Very limited I would say, rewilding is far superior to anything we can think of (except removing toxic substances etc). Good example is the DMZ between the two Koreas or the Chernobyl exclusion zone which show what it is possible if humans just stop interfering!

There are many, look into Permaculture, Agroforestry, Regenerative Agriculture, Ecosystem Restoration Camps, Elaine Inghams Soil Food Web School and Sadhaguru"s Projects. You will find many Reforestation Techniques and well established projects if you look in to these. Take care

Great advice! you should do a TED talk, not this nuclear-plant-sponsored deuche

@@valpie7920 Isn't nuclear energy safer, greener and more productive than other energy sources?

I have alway voted green here in Canada and because of Michael I am preparing a 10 minute presentation in favour of nuclear research for my local nuclear research facility. I was originally going to speak out against it but I have been swayed. Chalk River laboratories license is up for renewal and everyone I know is speaking against the contract renewal.

Everything can fail, and sometimes something can be made to fail. Chernobyl wasn't a failure, it was a bad experiment conducted, it was made to fail. If you exclude it, most of the other failures were minor, and the engineering got better because of them, there's no other way around. Humans aren't perfect, there will be failures. As he said, what matters is the cost in relation to the benefit, the benefit is so great that we can spare the cost, also because the cost is less than with the coal, and doing nothing is the worst possible thing now.

@@tomkelly8827 show his videos. He has several, all excellent.

not according to any available published research. it was something like 40 directly attributable deaths.

Chernobyl deaths: about 40 due to radiation sickness extra cancers: only thyroid cancers observed, about 16000 extra sick, 99% of them cured, leaving 160 to die. That's bad, and you should never again build reactors Chernobyl-style, but if you break it down to the TWhs of electricity produced, even windfarms are more deadly. You know, workers falling off from 200 meters and that.

​@@hajostork9351 chernobyl was bad. it was a f@#$up. and a big one. from the poor design to the badly run test. nd as you point out - as bad as it was - it was far less bad than almost anyone would have predicted.

The WHO report found 43 deaths related to Chernobyl. 28 from the workers that were in the plant during the accident and about 15 in the general population from cancer afterwards. There is also an estimate that the measured radiation levels should have lead to up to 160 cancer cases in the general population over time. But there was no actual increase in cancer deaths that large seen. Those models likely overestimate the actual number. Coal and natural gas kill tens of thousands every year.

First of all, your claim is factually wrong. Second, the "nuclear industry" is not interested in supporting nuclear, they want to close it down and get a lot of public money for doing so. There may be a lot of indiviudals working on nuclear who want to fight for a clean energy future but they are rarely supported by management, who, big surprise, only care about earning money :-)

They want to shut it down because solar/wind is the new hot and they can earn money, eventually everything will collapse for wind and solar because it's not energy efficient.

When he mentioned it was a Bill Gates FUNDED..... he had me until Bill Gates. That man invents viruses to kill humans , Nope

the time scale to build nuclear is a result of decisions made to make nuclear too difficult and too expensive. the actual time and cost to build nuclear in china and russia is a fraction of the cost to do it in the west.

@@yt.damian yes everything is cheaper in China, since labor cost is lower. Does not help nuclear in the West. Or may be if we import chinese workers, and materials. But that would not look good for western employment.

@@oystla the time and cost of building nuclear in the west is primarily a result of fear. environmentalists have successfully made us fear nuclear so much that we have regulated it out of contention. your other comments about deaths from chernobyl are one indicator of their success.

@@yt.damian nuclear building codes are the same in the East as in the West, so you are wrong, it's not too strict codes, but just the fact that Nuclear is inherently complicated and costly.

@@oystla nuclear is complicated and costly. but environmental lobbyists have made it almost impossible to build one in north america and increasingly so in western europe. german and french electricity prices go up everytime they add more renewables into the mix and go up everytime they close a nuclear power plant. by making it so hard regulatory and financing wise they have made it more costly, far more costly, than it needs to be.

Waste burning reactors have been available since the 1980ies. Every so-called "fast breeder" reactor is essentially a "waste-burner", since 95% of the waste is U-238 and Plutonium - both fissionable with fast neutrons. The only reason they haven't been built large scale is that there's so little waste and so cheap uranium, you need to run a reactor for 80 year for the fuel cost to make any difference. The Light-Water-Reactors are already there, so just use them for some more decades, and build the waste burners when the LWRs are becoming really outdated. After that, the waste of each 80 year old LWR will power 800 years of waste-burning (double power output) giving us more than enough time to decide if our decendants prefer to switch to thorium (can also be used in fast-neutron-reactors) or if they prefer nuclear fusion (i have no idea what scientific progress wil look like 800 years from now. All i know is, it will not stop.)

use logic mate if it would be just something that some random guy came up with - you would probably be able to say it's his wild fantasy but if at least a dozen of different companies, in several different countries, are putting very serious money to develop this tech - the least this should tell you is the science behind this concept has to be sound.

Hajo Störk I know fast breader reactors, but both US and Europe has abandond the FBR programmes. They are too expensive to build and maintain. Even existing Nuclear reactors are way too expensive to build for profitability without subsidies. Also Europe alone has now 50 000 tonnes of spent Nuclear fuel, enough for many FBR’s. Therefore it is still a distant dream. And existing reactors have a design life of maximum 40 years. After that you have to refurbish the plant completely, which cost more than new plant.

Michał Zając I am not questioning the Science. I am questioning the cost efficiency vs alternative cheaper Solutions.

@@oystla and I'm questioning if those "cheaper solutions" are indeed cheaper if so many people, all around the world, are willing to invest in day nuclear, or even fusion. Logic says there has to be a catch somewhere. No one would need convincing, and no one would bother with other options, if renewables would really be the cheapest.

Nuclear in the US has a MUCH better chance under a President Trump than it would have had with a President Clinton.

WHY SO SERIOUS That crucial word - elected - chosen by the population to carry out the will of the people rather than the will of the career politicians.