Prática de Shadowing: Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? - Aprenda a falar inglês com vídeo

Do we need nuclear energy to stop climate change?

More and more voices from science, environmental activists and the press have been saying so in recent years.

But this comes as a shock to those who are fighting against nuclear energy and the problems that come with it.

So, who's right?

Well, it's complicated.

To slow rapid climate change, the world needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.

In 2018, three -quarters of global emissions were released through energy production, namely by burning fossil fuels.

Energy is a broad term that describes all sorts of stuff, from moving things and people around, to putting things big and small together, or heating our homes.

Currently, 84 % of the world's primary energy comes from fossil fuels, 33 % from oil, 27 % from coal, and 24 % from gas.

Around 10 % of the global oil supply is just used to burn in boilers to make our homes cozy and warm.

Only about 16 % of global energy is from low emission sources, almost 7 % from hydroelectric, 5 % from solar, wind,

bioenergy, wave, tidal and geothermal combined, and about 4 % from nuclear.

So we pretty much rely on coal, oil and gas to keep our civilization going, which means it's actually very hard to transition away from them.

To have a chance of escaping fossil fuels without throwing humanity back into the Stone Age,

one of the most impactful things we can do is to electrify as many sectors as possible.

Electricity is the stuff that appears like magic when you plug something into a socket so you can watch YouTube.

Every industry that can switch from burning fossil fuels to electricity needs to do so, from electric cars to electric heaters.

Why do we need to bet so hard on electricity?

Because we can produce electricity with low -emission technologies like solar, wind or nuclear.

So electricity is a real lever for a radical transition.

But there are a few problems making this transition really hard.

First of all, in most places in the world, electricity is still generated mostly by burning fossil fuels.

And not only that, in the last 20 years, the world's electricity usage increased 73 % in absolute terms.

While we are installing renewables at record speeds, at the same time, the amount of fossil fuel we're burning for electricity still keeps rising year by year.

Renewables have so far not been able to catch up with the demand for new electricity, and so despite our progress,

emissions from electricity are still rising worldwide worldwide.

The other alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, and even though it's not renewable, its greenhouse gas emissions are tiny compared to burning stuff.

But in the last 20 years, nuclear has basically stagnated.

Countries like China, India, and South Korea built new reactors, while Germany and Japan have been actively taking their nuclear plants offline.

Which seems a bit weird

if we look at the countries with the most low -carbon electricity in the world

that get most of their juice mainly from two sources nuclear or hydropower.

Take France and Sweden.

In France only around 10 % comes from fossil fuels

while 67 % comes from nuclear and 23 % from renewables primarily hydro.

In Sweden almost 30 % comes from nuclear power and about 45 % from hydro.

So we know that nuclear energy can work at scale.

On the technical side, because of the lack of investment and innovation in the last few decades,

the majority of the world's nuclear reactors are pretty old technology that's very costly to replace.

In most Western countries, building nuclear reactors has become very expensive for a variety of reasons, like a loss of know -how in constructing them,

policy changes and increased regulatory constraints so it can take a decade or longer just to finish a power plant.

In contrast, countries like South Korea, China, India, and Russia are able to build new nuclear reactors comparatively quickly and at a competitive cost.

Still, generally in the West, the current generation of nuclear power plants are more expensive to build and maintain than most fossil fuel alternatives.

There are also the concerns about nuclear waste and the fear of accidents, but we cover those in other videos in more detail.

We have designs for nuclear reactors that solve many of their problems, namely small reactors that take less time and money to get started.

There are also next generation technologies that can already turn radioactive waste into new fuel,

but so far these have not been deployed at a scale where they can have a significant impact on the nuclear sector.

Considering these uncertainties, some argue that nuclear power is a dangerous relic of the past

and that we should just let it go and focus on renewables.

But while renewables undoubtedly are the future of electricity,

they still have their own huge challenges to overcome before they can take over the vast majority of the electricity grid.

The main problem is reliability and consistency.

It's not always windy and the sun doesn't always shine especially in the mornings and evenings when humans need the most electricity.

The variations between seasons don't make this issue easier.

To make renewables reliable

and not risk blackouts we need massive storage capacities where we can save energy collected

when the sun or wind are at their peak and release it later when we actually need it.

Until this is possible other sources of electricity need to provide a controllable load

that creates the reliability of supply that our civilization needs to run properly.

Eventually, we will be able to do this with renewables, but we need a lot of batteries or storage power plants.

Right now, we simply don't have the tech and the capacities to make this transition fast enough to replace fossil fuels.

But even if we could, there's another aspect we have to take into account.

We're not just trying to kick fossil fuels out of electricity, we're trying to replace energy with electricity.

If we're going to electrify sectors that currently use fossil fuels,

like cars or heating, we will need significantly more electricity than we're currently using everywhere around the world.

And if the electricity needs of the world population continue to grow as they have over the last 20 years, we'll need even more.

It all comes down to one thing.

No energy source is perfect, all have their own unique problems.

Both renewables and nuclear energy require time, investment and technological innovation.

On their own, neither is ready to remove fossil fuels from our electricity grid, although activists on both sides claim that they are.

In the end, the question is how we want to deal with all these challenges.

Should we give up nuclear immediately and at least temporarily accept higher emissions?

Will we try to extend the life of current nuclear reactors and shut them down afterwards while solving the shortcomings of renewables?

Or will we invest in new nuclear technology to get new nuclear reactor types that are cheaper and safer?

Or will we maybe do both?

Opinion part starts here.

Considering the risks that climate change poses for the biosphere

and humanity any technology

that has a chance of contributing to a solution should be pursued that's just good risk management and strategy

if preventing rapid climate change as quickly as possible is our

goal it might be a good idea to see nuclear

and renewables not as opponents but as partners we know there's no time to waste

so we should keep all of our low emission players on the field as things are both nuclear

and renewables need innovation and investment but But if we don't know yet which technology will be ready how quickly, why not just invest in both and see what happens?

And on the topic of current capacities, if we take nuclear energy offline right now, then that missing capacity will be replaced,

at least partially, by fossil fuels.

Even if new nuclear power plants in the West are expensive, in the long run it may be cheaper to build them

as long as they prevent more fossil fuel capacity being added and paying for the consequences of rapid climate change.

So, do we need nuclear energy?

Well, it really depends how hard we choose to make things for ourselves.

And in a world that's already having a really hard time quitting fossil fuels, why should we make things harder than necessary?

📺 Mesmo canal

Palavra	Pronúncia	Significado
electricity substantivo	/ɪˌlɛkˈtɹɪsɪti/	eletricidade
fossil substantivo	/ˈfɑsl̩/	fóssil
renewable adjetivo	/ɹɪˈnu.ə.bl̩/	renovável
reactor substantivo	/ɹiˈæktɚ/	reator
emission substantivo	/ɪˈmɪʃ.ən/	emissão
transition substantivo	/tɹænˈzɪʃ.ən/	transição
rapid adjetivo	/ˈɹæp.ɪd/	rápido
innovation substantivo	/ˌɪn.əˈveɪ.ʃən/	inovação
solve verbo	/sɒlv/	resolver, solucionar
humanity substantivo	/hjuˈmænɪti/	humanidade
invest verbo	/ɪnˈvɛst/	investir
grid substantivo	/ɡɹɪd/	matriz, quadriculado
activist substantivo	/ˈæk.tɪ.vɪst/	ativista
namely advérbio	/ˈneɪmli/	leia-se, nomeadamente
civilization substantivo	/ˌsɪv.ɪ.laɪˈzeɪ.ʃən/	civilização

Palavra	Significado
give up verbo	render-se
take over verbo	tomar posse de, apoderar-se de

Estrutura	No vídeo
Voz passiva be + particípio passado — o foco está no que acontece, não em quem faz	were released · is still generated · have not been deployed
Present perfect have/has + particípio passado — uma ação passada que ainda importa agora	have been · has become · have not been deployed
Orações relativas who / which + oração — informação extra sobre uma pessoa ou coisa	those who are · going, which means

Prática de Shadowing: Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? - Aprenda a falar inglês com vídeo

Can Earth Run Out of Water?

Could Humans Evolve Flight?

Your Skeleton Is Electric

Your Brain Peaked at Birth

What If You Never Slept?

Would You Upload Your Mind?

3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Terrible! 2/3

Your Brain on Magic Mushrooms

What the Flu Does to Your Body

Why Ebola Keeps Coming Back

Is War Over? — A Paradox Explained

How ADHD Medication Works

The Most Complex Language in the World

How Stress Changes Your Brain

Let’s Steal a New Moon

What Happens AFTER Nuclear War?

3 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Awesome! 3/3

Can We Stop the Extinction?

YOU Own the Moon. And Mars. And Venus.

The True Cost of War

Climate Change Debate | Kriti Joshi | Opposition

The Speed of Light Isn't a Limit. It's a Converter

Why carbon? It's the backbone of life! - Suzanne Simard | UBC Earth Day

Chernobyl (2019) It's not 3 roentgen its 15000

Anti-matter & nuclear weapons: Why technology is always a double-edge sword | Don Lincoln

Climate Change: How does it really work? | ClimateScience #1

The Truth About Nuclear Energy

RE3 Unit 7A

Radioactive Waste - The Journey to Disposal

Coal, Oil & Gas Hyrdocarbons | Organic Chemistry | Chemistry | FuseSchool

Vocabulário e dicas de fala para esta lição

Vocabulário principal deste vídeo

Phrasal verbs que você vai ouvir

Gramática neste vídeo

Pronúncia para ficar de olho

Como praticar com este vídeo

O que é a Técnica de Shadowing?