hmm is nuclear energy green Sabine hasenfelder I wonder what she thinks hey there it's Elina your friend the nuclear physicist and today we're gonna be watching Sabine hosenfelder discussing the topic of if nuclear energy is green and we're gonna check how accurate the video is and if we find something that needs more discussion we're gonna discuss it in this video I'm Gonna Leave a link to the original video of Sabine in the description down below so you can guys check it out she has plenty of videos related to physics and without further Ado let's get into it a lot of people have asked me to do a video about nuclear power but that turned out to be really difficult you won't be surprised to hear that opinions about nuclear power are extremely polarized and every Source seems to have an agenda to push I like how she starts in the beginning of the video already discussing very let's say true and realistic facts about nuclear energy and nuclear power and how very many organizations people institutions have their own agenda to push when it comes to nuclear energy and how they portrayed and how they talk about it so I like that I like how she already puts it out there and says how a big let's say controversial problem this is to discuss will nuclear power help us save the environment and ourselves or is it too dangerous and too expensive do thorium reactors or the small modular ones change the Outlook is nuclear power green that's what we'll talk about today let's see I want to do this video a little differently so you know where I'm coming from I'll first tell you what I thought about nuclear power before I began working on this video then we look at the numbers and in the end I'll tell you if I changed my mind when the ACT I wonder what was her knowledge and nuclear power before she started working on this video then what she read meanwhile and then what opinion she ended up with so it's very intriguing let's say accident and Chernobyl happened I was nine years old I didn't know anything about nuclear power or radioactivity but I was really scared because I saw that the adults were scared we were just yeah I wouldn't be surprised especially since as I read Sabine is from Germany and depending on where you were from Germany there was a lot of territories in Germany that were actually very much affected by the Chernobyl because of the direction of the wind blowing towards the let's say Central Europe so I would assume that it would be a very big deal back then in the country as in any other country pretty much but specifically in Germany told you can't see it but it'll kill you later when I understood that this had been an unnecessary scare I was somewhat pissed off at adults and yeah tell me about it honorable and my teachers in particular yes Radioactive pollution is dangerous but in contrast to pretty much any other type of pollution it's easy to measure that doesn't make it go away but at least we know if it's there and we also know how to control it what measures you take in case it's increased so yeah that's a very accurate fact that you cannot see it it sounds kind of scary but you can very precisely measure it today I worry much more about pollution from the chemical industry which you won't find unless you know exactly what you're looking for and also have a complete chemistry lab in the basement and I worry about climate change so I've been in favor of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels since I was in high school girls are being team nuclear power I like it in 2008 I over optimistically predicted the return of nuclear power then of course in 2011 the Fukushima accident happened after which the German government decided to phase out nuclear power but continued digging up coal buying gas from Russia and deporting nuclear power from France thank you I totally relate with this move this is exactly my move with the decision of Germany to move forward with let's say such actions after the Fukushima extent which was yes of course a scary event an event that had to be investigated and had to let's say people had to work on and many changes happen in the nuclear industry after the Fukushima accident and because of that more safety is let's say implemented the safety has been actually strengthened and become even better since then but for Germany to be so afraid of a tsunami causing an accident or nuclear power plant is completely unrealistic since the geographical let's say uh disposition of the country and the climate itself would never have any sort of correlation with the Japanese weather and let's say catastrophic conditions that happen because of tsunami and Germany so the reason why they weren't so ahead to be against nuclear in itself is very puzzling for me and I would really like to let's say meet or discuss with the people who took the decision to move forward even though there was no decision in place on how would you replace all the amount of energy that the nuclear was producing so Renewables are clearly not enough so as I've been mentions very well and very much correctly they ended up buying gas and fossil fuels from other countries which not only worsen the economy of the country and made them more dependent on other countries and other energy sources that they don't own but it also forces the environment itself which was the first reason why you don't want to use fossil fuels and everybody goes to Renewables however in all fairness I haven't looked at the numbers for more than 20 years so that's what we'll do next and then we'll talk again later fossil fuels presently make up almost two-thirds of global electric power production hydropower makes up about 16 globally and all other Renewables together about 10 percent power from nuclear fission makes up the rest also about 10 percent nuclear power is green in the sense that it doesn't directly produce carbon dioxide I say directly because even though the clouds coming out of nuclear power plants are only water vapor power plants don't grow on trees yeah so the thing is that of course while the reactor is operating there is no let's say CO2 production but if you were to include the whole nuclear industry into the picture and the mining itself and all the other processes of fabricating the fuel Etc then CO2 is present in those processes and however there is an idea of if you have a power plant basically fueling and providing electricity and energy to a factory that builds nuclear power then all of this is reduced and you have this kind of nice chain let's say uh sources of CO2 free energy production but as it is of now yes of course it should include the CO2 in the steps that it exists and when we say that nuclear power is CO2 free we mostly and primarily speak about the operation of the reactor itself and nothing much around it so when someone discuss about this nuclear energy as a whole then CO2 has to be included they have to be built from something by someone and the materials that transport and the construction itself have a carbon footprint yes but then so does pretty much everything else yes even breathing has a carbon footprint so one really has to look at those numbers in comparison a good comparison comes from the 2014 ipcc report this table summarizes several dozens of studies with a minimum maximum and a median value all the following numbers are in grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour and they are average values for the entire life cycle of those Technologies so including the production for coal the median that the ipcc quotes is 820 gas is a bit lower with 490 solar is a factor 10 lower than gas with about 40. wind is even better than solar with a median of about 11 and the median for nuclear is 12 grams per kilowatt hour so comparable to that of wind but and lower on the scale of all the renewable energy sources basically there is a huge gap to the maximum value which According to some sources is as high as 110 so both twice as high as solar an estimate that's a little bit higher than even the highest value the ipcc quotes comes from the world information service on energy wise which is based in the Netherlands they calculated that nuclear power plants produce 117 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour it's not entirely irrelevant to mention that the mission of wise is to fight nuclear according to their own website that so basically this is one of the ways to see how numbers can be let's say not um represented in a wrong way because the number itself is not wrong but the picture that for example Sabine showed the table is a much more clear understanding of the low the medium and the highest value that the energy source can have and then you can clearly compare nuclear with the rest of the renewable energies and not only does it lie in the category of renewable energies in terms of CO2 footprint but it's also on the lower end but then of course in some cases there might be higher uh let's say footprint for CO2 emissions so is for Renewables which no one really discusses or brings about but in this case wise brought up the number that is the highest ever measured instead of saying that this is actually the maximum the the nuclear can produce but is actually have been recorded and has been measured that lower values are also possible within this range so it is a little bit one-sided doesn't make the number wrong but they clearly have an agenda and may not be the most reliable source but these estimates differ not so much because someone is stupid or lying at least not always but because there is some uncertainty in these numbers that affects the outcome that's things like the quality of uranium resources how far they need to be transported different methods of mining or fuel production and their technological progress and so on in the scientific literature the value that is typically used is somewhat higher than the ipcc medium about 60 to 70 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour and the numbers for Renewables should also be taken with a grain of salt because they need to come with energy storage which will also have a carbon footprint precisely and also there is no solution for it at the moment right because when we produce energy from solar or wind or Hydro in order to store it you need either some other kind of technology that doesn't exist at the moment or you need very big batteries and the technology for these batteries is not yet developed so but we don't know when it's going to be developed and if it's going to be developed and how vocabulary footprint of that will look like so as I said before it is important to take either the whole picture into account for all the energy sources at once or while they are let's say working in production and producing energy and electricity and you compare them in this moment but it's a little bit let's say unfair and wrong to basically compare an energy source in its Hall from resource transportation to production to fabrication to decommissioning to everything with energy source for it just being let's say in production currently producing electricity I think the message we can take away here is that either way you look at it the carbon footprint of nuclear power is dramatically lower than that of fossil fuels and roughly comparable to some Renewables exact numbers are hard to come by so that's one thing nuclear has going in its favor it has a small carbon footprint another Advantage is that compared to wind and solar it doesn't require much space nuclear power is therefore also Green in the sense that it doesn't get in the way of forests or agriculture and yet another Advantage is that it generates power on demand and not just when the wind blows or The Sun Shines let us then so we have discussed the space and the area basically that the nuclear power plant needs to be built and the same amount of for energy if it was to be produced by Renewables how much area would they occupy in a previous video and there the numbers were much higher for the let's say area that the Renewables would need to produce the same amount of electricity that the nuclear power plant would so I agree with a little space occupied and that is a very good advantage of nuclear of course nuclear can produce energy on demand is not dependent on weather or any such let's say things that will limit it however it is important to mention that the best way that renewable is operating and the best way that you don't lose money the money that you sow let's say you put so much money into building a nuclear power plant in the best way for you to utilize it and not use it is if your reactor is running at 100 capacity all the time so for that to do that sometimes this is not necessary if you have an overload of energy in your system or the electricity you need to lower it down then in that case the efficiency of your reactor will go down and you will not produce as much as you could produce meaning that you lose money when you do that and this is where a good let's say point of small modular reactors comes by then you can have modules which you can much more easily regulate and they're more flexible in terms of how much energy you need at the moment instead of one big reactor of certain gigawatts that would constantly produce such a large amount of energy either you need it or not and of course we can discuss about other things to do with the energy that reactors are producing such as distract heating or hydrogen production uh or something like that that would not just lead to electricity production but would also be utilized for something else in case such higher electricity demand is not necessary talk about what is maybe the biggest disadvantage of nuclear power let me guess otherwise it's not renewable oh the vast majority of nuclear power plants which are currently in operation work with uranium to 35. at the moment we use about 60 000 tons per year the word resources are estimated to be about 8 million tons this means if we were to increase nuclear power production by a factor of 10 then within 15 to 20 years uranium mining would become too expensive to make economic sense this was pretty much the conclusion of a paper that was published a few months ago by a group of researchers from Austria they estimate that optimistically nuclear power from uranium-235 would save about two percent of global carbon dioxide emissions by 2040. that's not nothing but it isn't going to fix climate change there just isn't enough Uranium on this planet I mean I'm not sure if Sabine is going to elaborate on that but I cannot not comment on this moment because uh of course based on the recent video we made about Cantu reactors and we do know that there's a energy there's reactor types that basically utilize energy from the fission that comes off the uranium-238 and that is the uranium that is the most abundant on earth and the numbers that are being gave I would assume are for uranium-235 which is the one that we use for light water reactors mostly in Europe however if we were to run out of uranium-235 then in that case I don't see why when we wouldn't push forward for technologies that already pretty much established and mature in order to use the very big abundance of uranium-238 that exists on the planet let alone the fact of developing Generation 4 reactors that would actually be able to utilize the spend nuclear fuel that we have plenty all around the world so even though I would agree I wouldn't really put a stamp of Renewables in the term of nuclear energy at the same time I do have to say that if we treat it smartly and use the technology to our advantage while we proceed then in that case the resources and the let's say the resources of uranium would last for much much longer than what the article suggests second big problem with nuclear power is that it's expensive a medium-sized nuclear power plant currently costs about 5 to 10 billion US Dollars though large ones can cost up to 20 billion have a look at this figure from the word nuclear energy status report 2021 it shows What's called the levelized cost of energy in U.S dollar per megawatt hour that's basically how much it costs to produce power over the entire lifetime of some technology so not just the running cost but including the production as you can see nuclear is the most expensive it's even more expensive than coal and at the moment roughly five times more expensive than solar or wind if the current Trend continues the Gap is going to get even wider on top of this comes that insurance for nuclear power plants is mandatory I'm Curative they're plot before was taking into account that the lifespan of a nuclear power plant is pretty much doubled than that of renewable energies or if it was counting up until let's say the 20 30 or 15 years limit that for example solar panels have the premium is high and those expenses from the plant owners go on top of the electricity price so at the moment nuclear power just doesn't make a lot of economic sense of course this may change with new technologies but before we get to those we have to talk about the biggest problem that nuclear power has people are afraid of it that's why we're here your friendly Nuclear Physics is here to give you all the information for you to make your own informed decisions if you do like nuclear power or not if you want to have it in your backyard or not Islands in nuclear power plants are a nightmare because radioactive contamination can make regions uninhabitable for decades and tragic accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima have arguably been bad publicity however the data say that nuclear power has historically been much safer than fossil fuels it's just that the death toll from fossil fuels is less visible in 2013 researchers from the NASA Goddard Institute for space studies and Columbia University calculated the fatalities caused by coal gas and nuclear and summarize their findings in units of deaths per terawatt hour they found that coal kills more than 100 times more people than nuclear power the vast majority by air pollution they also calculate that since the world began using nuclear power instead of coal and gas nuclear power has prevented more than 1.8 million deaths so these are very interesting numbers and I do really appreciate that there is people out there who actually show them and discuss about them even though they are not necessarily nuclear physicists or nuclear engineers and you can tell that the opinion of Sabine is quite objective on the matter so I really appreciate that and I have seen these tables before but you would rarely find them just publicly and easily accessible and is that really pretty much the first thing you're going to find when you start googling about nuclear energy nuclear power so it requires some digging but this is actually the case that if you correlate of course fossil fuel and coal plants to the air pollution and Odessa this causes then this value is much higher than that's caused by nuclear that doesn't mean that we should basically consider that oh well then nuclear accents are just a minor thing it doesn't matter we shouldn't anyway no this is not the case of course we should always strive to make the energy production safer and more reliable and better than the previous ones and eliminate the accidents or minimize them to the least possible however it's good kind of estimate to understand a little bit the values and the priorities that we have and where do we put all of our effort instead of let's say maybe overlooking something that we need to be putting more more effort and attention to another study in 2016 found a death rate for nuclear that was even lower about a factor 5 less the authors of this paper also compared the risk of nuclear to hydro and wind and found that these Renewables actually have a slightly higher death rate though in terms of economic damage nuclear is far worse I'm guessing now you all want to know just how exactly people die from Renewables this exactly was going to be my next question well since you asked for wind it's stuff like a bus collided with a truck transporting a turbine Tower or an aircraft crashed into a wind turbine or workers falling off the platform of an offshore wind farm for solar its accidents in manufacturing sites electric shocks from improper wiring or forts from roofs the number for hydropower is dominated by a single accident when a dam broke in China in 1975. the water flooded several Villages and killed more than 170 000 people the Chernobyl
accident in comparison killed less than 40 people directly the World Health Organization estimates long-term deaths from cancer as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident to be four thousand to nine thousand there is a group of researchers which claims it's at least a factor 10 higher but this claim has remained highly controversial the number of direct fatalities from the Fukushima accident is zero one worker died seven years later from lung cancer almost certainly a consequence of radiation exposure about 500 died from the evacuation mostly elderly and ill people whose care was interrupted and this number is unlikely to change much in the long run according to the who the radiation exposure of the Fukushima accident was low except for the direct vicinity of the power plant which was evacuated they do not expect the cancer risk for the general population to significantly rise the tsunami which caused the accident to begin with killed considerably more people at least fifteen thousand I don't want to trivialize accidents in the nuclear industry of course they are tragic yes but there is no doubt that they pale in comparison to fossil fuels which cause pollution but according to some estimates kills as much as a million people per year also fun fact coal contains traces of radioactive minerals that are released when you burn it indeed radioactivity levels are typically higher near coal plants than near nuclear power plants again this is actually a very interesting point and uh it is true it is a fact that when burning coal you actually produce radioactivity from the all the different particles and elements that exist in the let's say burning process that they actually end up to release more radiation than you would actually do with from a nuclear power plant because everything is so controlled in the nuclear power plant and everything is filtered everything is let's say monitored and cleaned and you would expect their radiation levels to be higher but they're actually not they're much lower and in the cold power plant that you wouldn't even think about radiation there the levels are much higher even from a nuclear power plant and then again no one discusses about this there is no let's say um discussion attention drawn into it and mostly because people don't know about it because people who do know about it probably make sure that other people don't find out see there are some differences in the details but pretty much everyone who has ever seriously looked at the numbers agrees that nuclear power is one of the safest power sources we know of okay so we have seen that the biggest two disadvantages of nuclear power are that it's not renewable and that it's expensive but this is for the conventional nuclear power plants that use uranium 235 which is only 0.7 percent of all uranium we find yes another option is to use fast breeder reactors which work with the other 99.9 of uranium on Earth that's the isotope uranium-238 a fast breeder transmutes uranium-238 to plutonium-239 which can then be used as rectofuel like uranium-235 and this process continues running with the neutrons that are produced in the reaction itself so the reactor breeds its own Fuel and so this is pretty much like the thorium reactor concept that we discussed in the thorium video that I did it is the same thing but here is a so-called uranium plutonium cycle whereas in a thorium is called thorium uranium cycle because here you begin from thorium sorry here you begin from uranium going to protonium there you begin from thorium going to uranium 233 and that's your fuel that you're actually visioning the name fast breeders are not new they have been used here and there since the 1940s but they turned out to be expensive unreliable and troublesome the major problems are that they are cooled with sodium which is very reactive and they also can't be shut down as quickly as the conventional nuclear power plants to make a long story short they didn't catch on and I don't think they ever will but technology in the nuclear industry has much advanced in the past decades the most important Innovations are molten sword reactors thorium reactors and small modular reactors molten salt reactors and all of them together and mold and sold thorium small modular reactor work by mixing the fuel into some type of molten salt the big benefit of doing this is that it's much safer that's partly because molten soil directors operate at lower pressure but mostly because the reaction has a negative temperature coefficient that's a complicated way of saying that the energy production slows down when the reactor overheats so you don't get a runaway effect molten saw directors have their own problems though the biggest one is that the molten salt fuel is highly corrosive and quickly degrades the material meant to contain it how much of a problem this is in practice is currently unclear molten Soldier actors can be run with a number of different fields one of them is a thorium thorium is about four times more abundant in the crust of Earth than uranium and it's easier to mine however fewer resources are known so there's somewhat High abundance isn't going to make a big difference in the short run the real Advantage is that these reactors can use essentially the entire thorium not just a small fraction of it as is the case with the normal uranium reactors this means thorium reactors produce more energy from the same amount of fuel and as a consequence thorium could last for thousands of years so similarly basically to what let's say candle reactors are doing with ethereum 238 right so there you could actually utilize all of your fuel and not just a small percentage of the fuel that we enriched what will be the uranium-235 for the light water reactors similarly for the thorium constant there you could utilize all of the fuel every gram of the fuel you put inside the reactor so of course that will increase their time that you can use the fuel and the energy that it can produce to thousands of years film is also a waste product of the rare earth mining industry so trying to put it to use is a good idea however the problem is still that the technology is expensive there is currently only one molten sword thorium reactor in operation and that's in China it started operating in September 2021. it's just a test facility that will generate only two megawatt but if they are happy with
the test the Chinese have plans for a bigger Reactor with 373 megawatt for the next decade though that is still fairly small for power plant yeah it'll be very interesting to see what comes out of this and the biggest hope of the nuclear industry is currently small modular reactors the idea is that instead of building big and expensive power plants you build reactors that are small enough to be transported Mass producing them in a factory could bring down the cost dramatically a conventional plant generates typically a few gigawatts in electric energy the small modular reactors are comparable in size to a small house and have an energy output of some tenths of megawatt for comparison that's about 10 times as much as a wind turbine on a good day that they are modular means they are designed to work together so one can build up power plants gradually to the desired capacity several projects for small modular reactors are at an advanced stage in the USA Russia China Canada the UK and South Korea most of the current Pro I would add more countries into this about the designs and projects that are currently in let's say walking stage for small model reactors however yeah I do also completely agree with Sabine in this part that SMR seems to be the future as of now in the nuclear industry the fact that they are going to be Factory produced and transported to the areas that they meet them would reduce the cost very much would reduce the time or that they will need to be built hence reduce the cost again and it will also give the possibility to countries that don't have the technology to build their own nuclear power plants to just purchase one and it will be directly transported to the area that is in need and it's going to be installed and used there yes the fact that they are modular as we discussed in the video that we made as well is that it gives much more flexibility as we said before to basically say Which models you want to operate or models that you don't want to be working at the moment or maybe working for heating or hard reproduction or something else so it gives much more flexibility in the power plant altogether let's use uranium as fuel partly and the molten salt design but the big question is will the economics work out in the end this is not all clear because making the reactor smaller may make them cheaper to manufacture but they'll also produce less energy during their lifetime certainly at this early stage small modular reactors aren't any cheaper than the big ones a cautious example comes from the American company new skin they sit in Utah and have been in business since 2007. they were planning to build 12 small reactors with 60 megawatts by 2027 except for being small they are basically conventional reactors that work with enriched uranium each of those reactors is a big cylinder about three meters in diameter and 20 feet tall the original cost estimate estimate was about 4.2 billion 3 meters in diameter and 20 feet tall that is a European metric system and the American height which is very confusing for me to understand the difference but yeah I kind of understand the the size of it however last year they announced they had to revise their estimate to 6.2 billion dollars and said they'd need three years longer in terms of cost per energy that's even more expensive than conventional nuclear power plants the project is subsidized by the department of energy with 1.4 billion but still several funders backed out after the announcement that the cost had significantly increased okay so that concludes my rundown of the numbers let's see what we've learned what speaks in favor of nuclear energy is that it's climate friendly has a small land use and creates power on demand what speaks against it is that it's expensive and ultimately not renewable the disadvantages could be alleviated with new technologies but it's unclear whether that will work and even if it works it almost certainly won't have a significant impact on climate change in the next 20 years it also speaks against nuclear power that people are afraid of it even if these fears are not rational that doesn't mean they don't exist if someone isn't comfortable near a nuclear power plant that affects their quality of life and that can't just be dismissed of course that cannot be dismissed if people and the public is afraid of nuclear and they don't want it to be built in their country or even near them and that is why public acceptance is such a big issue that is discussed in the nuclear and sadly it's only discussed but not much has been taken let's say as an action to actually approach people and talk about nuclear and give educated simple information that the public understands comprehends and can discuss on ask questions get answers about their issues and their problems and this is something that in my opinion is one of the most important disadvantages of nuclear energy and nuclear power altogether there are two points I didn't discuss which you may have expected me to mention wait one is nuclear proliferation and the risk post by nuclear power plants during war times this is certainly an important factor but it's more political than scientific and that would be an entirely different discussion the other point I didn't mention is nuclear waste that's because I think it's a red herring which some activist groups are using in the attempt to scare people okay Sabine gets my friendly nuclear physicist after this sentence I have heard everything I needed to make my conclusion I 100 recommend her videos I really much I cannot agree enough with this sentence of I understand the let's say concern of people that they might have about nuclear waste if they have no knowledge about how the nuclear waste is handled but all these Big Fuzz and showing it and talking about it as if it is the biggest problem that nuclear industry has to offer it is an over exaggerated let's say way of looking at the situation in my opinion for what I'm concerned burying the stuff in a safe place solves the problem just fine it's right that there aren't any final disposal sites at the moment but Finland is expected to open more next year and several other countries will follow and no provided adequate safety standards I wouldn't have a problem with the nuclear waste deposit in my vicinity so what did I learn from this I learned that nuclear power has become economically even more unappealing than it already was 20 years ago and it's not clear this will ever change personally I would say that this development can be left to the market I'm not in favor of Regulation that makes it even more difficult for us to reduce carbon emissions to me this just seems insane in all fairness it looks like nuclear won't help much but then again every little bit helps and also it will not help much in the next 20 years because its regulations were to change and let's say power plants started to be built tomorrow it will still take quite some years for them to be built to get into operation and for them to produce electricity replace it with their current fossil fuel sources and to reduce some of the carbon emissions that that's why Sabine is basically saying that it will not make much of a difference in the next 20 years even though it will make difference in the next 40 50 and 60 years of the operation of the lifetime of the reactor itself so yes it might not be the short-term goal that the European Union and the world for that matter is targeting at but it is a long picture that we are all targeting at for the sake of the planet and the climate having said that I think part of the reason the topic is so controversial is that what you think is the best strategy depends on local conditions there is no globally right decision if your country has abundant solar and wind power it might not make much sense to invest in nuclear though you might want to keep in mind that climate change can affect wind and precipitation patterns in the long run if your country is at a high risk of earthquakes then maybe nuclear power just poses too high a risk if on the other hand Renewables are unreliable in your region of the world and you don't have a lot of space and basically never see earthquakes nuclear power might make a lot of sense in the end I am afraid exactly so as we discussed in many videos and generally the opinions is that usually people tend to have a either or topic and discussion about nuclear or Renewables however this is much far and away from the actual discussion and conversation that we should be having since the only solution and way I see and many other scientists see this going forward is if we collaborate combine them together and utilize every energy source where it makes sense in every country that has the resources and has the capacity and capability and basically choose the best source for the best location and not just go with one source for the whole world or with the other one for the whole world because this is not the way to go forward okay so this was a very educational video as a matter of fact this is the first time I'm watching one of sabine's videos and uh I'm very much impressed I really like this video I already said several times that I recommend the video and the channel itself you can go ahead and check it out I will leave a link to it in the description down below uh there was a lot of things that we already had discussed in different videos throughout the topics that I have discussed in my channel some new things that we discussed together with Sabine teams and let me know if you like this reaction and if you have been watching Sabine before and if you would like me to react to some other videos of hers so leave a suggestion in the comments down below don't forget to like this video subscribe to the channel if you don't forget to like this video subscribe to the channel if you haven't subscribed already thanks for watching it's been Elina your friendly nuclear physicist and until next time see you soon
2023-02-28