined. Look up kirk Sorenson, and the molten salt reactor, that's the future.
@mushroomhead86117 Says:
Poor people are what's polluting the earth? Lol
So in this hierarchy of control, where the rich should be able to make all the decisions, the poor people and their burning of dung is the greatest threat to the environment? What?
@mushroomhead86117 Says:
Nuclear power uses less land than the other "green technologies" and with molten salt reactors we could be using no water.
@aldoottati6823 Says:
Very interesting topic! It’s unfortunate that the sound quality is so low 🙉. I had to stop listening… but I’ll come back and finish it (even if it gets done in a several stages).
@nathanproper5516 Says:
Great talk my grandfather has been beating the drums for nuclear power and molten salt reactors for 50 years. Love how France uses a standard reactor design. “Society needs to fundamentally use less power (not going to happen) or you have a 70% nuclear power backbone 20% ramp-able power (coal, hydro, natgas) and 10% renewables”
@wp912 Says:
The disadvantages of nuclear outweigh any proposed benefits. The large amount of complex intricacies required to build and maintain the plant is one large expense. The other is the disposal of extremely toxic nuclear waste which is also extremely expensive. Hydro electric and gas/fossil fuel based electricity generation are still the best options, tried and tested technologies for energy production. Renewables lie on the other extreme of the spectrum, as they have the lowest capability in terms of power generation or energy efficiency. Solar panels for instance are also very expensive in manufacture/installation/infrastructure required yet only yield 20% or less efficiency, unlike gas or hydro which can be 90% or more efficient. Both renewable and nuclear are extremes and not as advantageous as hydro or gas/fossil electricity generation when you weigh the pro's and con's.
@theBaron0530 Says:
That's the same conclusion Prager has reached: if you profess to care about the environment, then you should support using nuclear energy. I agree with him and with Professor Peterson.
@JerriMcCann Says:
I didn't hear any mention of the Nuclear Regulatory commission. The nuclear waste management act from the 1980s will not allow any more nuclear power without a method to take care of the nuclear waste. Obama shut down the yucca mountain project which was a study to create a nuclear repository. Also states rights presently prevents freely moving nuclear anything by truck or train without major regulation. Power plants are not the problem. The date is the issue.
@JerriMcCann Says:
I didn't hear any mention of the Nuclear Regulatory commission. The nuclear waste management act from the 1980s will not allow any more nuclear power without a method to take care of the nuclear waste. Obama shut down the yucca mountain project which was a study to create a nuclear repository. Also states rights presently prevents freely moving nuclear anything by truck or train without major regulation. Power plants are not the problem. The date is the issue.
@theBaron0530 Says:
@30:00 The Left are not on the side of the poor, Jordan. They are on their own side, and they are about obtaining power, keeping it, and exercising it. They don't like nuclear energy because they perceive it as a threat to the environment, certainly, but also because it is associated with corporations and a government that they want to replace with themselves. If they ever decided that to support nuclear energy would help them obtain power and hold it, they'd support it in a second.
@bearlogg7974 Says:
Infinite power for an infinitely low price has to be someone's worst nightmare.
Even though infinite energy would bring infinite new business opportunities & raise all living standards
@doctordapp Says:
What about using it as power source for container ships.
A small modulair reactor would be very cost effective and saves a lot of crude oil.
Make it a unit which is impossible to sink, which stands in a rear deck, it would be easily replaceable and if the ship would sink it can be retrieved easily.
@masterphillips Says:
Cheaper energy->
Increased self-determination->
Decreased authoritative dependence->
Well obviously we can't have that
@richardgabbrielli3328 Says:
When will JBP run for Canadian politics??
@chad8537 Says:
Nuclear will not save us from human nature.
@daleyule7117 Says:
It sounds to me like this guy needs to have a food and drink taster. Wouldn’t want him to join the ranks of folks who have met their end on account of making energy more affordable.
@smallgiant6064 Says:
Jimmy carter by executive order banned the recycling of nuclear material.
@Grumszy Says:
Nuclear would restrict the fuel companies making excessive amounts of money from the people.
@hestieful Says:
Extremely entertaining and educating interview! Loved how he just went with your definitions (and my super basic definitions as I was trying to keep up with you guys in my head) and explanations of the cleanest and safest energy form, but what I found entertaining was how he enjoyed your questions and smiled and sometimes laughed 😁👍
@earthdance11 Says:
Have a debate, pros and cons. The art of debate has been lost at a cost to humanity moving forward in the best way possible for all people.
@adams74 Says:
May I suggest for Peterson to visit victims of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Nevada mining. Interview them. Look at the deformed generation of people in the eye. Visit these sites and stay there for months. Eat local food. Then make an educated comments about it and its effect on health. Engineers and technicians do not see humans but only machines. One nuclear physicist told, nuclear fission in any form is a silent killer. We failed with plastic pollution, carbon pollution and do you really think that we can manage nuclear waste pollution? Peterson, you listen only to one side of the story, but never the other. Like listening to abuser but never a victim.
@robf4605 Says:
Save the planet from what? "Fossil" fuels aren't what is killing the planet.
@diskordful Says:
Whether this makes sense for poor, underdeveloped regions is something I dare to doubt. These are often also politically unstable or politically problematic. And it is often sunny in these regions in particular, so another, much simpler way of generating energy would make sense - solar with a sodium battery. For travelling mines somewhere in Alaska that need a lot of electricity, such a reactor on a truck would certainly make sense.
@Theqwert202 Says:
30:45 - Leftists are just Stupid and they don't know it. Their track record the last few years have been eye opening.
@justinmoore757jm Says:
I would have love to hear what he had to say but I couldn't understand a word
@axlbazz1 Says:
Fair enough but the elephant in the room that was never even uttered.
Chernobyl.
I'm an advocate for nuclear power, but I don't understand why you would outright lie and say nobody has ever died from a nuclear power plant.
That is completely an anti truth.
Workers did die from radiation at the Japanese plant.
Chernobyl is one of the biggest most destructive accident by humans in world history.
I just can't believe that you both intentionally acted like that incident never existed.
I was alive for 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
3 Mile Island could have been horrific, especially because of the dense population around it.
Fukushima was pretty bad.
Chernobyl is about as bad as it gets.
Only thing worse would be an actual weapon.
I've never heard Jordan outright mislead his audience.
This is very disappointing, disheartening and it gives me room to now doubt Jordan, for the first time.
@tsechejak7598 Says:
Seawolf (not ssn21) competed with Nautilus for what buships wanted as their best nuke design for US navy subs. PWR (water) won out on Nautilus over the molten sodium reactor of Seawolf. The sodium reactor worked but for certain effiencies there were counter efficiency requirements, and the PWR tho less efficient was seen as something with potential for improvement. Narwhal had a natural circulation reactor but it was still a water cooled reactor. Salt is interesting, wonder why Seawolf😅 didn’t use it unless power to weigth ration of the reactor is better using pure sodium metal for coolant vs salt. A reactor to power a sub at high speed needs better efficiency then a reactor for civil electrical power. Also I may be incorrect but I believe civil reactors are also less powerful because for safety reasons they aren’t even critical condition of fission, they are “warm/hot” relatively speaking but not critical, in order to have that be another safety feature even with control rods out.
@fractalmadness9253 Says:
These types of conversations need illustrations.
@joshuatate5671 Says:
Absolutely amazing! Please keep us informed as this progresses
@beershortage Says:
As much as I like Peterson, states with plenty of Sunshine like California don't need nuclear power, it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
@Jonathan-ru9zl Says:
Correct
@MrsRanchoFiesta Says:
The world's first full scale power station solely devoted to electricity production was the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, United States, which was connected to the grid on December 18, 1957. Pretty sure the "NO NUKES" protesters started soon after
@MasterYourOwnDestiny Says:
CONGRATS TO NANO NUCLEAR ENERGY (NNE) for ringing the bell at Nasdaq this morning!! Woohoooo!!!! 🎊🍾🎉🥳🍀🫶
LATEST COMMENTS