Nuclear power: the clean, green energy dream?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2024
- One of the keys to a smooth transition to a green economy is nuclear power. It's a proven alternative to fossil fuels-but the most important barriers to its adoption may not be what you think.
00:00 - The role of nuclear power
00:48 - The advantages of nuclear energy
01:41 - The problem with nuclear power
02:51 - Nuclear waste
03:58 - Storage options for nuclear waste
Read more about nuclear power’s newest appeal: econ.st/3SyNAP4
Sign up to The Economist’s daily newsletter: econ.st/3QAawvI
Find our most recent coverage on nuclear power: econ.st/3vUKGKW
Why are France’s nuclear plants are going down for repairs?: econ.st/3dheH10
Why Germans are still jittery about nuclear power: econ.st/3QdN2wH
Europe’s largest nuclear plant shuts down after a Russian attack: econ.st/3pawU32
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
It's so strange that there's a broad consensus around how nuclear power would solve all our problems yet there's virtually zero effort to build new plants.
The choice will be made for us before the end of the decade as fossil fuels become more and more expensive due to their being no easy to get at stuff left, and wind and solar prove ineffective at massive scale. The storage revolution is not coming. The laws of thermodynamics prevent it without massive overbuild that we just do not have the materials/minerals for. Once this culminates in an energy crisis worse than the one we are seeing today, we should see nuclear reactors being build in 2-3 years, maybe less. Or, society collapses before we get there, one or the other
They are expensive to build and uninsurable, that's why
@@stevefromsaskatoon830 All clean energy is expensive to build on a large scale. And I'm not sure where you got 'uninsurable' from, it's false.
@@howardmoon1234 Why aren't Earthlings involved in fixing our Environment? We cannot survive without Water or Air.
@@oyuyuy find an insurance company that will insure a nuclear power plant , what insurance company will take that risk ? None
The olkiluoto nuclear plant has been producing around 10% of the energy required in Finland since March. It was a long project but it is now finished. Or should I say Finnished lol.
And the bringing online of the new reactor at Olkiluoto dropped the regional cost of electricity from 70 Euro per megawatt-hour to 60 Euro per megawatt-hour.
@@gregorymalchuk272 : true!
@@gregorymalchuk272 I assume there is some overproduction in the region? How much did it cost to build those reactors, btw?
@@OlexiPasyuk Overproduction? There is an energy shortage all over Europe right now.
@@OlexiPasyuk google anything you want to know
I think this video actually UNDERSELLS the case for fission. I'd like to add the following points:
1) Alot of the cost and uncertainty that has killed nuclear to date is about the politics of it more than the economics or safety. This drives away capital and bloats the costs of construction because in order to build a plant you need years of bureaucratic approvals and then often DECADES of litigation...all spending oodles of money until eventually the developer just gives up. This is LITERALLY the strategy espoused by some anti-nuclear groups. To simply raise the costs of construction to the point where no one bothers anymore. And in the US, it's worked for the most part.
2) Fission is not just safer than fossil fuels, it's safer than ANY power source on a per kWh basis according to WHO data.
3) You don't even NEED the Finnish super-pit or Yucca facility (the US proposed equivalent), this stuff takes up so little space that just sealing it in dry casks and storing on site is a perfectly viable approach. But even better, with a reprocessing step, you can turn it BACK into usable fuel. Current generation reactors only consume a fraction of the available fuel. More modern designs can reuse that fuel and get 99% of the unused power out of it, leaving a waste that is smaller, but also less toxic and without the REALLY long-lasting isotopes that take tens of thousands of years to break down. This process is not economical yet, but storing in casks until it is economically viable is a perfectly valid choice.
4) New reactor designs are LITERALLY IMMUNE to the two main vulnerabilities current gen reactors are vulnerable to. They're physically impossible with passive safety that doesn't require active power. Thus 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima would be literally impossible in them. Current gen reactors are basically the same design we came up with in the 50s when the thought process was 'how can we get energy out of this thing', and then safety was an afterthought. New designs all have safety baked into the design.
5) People overestimate how radioactive and dangerous these plants are. You get more radiation while travelling in an airplane than you would from hugging a nuclear power plant all day. The radioactive venting at 3-Mile island...which was a human error and did not need to happen...had no measurable impact on the health of the community despite intensive studying of the population by various NGOs.
6) Chernobyl was a BAD reactor design. It lacked even BASIC safety features like a containment structure. No western reactor has every been that badly designed.
People are underestimating the massive supply chain squeeze coming if we go all-in on wind and solar. Nuclear fission and geothermal in particular are reliable base-load power sources that can produce energy every bit as environmentally friendly (if not more so) as W&S, and are far more likely to be scalable because of their reliability. I'm not saying we shouldn't ALSO do W&S, but let's not pull all of our eggs in one basket. Let's to ALL of the things and let market and experience dictate which we do more of.
The radiated material around the core also have to be stored regardless.
We can not even store nuclear hospital waste.
and now some reality.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
1) no, it's mainly incompetence, mismanagement and underestimating the actual work by the contractors or just outright scams 2) see 3. 3) some terrorists/russia can blow your coffins and cooling pools of 20 years worth of spent fuel that you don't want radiating your back yard 5) Or maybe you do want it radiating your back yard since you don't seem to care what happens to the waste
@@finlanderxx I worked in the nuclear industry for 40+ years. I was a Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator at 5 different nuclear facilities and consider myself to be pro-nuclear but a realist.
I can only relay what I have been told by people that actually worked or are working at these failed projects: poor management, stolen equipment, fraud, kickbacks, greed, sabotage to keep the project going, lost documentation, etc. All project related. Read the facts below and tell me why they are not firing people or putting people in jail.
Below is the Vogtle Project Management's answer for the latest delays:
Southern Co. yesterday announced another delay for its long-troubled nuclear construction project in Georgia, edging its costs closer to the $30 billion mark.
The setback could now push the startup date for Plant Vogtle’s first reactor until early 2023 and move the date for the second one to later that year.
Plant Vogtle’s latest move highlights the nuclear industry’s chief troubles with building large, baseload reactors: safety and cost. To be clear, Southern executives have blamed this new hiccup on paperwork, saying that workers were gathering it to send to federal safety regulators and noticed critical inspection records were missing or incomplete. The pile of missing or incomplete documents added up to a delay of three to six months, Southern said. That additional time is costing $920 million.
“We’re a little frustrated with the latest developments,” Southern Co. CEO Tom Fanning said yesterday in an interview. “[The first unit] is on the doorstep of loading fuel and going into service.”
But workers realized “tens of thousands” of critical documents were missing, leading to a three-month backlog, Fanning said. Officials have cut that time down by 30 percent, he added.
“We’re fixing that part of the ‘paper’ process,” he told E&E News.
I lost my homework did not fly with any teacher I had but apparently it works for the CEO of a $30+ billion dollar project....sad!
@@clarkkent9080
You can add the European plants to the list and the Korea corruption.
Seems to me the actual biggest issue facing nuclear is (sadly) political and lack of education.
Yucca mountain is one example of that. Pretty sad
Lack of education will be a problem for every things in the society.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Spot on, Dan!
Everyone is afraid of another Chernobyl when modern nuclear reactors have been designed so that there is a 0% chance of that happening. The reactor would be completely safe even in the event of total meltdown. Sadly very few people know this.
Short answer yes. Long answer, absolutely yes
Btw, what was the question? "What is the future for nuclear?"
With regard to nuclear waste, there are lots of other chemicals that are extremely toxic, and permanently toxic, that are used in industrial processes. Whether nuclear waste decays is irrelevant, just treat it like any other toxic waste. It is all about risk management and getting rid of the emotion.
So, how do you suppose to keep all that waste safe for hundreds or even thousands of years, and who is going to pay for it?
@@340wbymag Don't keep waste here on earth, rockets them towards nearest black hole. Travel alone will take thousands of years anyway. Whole planet will pay for by ...credit cards😁
@@noone5846 All told, the nuclear reactors in the U.S. produce more than 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste a year, according to the DoE. How many rocket launches per year to take care of all of that?
In 2022, we have a Planet being systematically destroyed by greedy Humans. Maybe we should talk about how to clean up our mess before adding more?
as many as it takes. Future of this planet can't be measure by rockets launchers. After all what is your life worth? $100000? Could be more, I'm shore about it.😁
Nuclear power has the most downsides of any method of energy generation. That is, of course, until you consider the downsides of all the other methods
Really?
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
lol, exactly lol.
Clever lol
People always feared about Chernobyl but forget about Fukushima 😂
@@itsvan5791 Do you know how many people were injured by radioactive materials due to the Fukushima accident?
The Rich stay Richby spending like the poor and investing without stopping then the poor stay poor by spending like the Rich yet not investing like the Rich
This must be an investment with Mr John Anderson
Wow, I'm just shocked you mentioned Expert John Anderson thought am the only one trading with him
Wow was so surprised how he recovered my huge losses
I invested in both stock and Crypto but I'm doing much better on Crypto with the favourable market price
Germany needs to restart the 5,500 megawatts of reliable nuclear electricity which they shuttered for purely political reasons on the last day of 2021.
The question is whether they _can._ They certainly should; but all of this stuff takes planning and long lead times - and all kinds of supporting infrastructure, fuel and personnel may be now missing.
Keep in mind, heatwave and droughts prevent sufficient water supply from river for the nuclear power plants to work.
I guess beside reduced consumption and individual renewable with local power storage the future looks pretty grim with the traditional approach.
Nuclear power: the clean, green energy dream? The only way any of it will work!
@@sdngy Then build cooling towers. What you describe is a problem of all thermal power stations without cooling towers. It's not inherent to nuclear energy.
@@gregorymalchuk272 I’m talking about the current existing infrastructure that exists in Europe. So there is no current east way out to the immediate challenge brought by energy consumption drought and water shortage.
Water has a deeper impact on the agriculture wildlife, as well beyond just energy supply. In Europe this summer things look pretty dire.
This classifies as an insufficient discussion. The issue is far more complex and doesn't deserve to be glanced over like this.
It was so subjective. Nothing about drought, nuclears shutting down in lack of cooling water, natural disasters, easy target in case of war... all these happened or happening and are ignored.
@@olix1959 Nuclear power plants can be cooled with treated sewage (like Palo Verde) or ocean water, we're not running out of either any time soon. The waste heat from a nuclear power plant can also be used to desalinate water.
@@olix1959 developmemt of nuclear weapons
@@olix1959 there's no lack of ocean water
@@olix1959 Fukushima prove you wrong, even when it's compared with solar panel & geothermal energy nuclear are safer for the environment.
Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity.
Finland buries waste deep (Sweden also), but we use so very little of the energy available in the fuel it's painful to forever seal it from future use.
It can be recycled I think? If it can it should be.
@@SomeKidFromBritain Exactly. It has sometimes been recycled a little, but it was then critisized for making 'more radioactive stuff' (actually very low-level), and for not so much more was made usable. But future use is an quite another and better case, as actually only a few % of the Uranium is used, and new reactor models could make >10× more energy from the 'waste', than was at first made from it. SO, that means you won't have to dig the big mine hole, not refine it, not transport it much - and get still get >10× the energy. Now THAT is carbon neutral if anything.
No doubt it will become a valuable commodity in urban mining in the not to distant future. 😊🌻
Yeah i agree that the “vault” approach is better than permanent burial so that it can be retrieved for reprocessing or even “burning up” in novel nuclear reactors. It is a shame to make any future changes in the plan impossible!
I still don't quite understand why we just don't dump these concrete containers in the sea somewhere. I mean, hats off to Finland, but why are we even making it as difficult as that?
Nuclear is the cleanest safest most efficient form of energy
But not cheapest by a long shot.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@Genesis19-26 Nuclear has its problems. But the dominant alternative, fossil fuels, have well known and terrible consequences. The longer nuclear is stymied the longer fossil fuels has to build up still worse consequences.
@@CarFreeSegnitz Agreed here as well. I'm pro nuclear, but I can imagine a side of the ethical argument where people are both anti fossil and anti nuclear. The one side that I have trouble understanding is pro fossil and only pro fossil
until russia starts firing missles at it
@@Lildizzle420 even then. the worst that can happen is spreading dust that raises the radiation level. itll be like the hole in the ozone layer, or like when the nuclear bombs were being tested. those events raised the global radiation level to a point where it to this day continues to interfere with complex science and sensitive technology.
Is nuclear power the fuel of the future?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: definitely.
real answer, you apparently don't research anything.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
not going to happen, look at ukraine, nobody is going to spread nuclear all over Africa and Asia
Not exactly. Is it safe, reliable, carbon free and operate with cheap fuel? Absolutely. Is it easy to build? No. Building a nuclear power plant can take decades and cost billions. Let's not forget about the fact that these projects often get delayed and are overbudget.
@@gyurhanaziz7676 But why? The physics behind it is well understood and straightforward. Why does it take "decades"? Maybe if all these Fusion nuts over the last 50 years focused on regular nuclear we would have been carbon free already.
@@gyurhanaziz7676 They don't all take that long. All of them didn't cost billions too. As the video described, it's a bit of a lost art.
Okay quoting coal ash as the same of nuclear power waste is absolutely dishonest.
Its all smoke and mirrors.
you are right, coal ash is far worse.
In therme of radiation, if you consider the g’high and mid activity waste yeah. This is dishonest.
But right now the ash from coal are polluting the environment in far larger extent that the few nuclear waste that are safely stored.
It depends on the origin of the coal and it's rank or carbon content. Some coals are quite "clean", others have heavy metals in them and others do have uranium in them in small amounts. The average is something like 2.4 micrograms per kilogram in low rank or brown coals.
100% true. You couldn't be more right. Coal Ash is by far much worse. Nuclear waste is 100% contained. 0 makes it into our atmosphere. The same can't be said about coal Ash.
If China, France, India etc can build and build and run nuclear power plants and we can't that's a matter of national security. Nuclear waste can be re-used.
You mean like this?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
No mention of costs, electricity generated by nuclear power is two to three times as expensive as solar and wind.
How does it compare with gas and coal?
@@Marvin-dg8vj Similar cost to nuclear, at least before the Ukraine war. solar and wind are by far the cheapest options.
@@glynnwright1699 they are not.
Dieter Helm who is the main UK expert puts wind and solar at 6 times cost of gas and coal. .So nuclear is totally uneconomical
@@Marvin-dg8vj 6th Carbon Budget, Sector Summary Electricity Generation, pages 29 and 46. Even before Putin lost his mind renewables were the cheapest way to generate electricity. After Ukraine it is a complete 'no brainer'.
@@glynnwright1699 so if renewables are so cheap why is our gas and electricity staggeringly expensive?
We need to do something else because this wind and solar dream has turned into a nightmare
Here is a real, not made-up, nightmare
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Capital costs and regulations are what's holding up construction. Each PWR is custom built on site and must rely on a nearby water source for cooling. MSR's in contrast, don't need a water source and are simpler and far safer in design and can be factory built. Moltex is one example of Molten Salt Reactor that will be coming on line within the next ten years or so. Wish you'd mentioned that.
Fantasy. There are some promising startups working on new nuclear power designs, but none of them have been able to build anything that works in the field and is scalable today. None. A big breakthrough would be fantastic for the world, but until then it's just fantasy.
There's companies that have ways to use waste of nuclear power plants
I believe at some point it's no longe rworth reusing. Thus the burying in long-term storage facilities
like how?
like who?
@@clarkkent9080 Don't keep waste here on earth, rockets them towards nearest black hole. Travel alone will take thousands of years anyway. Whole planet will pay for by ...credit cards😁
@@noone5846 The U.S. alone has 970 million pounds of highly radioactive waste from defense production of nuclear weapons and the commercial power industry has 450 million pounds of spent fuel.
Sending 1 pound out of earth orbit cost 1.5 million. You do the math and tell me your credit card limit.
And rockets NEVER explode on launch.
what a wacked out idea
@@clarkkent9080 so, what is life of humans, animals, plants worth? 10 trillions? maybe more. Not at once send all of them, portions and packs. Do the mats=your health+life quality and you/our future after we all died making space for next gen. PRICELESS!!!😁
ps; useless space stations/spying stations are so expansive, yo do the math, I'm waiting...🙂
We've had the solution to our energy needs since the 1960's, but we've just refused to use it.
We've also had SMR's before we've had commercial NPPS (submarine reactors) and yet the naysayers say it's never been done.
This is today's reality. Are we refusing to try? Are we saying no more?
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Why not? Commercial firms should jump at the chance
@@Marvin-dg8vj Rolls Royce Holdings plc is investing heavily in SMRs.
Spot on interview
Now that we let government spending grow uncontrollable, it's no surprise the cost to build the ultimate green power plant is enormous. I'm sure every single politicians wants a piece of that.
I don't understand what you're texting, here.
The economy is hardly mentioned by the Economist.
Further discussion of cost structure and the demand and price of electricity would be great.
How about this?
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080
Thanks I didn’t know about the US problems but in Europe it seems equally bad with the delays in France and Finland as well as the many French plants not producing electricity due to faults. (Not to mention the challenge of getting fuel for all the VVER reactors where the supplier used to be Russia)
in the uk wind is very cheap, thats why theres so much, but the LCOE i think its called of nuclear is between the cheapest fossil energy and most expensive green energy. the appeal is the stability more than the pricing when looking at green tech, and the pricing more than anything else when comparing to fossil plants.
You missed the chance to talk about all of the failing nuclear power in France.
Can you elaborate? It's interesting.
Nuclear might be a part of the solution but not the only one. We should rely on a strong energy mix based on nuclear and green energies, to which we must add sobriety planning coming from the government
May not even be a part
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Nuclear is a green energy, and the cleanliest too, and without any major terrain expenditure unlike the REN, without also any problem with dying batteries and turbines.
Wind and solar only work some of the time while nuclear is actually less deadly than renewable energy sources and a lot more power producing
"green" energy. Solar and Wind energy production is itself causing massive environmental damage both in rare earth minerals mining in required to build them and in damaging insects. birds, sealife, etc through micro-climate formation.
@@CerebrumMortum Well said. Without mentioning the coke necessary for the "renewables" and their intermittency. When they don't work coal goes up in the air, damaging the environment and the health of the people.
I love that Finnish approach to it haha
3:22 ama use that refrence more👌
1:44 In the west at least, slow because we haven't built any in a long time. I call BS, it's regulations. 'It has to be', why not challenge this? 3:29 Coal as radioactive, and coal disasters shrugged off.
Is this BS?
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Unfortunately, there is more money to be made from twerking on tik tok than being a structural engineer building nuclear power plants.
The biggest obstacle to nuclear is it's huge cost however that wasn't addressed
When they first built Nuclear Reactors, they said electricity would become 'too cheap to meter', and people would just pay a monthly flat subscription fee...
French electricity is very cheap on account of nuclear, which is its real problem. It is too cheap to make loads of money from and capitalists don't like that, so they support the Greens anti-nuclear stance and pile on the regulatory obstacles.
@@guronanak9218 It should be a flat metering subscription service equal for all...
With nuclear plants - those reactors will keep pumping out power for a hundred years if they are well maintained by caring and careful humans.
Die kWh von meiner 29 Jahre alten PV-Anlage kostet mich an meiner Steckdose ca. 1 Cent/kWh und das ohne Stromspeicher.
+
Beim E-Auto + PV-Stromüberschuss sind das ca. 0,20 €/100km an Energiekosten.
(20kWh/100km)
+
1 kWh Solarstrom bei der Wärmepumpe bringt ca. 3 kWh Wärme, Energiekosten ca. 0,004 €/kWh (Wärme)
+
Die installierte Leistung der Erneuerbaren hat in Deutschland im Jahr 2023 um über +17GW zulegen.
France can build nuclear power plant ( with difficulty I admit). France is actually building the UK nuclear power plants at Hinkley Point. UK however doesn’t have the skills to build them anymore.
France has 56 nuclear plants and has the highest percentage of grid power from nuclear 71%. Why wouldn't you want them to build it. They actually know what there doing.
Nuclear power was always the answer
Just like this.
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
The country which consumes the most in relation to its size is ‘little Britain’. It should be a hot topic in 🇬🇧
Nuclear is mostly irrelevant because:
1) Is unprofitable and made giants as General Electric and Areva (now in EDF) going bankrupcy, and now EDF on the verge of bankrupcy, with France, the white knight champion absolutely unable to make any money with it, and now in a run forward trying to build new plants when isn't even able to operate/dismantle the aging ones which are still in service.
2) Is not feasible, since the average time to build new power plants is over 12+ years,so even if we chose today to double our reactors not a single one would be in operation before 2035+, so future nuclear plants won't help a single bit in our attempts to prevent further climate change damage.
3) They are irrelevant: nuclear power barely counts as ~10% of the commercial electric energy generated in the world, which is way less than the total energy we consume. To solve the problem and to achieve relevance we would just need to build ~14500 new power plants which is roughly 76 x country, and there's not places enough in the world to make them (you need large access to water and not doing dumb things as placing then near active volcanos, in a unstable tectonic rift, etc.
So yeah, nuclear is a dead horse: they had a function, which was helping some countries to make nukes cheaper (since you need the same breeders, so the cost is shared) but when in the 70's we reached over 72k nuclear warheads the military said "already is enough dakka" and they cut the fundings, so after that nuclear electricity had to compete vs fossil and renewables, a fight which was worse year after year. On top of that the huge increases of operative cost that ythe 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns accounted in terms of new safety regulations put the final nail in the coffin.
Nuclear power plants are essentially black holes for money: they provide energy literaly burning public founds until they run out unable to compete and then the managers declara bankrupcy and daddy state has to come to dismantle the plant with public funds and pay for the clown fiesta.
*Base load* is an actual thing, but the real expensive problem is *peak load.* Brownouts and rolling blackouts happen due to the challenges of handling *peak load.* It would be absurdly cost ineffective to build a nuclear power plant to run for just 3 hours a day during the top dozen hottest days of late summer. Nuclear is absolutely horrible at solving the *peak load* problem. That doesn’t mean nuclear is useless, but the nuke nutters need to stop yammering on about *base load* unless they are also going to discuss *peak load.*
i think governments around the world should start a de-stigmatization of nuclear energy. There are so many naive around the world that see nuclear as a continuous threat...
This is what stigmatizes nuclear.
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Sure. Begin with Russia, currently at WAR with Ukraine.
This situation is fluid and has many moving parts Let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst I hope cooler heads will prevail in the end on this.
I just giggle at uninformed Humans. My personal superiority complex is based upon my misunderstanding that people of Earth are smart because We got computers.
All energy sources have trade offs, NP rises to the top when compared to the alternatives. It requires a fraction of the resources to deliver clean reliable power 24/7/365. NP really is the premier example of ‘dematerialization’ in which we actually use less to produce more.
NP is the way to go to provide clean, reliable power with the least harm. the evidence all demonstrates that historically, nuclear has been the fastest way to decarbonize, requires the least raw materials and land, and results in fewer deaths per unit of energy produced.
Nuclear power is the gold standard of clean power.
Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Surely the new Nuclear Modules that are being mass produced is a game changer ?!
Hey Economist, what about hydro?
Thank you for interviewing an actual expert rather than some hippi idealogical nut-so who only shares one side of it.
Strange that Rolls Royce Holdings plc's SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) weren't mentioned here.
Maybe because they are years away from building one.. Corporate web sites and PR are not facts
My generation (the in their 20’s) is the only one willing to embrace it after being properly educated about it
I don't think you are really educated.
Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Yes. Full stop.
And yes, you can put the waste in my yard.
A true understanding of fission reaction, it's waste products and its real safety is privy to such an insignificantly small number of individuals in the world so as to render any lay opinion on the matter rather presumptuous, and, by extension, support for this phantom technology stunningly audacious.
Phantom technology? Are you one of that insignificantly small number of individuals that are privy to a true understanding of fission reaction and it's waste products? If so, please bless us with your knowledge, unending wisdom and guidance.
Watched the first minute and couldn't bear to watch any more. Go back to school and learn about energy supply and demand.
Hopefully we can make new ones that use the waste so there's even less and we get more out of the rock.
MOX was only 1/2 of that process and it did not work out well.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
The waste is not even an issue unless you wanna make it one. Sure it would be great to recycle it. It certainly doesn’t need to be buried. Especially if you’re planning on recycling it.
i think they did a bad job explaining what nuclear waste actually is. consider sharps waste or medical waste. its not that everything there is bad, is that its contaminated. nuclear waste includes things like gloves and suits or machinery.
Future people think they find a hidden ancient tomb and start digging, become sick and think it is really not fair for their ancestors to curse without warning.
Can/do any Nuclear Power Plant designers - plan the complexity and cost - of a) flooding and b) spawling and in fire prevention [if possible - of c) the reactor, d) the cooling mechanics and electrical supply of d) the moderator material and e) waste? Given the state of the planet as is [and getting worse] the risks, costs and complications of Nuclear seem very, very high. There are also the difficulties of Town & Country planning to navigate - which adds further cost, delay and complexity.
They are not really high when you look at statistics. Death per kwh, they're vastly safer than fossil fuels even counting the accidents. Source: Our World in Data
It's like flying. It's scary when a plane crash and burns. But due to safety regulations, it's statistically safer to fly than it is to drive.
That can be argued thus far, but flooding and spawling/fire are new factors that have to factored in - right now I have seen zero coverage of these undeniable new realities. There are only very small statistics available on this right now:- 1] the breaching of the Bordeaux Nuclear plant sea walls on the evening of Dec 30 1999 and now 2] the French rivers Garonne and Rhine becoming too hot to cool Nuclear Plannts to the point where they can cost effectively produce usable electricity [in the last month or so.] Old statistics are not longer relevant today.
even with all of that, the safety of nuclear is unmatched by any non-renewable.
In the past possibly, now no longer so.
@@eddygrunge4749 what past are you talking about? im talking about modern safety rates.
"Doesn't always match demand" Yeah, we can't exactly make the sun shine brightest and wind blow strongest every day at 6 AM and 6 PM when people wake up or get home from work.
It apparently never matches the estimates.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
In Roman times the hours where divided equally between day and night. And in the middle ages the church did the same. So that meant sunrise = say 6 am and sunset 6 pm and you divide the time in between into 12 even chunks you call an hour. For the night you do the same thing. Result is indeed 75-90 minute day hours in summer en 30-45 minute day hours in winter, but you can have light and the workhours synchonized this way. There are downsides no doubt, but impossible? No. Just adjust what you have control over to fit.
@@hillockfarm8404 cannot work with computers and satellites. thats the reason for time standardisation. not because we felt like it. GMT and UTC are different for a reason.
@@jonathanodude6660 btw, I live this way anyway. In the summer I wake up at 4 am and in winter at 7. I also work longer in summer than in winter. That is just how it naturally happens when you forget to setup your alarm clock at all.
@@janwinders9702 that’s fine, you aren’t a computer or satellite. Knowing that you work longer in summer than winter and by how much is also more useful than setting the time to change so that every day is the same numeric length while the actual time grows and shrinks, since you can factor that into your paycheck.
It sounds irresponsibly to not warn future people about where the waste is stored.
If people in the future cannot find the waste, then they don't have the technology to handle it safely.
If people in the future can find the waste, and can dig it out, then they do have the technology to handle it safely.
That is why it is irrelevant to tell them.
Everybody research Thorium Energy. You will not be disappointed.
go away troll
It’s mind boggling and shameful that we’re not all in on developing and refining nuclear energy on every level. It is the only rational way for humanity to save this global civilization.
We are and here are the results.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080 I know it’s corrupt beyond belief. Maybe I’m being idealistic but I think the need is so important it’s worth shaking out the criminals and getting back on track with.
Nuclear power cannot solve the Climate crisis. Nuclear waste is still deadly.
@@Diana1000Smiles Nuclear waste isn’t even close to as deadly as coal ash and particulate, petroleum spills and global warming. Plus, the new technologies greatly reduce the amount of waste leftover.
Nuclear is necessary but wholly insufficient, as nuclear:
- has very long commissioning time
- more expensive than renewables and the costs are divergent
- proliferation risks
- spent fuel containment
- very poor horizontal scalability
- it's carbon footprint is no better than wind and only fractionally better than solar
Every country with nuclear weapons got the weapons first. Nuclear is also cheaper when you factor in capacity factor, batteries/natural gas backup, having to replace renewables 3-4 times during the life of a reactor.
Not only are renewables far cheaper than nuclear, but the costs are *divergent.*
And China will now be building 150 nuclear power plants in the next 15 years, more than what the rest of the world combine has built in the last 35 years.
Yet renewables will still be providing the vast majority of China's energy supply. Plus China has already started on a $50 trillion multi-national renewable energy grid, which will significantly reduce any regional electricity variation - even if there was no storage.
No realistic climate change conversation should be missing nuclear as a main topic.
Short answer: Yes.
Thank you the Economist for interviewing a knowledgeable, competent journalist.
Is it really yes?
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear reprocessing and power projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
At 2x current spot price, currently known uranium reserves are only enough to sustain current consumption for about 100 years.. ~130 with reprocessing.. World Nuclear Association.
5 times more electric energy is needed to replace fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are high density energy.
It is simple build a power grid that is 5 times bigger.
In Australia as a test, the 1,000,000 klm at today's capacity should be built to 5 times bigger capacity.
It would be the same as building 4 new grids, 4,000,000 klm new.
And as Australia is a small population they can borrow the finances.
The government will guarantee the loans.
And then you build the new and bigger nuclear plants, the 25 GW today becomes 125 GW of new generation and as Australia is small it can borrow the money and the government will guarantee the loans and the cash flow so others are comfortable lending.
SMRs are only $2BILLION each and at 300Mw each Australia would only need 400 SMRs.
I think we should start immediately before demand goes up and prices to supply increases.
We need more construction people and so a new wave of migrant construction workers would be perfect.
Nuke power was great until Fukushima happened.
Now it may be a monster or a savior.
Great minds are needed to solve this puzzle …..😎
YESSS!!!
What about mini nuclear power plants!
They provide mini output at a maximum cost
If you need nuclear why bother with wind and solar ?
Maybe because of this?
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
Exactly.
This comment section confirms why politicians shut them off
Meanwhile the Chinese have developed a cold fusion reactor, and its greener…………..
They say if they drill 7 or 9 miles into the earth they get unlimited steam generator power?..
If the hot water they made at any of those places was a startrek movie then maybe they use it as temperature shield in football dome.
Maybe the data center heats up water to but doesn't make power
So the zeitgeist has passed nuclear power for unproven technology like battery storage and green hydrogen. Follow the money on that one. Nuclear Power will work with proper preparation and generally can adapt to the transmission system of fossil fuels. Australia needs one trillion dollars to adapt renewables to a new transmission system and it still won’t provide regular baseload power! My instinct is that the bank has bet on renewables and will ride that horse home whatever the consequences including economic and strategic concerns.
We will have mass starvation then
Coal still far better than to have nuclear plant nearby
New technology on the block, developed from MIT and fusion reactor research, called Quaise. Same power levels, none of the stigma of fission reactors. Check it out.
where has it been built so I can check it out?
This program for European people to make mind for nuclear power plane is not bad.winter is coming!
nuclear power is subject to murphy's law that's why they will never be viable long term or on a wide scale. Ukraine proves that you can't depend on regions remaining stable long term
?
Is your country on the verge of being invaded by Russia? No? So no problems.
Nuclear Fusion vs. Fission Power Plants? Which one is cheaper?
Fission.
And yet there are Russia, China, India, South Korea and other developing nations that are building those plants in quantities of like 'why?'.
This may be why in the U.S..
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
France has 56 reactors and is building more. Why would care about the largest polluting nations bar South Korea.
@@murphy7801 And France has shutdown more than 50% of their reactors because of climate change
The nuclear waste makes it less than attractive, though it's still better than fossil fuels and CO2 with methane's amplifying-exponential dangers.
The nuclear waste isn't much of a technical problem really, more of a political one. And while "sweep it under the rug" isn't much of a solution for most problems, in the case of nuclear waste I believe it's a very viable one. The industrial revolution on a global scale is younger than a hundred years and still we have seen tremendous progress in technology. Fission as a stop-gap solution for the next 100-200 years won't crate a substantial problem with waste.
Don't keep waste here on earth, rockets them towards nearest black hole. Travel alone will take thousands of years anyway. Whole planet will pay for by ...credit cards😁
Yes, yes nuclear all great... and then you look at France and find only 25 of 60 GW online in summer, because of technical issues and low water levels... btw where do you think uranium is coming from? How do you think it is mined? How many people are dying each year because of cancer and other illnesses due to uranium mining and e.g. false handling of overburden? Where would you like to store all the nuclear waste? Societal and environmental costs of nuclear power are completely undervalued. There might be future concepts like transmutation which will lower waste and even make waste an input. But currently nuclear is no plan B.
The plants are shut down like that every summer, nothing new…
Uranium mining is not worse than any mining that is required to build infrastructure, especially compared to renewable that need massive amounts of metal. This is not an argument
Nuclear waste should go underground, as said in the video. Did you just listen? There no conceptual problem with that. Finland and France are already experimenting to go that way.
Transmutation is BS, sorry. Even so it will still requires geological storage because there will still be long life nuclear waste.
So we’re currently facing two apocalyptic event at the same time, the climate change and an energy crisis, but nuclear is no plan B because of few solid wastes, some mining, and because few reactor are shut down in summer? Come on!
ah the elephant in the room, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF ENERGY GENERATION.
There is no such thing as safe nuclear power or clean coal.
As much as I am for the development of nuclear energy to completely stop the use of gas and coal to produce electricity, as much as I much prefer hydroelectric dams.
Hydroelectric dams are very bad for aquatic environments and almost no rivers in the UK are suited them anyway.
@@maywalker997 If your geography doesn't allow hydroelectric dams, then of course you can't have them. I know they disturb some things in the environment, but it's a lesser evil. Where I live 96% of the electricity is from hydroelectric dams for example.
Renewables : Lets all lock our grid to be controlled by the Weather ... insanity
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: definitely.
No one is speaking about what is do be done with the still radioactive spend fuel rods
Launch them into space on a falcon heavy. Sorted.
He doesn’t include the “radiation waste solidification” process to get rid of the masks, tools, containers, stuff that is a mess even if it isn’t radioactive “pellets” in his football field. Look, I used to be in the industry in the 70-80’s. I hope nukes come back. Small enough that reasonable water or coolant can “chill it” before disaster. (Remember Jane Fonda as heroine.)
It's green until you get fukushima'd.
Green future? What Green future?
Poor scientific referencing in this interview. It's an opinion piece. And any one can make up an opinion on nuclear one way or the other.
Or just look at facts.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
No comment
One. Hundred. Percent. It was a crime how little investment has been provided to this industry…. for all our sakes.
Is this a little investment? on top of the 70 years building and testing every nuclear design possible all paid for by the taxpayer.
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
@@clarkkent9080 TLDR. You’re entitled to your opinion ad nauseum. Nice guilt by association there though, I did get that much. How does it feel to have wasted that much time? Keep it coming though, I have all the time in the world to NOT read your verbal diarrhea x
Why can't UN or something like that setup nuclear power plant and sell the electricity to all countries.this way green house gases can be reduced also reduce the accident risk from incompetent countries running nuclear power plant
Where would it be built? In space?
@@clarkkent9080 if internet servers can be built in one country and connect entire world using optic fibre cable.if oil and gas can be send from one content to another through pipeline .why not electricity
@@rex_schd If you don't know the difference between data transmission and electrical transmission, You may want to review a little electrical 101.
Are there pipelines running between continents ?
I could explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
A lot of electricity will be lost in transmission. Way too far. And, that basically gives a lot of power to the UN. Maybe too much.
@@rex_schd Those internet servers are actually owned by comapnies in countries, mostly the US (as with google which has the largest servers). On top of that, the right to use some domain names also comes under the jurisdiction of the US government. The internet is not a public asset that's free or just "exists" for our use like air, its infrastructure and data (servers) are/is owned by people/companies/governments.
For all the positive attribute of nuclear power especially the smooth steady output, he really glosses over all the negatives. The mining and enrichment of uranium is very carbon intensive and the detritus from that process is not treated well and is very bad for the environment. The amount of concrete in a power plant is many times larger than for the equivalent output of wind turbines plus, wind turbines are highly recyclable (yes, even the blades are now recyclable, something that was not the case a decade ago). A decommissioned nuclear plant needs constant supervision and we will never be sure it is safe for future generations. Add to that an important factor that the real cost of nuclear power is now 4-6 times that of wind or solar/kwh. Nuclear power plants have never been built on budget or on time.
Have a look at France's program where they reprocess spent fuel. A ridiculous amount of their fuel is coming from used fuel rods, significantly impacting mining on storage requirements.
The massive issue with W&S, is that at utility scale the availability factors makes it very costly to integrate these and still ensure stability and availability of the grid. The current solution is burning gas in turbines. So any carbon gains with renewables are largely offset with gas. You need MASSIVE energy storage to get around this. There are no commercially proven options available at scale. Batteries is the most obvious solution, but then you are simply better off building nuclear.
Looking ahead, humanities energy requirements, especially heat which is fossil fuel powered, needs to be electrified urgently. This will explode electricity demand, and only nuclear can compete at the demands this will create.
@@retiefjoubert55 expanding grids and opening electricity markets is the easiest and best solution i can see. each nation is incentivised to produce excess during high demand and store excess during low demand for net producers, and net consumers are incentivised to buy cheap, store, and resell at markups. the bigger the grid, the better it is for everyone on it. most of the world is currently interested in it, and links between north africa and europe, australia to singapore as well as south east asia to russia china and japan are already planned. the unification of the us grid and further integration with canada and mexico would also improve things there. im unsure if texas is planning to link up with the west or east coast after the recent failure of their grid in the cold weather.
@@retiefjoubert55 Here is the U.S. just trying 1/2 of the recycling process.
How can any YT video on nuclear power simply IGNORE the 5 nuclear new build failures in the U.S. in the last 20 years??? If it doesn’t fit their narrative, they just ignore it?
Social and YT videos are NOT the news. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. YT videos are great if you want to be spoon fed misinformation instead of researching facts.
The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support.
The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $17 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017.
VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule.
Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing.
Please google any of this to confirm.
If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?
If the cost of nuclear is that much worse than wind and solar it is dead.
Wind and solar if you take into account intermittency is far more costly than gas and coal.
@@jonathanodude6660 grid integration is a key step for sure. But as more and more variable generational capacity is added, i.e. W&S, you are paying a massive premium to cater for peak energy flows in all directions, where you average utilization remain fractional of capacity. Distribution losses also mount up, limiting the viable scale. Putting solar panels in the Sahara to power Europe is not happening any time soon give today's economic and tech realities.
And yes, legacy structures and regulations/legislation of power utilities, esp in the US, have created a fractured landscape where high level change is twated by local interests, or at least as viewed from a distance.
Never
River Techa Chernobl. 1 football?
An excellent source of study day and night power to fill the gap to get off carbon-based fuel. Until the tech catches up.
This video is not accurate
YT videos are for entertainment not reality
"Seal it over forever " 😂🤦♂️
Well, the economist forgot to tell about how expensive is to build them, to keep them safe, to prepare the fuel and then to manage the fuel waste. This is it, really? Just build them? Pretty subjective. How about the water crisis and nuclear power plants shutting down? Not even mentioned. Earthquakes? Tsunamis? Human error and easy target in case of war... Nothing.
If you really understand how the whole supply chain works or understand the types of reactors all the issues you raise are no starters. People are scared because of they dont understand the risks and always point to 2 diasters in 60+ years
What about the water shortage?
Water shortage is a problem only in summer (when the demands is low and the plants are already in maintenance) on few reactors. The biggest energy needs are in winter.
Fossil fuels and many manufacturing processes use just as much water. If you design a nuclear plant for high operating temperaures you can get away with operating it in hot climates, the europeans, to everyones innability to admit this, didn't design them for hot weather and neglected to consider drought. The americans have nuclear plants in California that have capacity factors in the high 80s low 90 percentages. Europes "heat wave" is in the 30 degrees range. 40 Degrees is not abnormal in California.
@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Europe's heat waves are now in the 35c - 40c range.
What about Molten Salt Reactors? They are much cheaper: MITAB20-Ian-Stable Salt Reactors
Just because you say that does not make it true. Facts matter
@@clarkkent9080 The fact is that several years after Frazer Nash independently estimated the capital cost of the stable salt reactor waste burner at around $1 per watt, a recent cost estimate from Moltex now that they have a lot more information on costs, has come out about the same. That is something like a fifth the capital cost of pressurised water reactors.
@@Mivoat
Moltex requires either weapons grade Pu239 or reprocessed spent reactor fuel. Reprocessing spent reactor fuel is very very expensive and is not even included in the cost estimates for this design. There is an unproven pyroprocessing of spent reactor fuel that is proposed as a cheaper alternative. EVERY reprocessing, PUREX or pyroprocessing results in highly radioactive waste slurry that then must be stabilized, again not considered in the cost estimate.
Here is an example of estimates vs reality. NuScale estimated their SMR nuclear power facility at $1 billion. After getting utility backers and taxpayer funding they submitted the project for construction bids and the cost came in at $6.1 billion. They reduced the project size and output by almost 20% and got the cost down to $5 billion. Most of the utilities backed out and the project is now delayed till 2025. And NO nuclear projectthat is actually constructed has EVER come in on budget in the U.S..
The FACT is that until it is built and proven, it is all just corporate PR, fancy web sites, and power point presentations. It is supposed to be built and operating in 2030. What is the status of the project today? I wish the UK and Canada luck but lets see what happens before you go claiming sucess.
@@clarkkent9080 Fair points, which I appreciate. Have you studied the WATSS, waste to stable salt process, that is patented by Moltex? That is explained by Ian Scott in the video you can find with the search term in my original post. Bear in mind I was only quoting the capital cost estimate of $1 per watt. Ian Scott claims their WATSS process is cheap. I would be interested in your opinion.
@@Mivoat I would have to research the process. There is so much disinformation, half-truths, and wild claims made on these YT channels concerning new nuclear processes and reactor types. There are numerous companies that have great web pages and power point presentations but when you pull back the curtain there is nothing but a desire for government funding. ANY great plan will attract private funding and will be built without government money and when it is built and proven, then I will listen to their facts.
For example; I read an article on Curio who announced its novel U.S. NuCycle process for used fuel recycling in February. According to the company, the process leverages "decades of American research and development" in a compact, modular, and proliferation-resistant design to recycle used nuclear fuel and develop off-take isotopes for a wide variety of industries. It has submitted a patent for the process to the US Patent and Trademark Office.
That sounds great but upon further research, I learned that Curio is a company that has 2 employees, only one memorandum of understanding with one utility, no office building, and no funding. And guess what they need to get this great plan off the ground.... you guessed it taxpayer MONEY.
I still don't understand how carbon and carbon dioxide are bad. We like plants....well plants like carbon dioxide. I like carbon. Not really scared like you guys are.
Of course there are two elephants in the room making nuclear power too dangerous to use. First Sea level rise owing to climate change as most plants are within just a few metres of sea level and secondly human belligerents as currently witnessed in Ukraine. Nuclear power is simply not safe enough to use.
You can literally jump into the cooling water around a nuclear reactor while it's running without getting any dangerous level of radiation. You have no idea 2hwt your talking about.
"it's hard to think of anything more important to all of our futures than reducing carbon emissions"
Wow, are you serious? How out of touch.
What is more important?