The future of nuclear is divided into two camps - here’s why
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2023
- In the 1970s, the world economy experienced an energy price shock after major oil producers imposed an embargo against the West for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
As the price of oil increased, energy independence became a priority, and Germany started commissioning more nuclear reactors. By the end of the 1980s, around 29% of Germany’s energy supply came from nuclear.
It took the nuclear disasters in Chernobyl in 1986, which was then part of the Soviet Union, and Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 to shift German public opinion against nuclear energy.
Germany’s decision to end its reliance on nuclear energy made it reliant on Russian pipeline gas.
Even though the country’s anti-nuclear stance waned after Russia invaded Ukraine - which meant it could no longer count on Russian gas - Germany still pressed ahead to close its remaining nuclear reactors by April 2023.
In the U.K., however, the Ukraine war prompted a tighter embrace of nuclear for Britain to achieve its climate goals and improve energy security.
The UK’s first nuclear power station was built in the 1950s, but it was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who, in the 1980s, proposed constructing a nuclear power station every year for a decade as part of the country’s industrial strategy.
That didn’t happen, but British public opinion, to this day, remains favorable. A study by market research firm YouGov in 2022 showed that almost half of Britons back the use of nuclear energy, compared with 31% who are opposed.
So, why are the two countries moving in different directions? Watch the video above to find out.
#CNBC #NuclearEnergy #NuclearPower #Nuclear
-----
Subscribe: cnb.cx/2wuoARM
CNBC International TV: cnb.cx/2NGytpz
Facebook:
/ cnbcinternational
Instagram:
/ cnbcinternational
Twitter:
/ cnbci
Closing down nuclear plants, the cleanest of ALL energy sources, only to replace them with coal plants, the DIRTIEST of them all. Makes sense...
we cannot seem to be able to build new nuclear plants and the only new plant that was built in the last 20 years cost 120% more than planned and took 7 more years than planned. Stupid = doing the same thing over and expecting a different result
@KlerkKant Yet you continue to ignore that many countries have been building and using small modular reactors for many decades in two weeks or less costing millions not billions.
@@clarkkent9080 on the other hand, we do seem able to build new wind/solar - mostly on time and on budget - but which fail to dramatically reduce emissions, and which definitely raise the retail price of electricity (reference the German & Californian experiments vs those in France or Ontario).
Yup, totally agree with you.
Stupid = doing the same thing over and expecting a different result
@@factnotfiction5915 Today, there is MORE wind and solar capacity awaiting approval to connect to the U.S. grid than we are currently using from all generation sources. Do you think that will reduce emissions?? The ONLY nuclear plant (vogtle) to be built in 30 years cost $35 billion (more than twice the original estimate). I live with the Vogtle grid and my electric rates have increased 25% because of Vogtle and will increase more next year.
Vogtle took 17 years to build and the small (345 Mw) Terrapower MSR is the ONLY planned new nuclear plant that may be built in the next 10 years. Old nuclear plants are shutting down every year and no new ones are being built.....that is fact not fiction
Decommissioning nuclear plants was and still is dumb
Germany will pay huge price for stupid, china with wourld- factorys and billions of poeple is able to produce everything and it has enough energy for such process
Decommissioning the old end of life nuclear power plants is not dumb, but basically required.
But that is not what Germany is doing.
@@slash2botGermany's nuclear moratorium is a crime against the environment and the world. It's a show of unparalleled stupidity that has pushed them into coal
To be anti-nuclear means being pro-climate-change because nuclear has the lowest carbon output per energy unit over its livespan
More like that pro-nuclear means buying the time for fossil fuel industry.
@augustlandmesser1520 Net-zero is not enough to end global warming. Nuclear energy is needed as the only energy that can run CO2-negative. Germany is the best example of the disadvantages of the so-called "renewables" prolonging the use of fossile fuels.
French nuclear reactors were not built in the fifties. They were for the most part commissioned between 1978 and 1997. Between the fifties and 1978, there were experimental reactors running on graphite-gas technology or surgenerators (Phenix, Superphenix). Most French nuclear reactors come from a Westinghouse 900 MW water pressurized reactor patent. Then some were constructed with a modified design up to 1450 MW. The latest in construction, the Flamanville EPR reactor (it's construction is a never-ending nightmare) is a French-German design with a 1650 MW power output.
The first modern reactors, Fessenheim 1 and 2, commissioned in 1978 were shut down last year.
Ressentiment is the enemy of knowledge. The french nuclear plants were built from the 1950s onwards. Nuclear energy has the lowest carbon per energy unit, so being anti-nuclear is being in denial of the importance of climate change. Ressentiment should not be in the way of saving millions of people suffering from burning fossil fuels and renewables not being an option because of their dependence from outside conditions (waether, winter, nighttime) thus lack of stability. With small modular reactors we can make nuclear energy as cheap as coal with all the benefits of coal but without its impact on climate and environment.
The problem with "short-term loss for long-term gain" is twofold. One, short-term solutions often have a way of becoming longer and longer-term. Two, especially for governments, it's easy to make long-term plans for 2030 or 2050 or whatever - the elections are usually every four years, so the next government can easily reverse the decision or push the dates forward... so the 'long-term gain' is up there in the clouds, it's NOT a given.
Germany planned to retire all the nuclear power plants in 2022 and failed only for 6 months. Theyalso planned to retire all the coal power plants in 2037 and probably will happen even sooner.
@@Buran01 What's your guarantee that they'll do it by 2037? It's 15 years away, that's... 5 successive governments if my count is right, where's proof that one of them won't change their minds?
(Note this doesn't apply just to Germany, it applies to all countries and all sorts of long-term "fixes" and "plans")
@@katm9877 Well, as I said, they planned in 2001 to retire the nuclear power plants in 2022 and they missed by 6 months, so they were fairly accurate. Also, in the first quarter of 2023 they already deployed close to 4 GW of renewables (equivalent to the three last retired nuclear power plants) . So I don't see reasons to doubt their plans. Compare that with the money and time that deploying new nuclear facilities require...
@@Buran01 The trouble is adding more renewables to a grid makes it harder to keep adding. Germany is already at the point where they have enough capacity to run their grid on wind and sun when the conditions are right.
The problem is that the conditions are seldom right and making ends meet now means throwing the entire concept of an electricity market out of the window and each new MW of capacity needing concomitant increases in electricity storage. Technology that's been '5 years away' for the last 15 years, and which lithium batteries are totally unsuited.
The money and time nuclear facilities require is an order of magnitude less than the money, time, materials, and land renewables need to be on the same level functionally as nuclear power. If Germany had instead spent the money it's poured into energiewende on nuclear power, it'd have enough nuclear power now to run all of western Europe and its power would be the cheapest in the EU.
3:35 "ARGUABLY" coal plants are "MORE" environmentally damaging than nuclear plants? 😂
Basic stuff.
Unwanted radioactive material can be buried (not even that deep) into the ground alongside all other naturally radioactive ground material without causing significant environmental hazard.
Of course, the fuel enrichment process requires a lot of energy, and the origin of that energy can contribute notably to the total emissions of nuclear power production.
Also, the heat pollution of a power plant. But, in contrast to all else, it's quite slight.
Burning coal has a short road in the end, so to say.
@@h.l.69 Fukushima is estimated to maybe kill 60-1000 people ever including future. Compare that to all the things Coal plants do. Fact is Nuclear is by far the safest source of energy. The cost to humanity of a non nuclear future is far too high. More people are going to die from not having nuclear than even the worst kind of major accidents every so often. Modern plants are much safer though.
Yes. Coal ash is not only more radioactive than nuclear waste, but also more hazardous and less regulated than nuclear waste. Not to mention how much more coal ash there is compared to nuclear waste.
Even without coal ash, any combustion results in outdoor air pollution which kills millions prematurely each year. Coal is fucking horrible to put it mildly.
German green transition is actually a return to lignite for base load generation. Germans can then happily fax how a head of time they are to each other.
It's a transition from nuclear to lignite.
Nuclear is the future. Old energy is boiling water like solar and wind.
In nuclear you milk energy directly from atom core. Take Bulgaria for example. It's a very modern country.
Of something goes wrong 10000 years of history gene. But it's world for world class products for a reasonable price. Which Bulgarian products do you use my friend?
@@captainchaoscow nuclear powerplants also boil water but its still better
@@reahs4815 that can't be true. It's real energy from the Nucleus core. not boiling water like monkeys.
We could have atomic cars and atomic stoves. Energy for free but the eco friendly transistor energy took over.
By the way tell me your favorite Bulgarian product made with atomic energy.
@@captainchaoscow Its true that the energy comes from the nucleus when it undergoes fission then that energy goes into the pool of water the fuelrods sit in resulting in hot water (boiling) then it goes through a turbine to convert the heat energy into mechanical and that into electrical energy. Lastly the warm water goes through the cooling towers you see on almost all nuclear plants and then back into the heating loop in the core. (Yes the water surrounding the fuel is not the same water that goes to the turbine and cooling towers but it gets heated by the reactor core through a heat exchange system)
Please do not talk about energy production but "electricity production"
France for instance produce 70% of it electricity with nuclear, but it's much less in % if we talk about the total energy consumed in France (with all the fossile fuel for transport, heat, etc)
Germany: *doesn't have enough wind and is too cloudy for wind or solar to be effective*
Also Germany: *relies on wind and solar anyway, burns more coal to make up the shortfall*
Brilliant. Great job, guys, way to lead the world in shooting yourselves in the foot.
What do you mean? Financial break even for new wind or solar farms is within 10-15 years in Germany now. Compare this to a nuclear plant, which after 30 years is still not competitive, unless it is subsidized by goverments heavily, e.g. by more than doubling the price it can ask for when selling its elecricity
Take Hinkley Point C in Somerset for example. It can sell its energy for 11Cent/kWh, guaranteed for 35 years by the British government. Wind and solar sells for 2-4 Cent/kWh in comparison on the spot market both in Germany and Britain. Now, how got shot in the foot?
(Spoiler: british tax payers, who have to compensate the price difference)
@@dmovieproduction As long as the sun shines, & the wind blows, should work great!
@@dmovieproduction What about when the whether is unfavourable for long durations? Run on fossil fuel plants as usual?
"The worst nuclear power accident ever"
Wow, and how many there were in total?
*nervous sweating*
"Well, actually, there were only 3"
PS: I know there are more incidents recorded in nuclear power plants, but all of them are events in common with any other industrial facility. The only ones NPP-specific are TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima.
and two of those killed nobody from radiation. The third, Chernobyl, was a soviet reactor none of which exist anymore in that dangerous form.
@@Nill757 Actually, there are still operational RBMK reactors. Kursk, Smolensk and Leningrad.
@@Ayrshore those are heavily modified RBMK’s, changed in the years following the accident, and publicly documented by IAEA. There are no more RBMks with the original runaway problem, where more heat can increase reactivity thus more heat etc.
@@Nill757 They still have a positive void coefficient in some situations, it's just much, much smaller.
and this accident is far less lethal than the deaths from coal. In fact, after solar energy, it is the least fatal way of producing energy known to mankind.
There is simply no rational argument against nuclear energy, except that voters have no study of nuclear energy and are therefore afraid of things like radiation.
They forgot to mention that Finalnd just built the largest european nuclear reactor, maybe it was recorded before.
Was that the nuclear reactor that was meant to open in 2009 ? And came in way way over budget ? That may be why they did not mention it.
The latest report on Finland's new nuke is that electricity wholesale prices reduced by only 75%.
@@1968Christiaan Fin power rates way down since that reactor went online. And they’re cleaner. Everybody needs to be doing whatever the hell fins are doing, and the ‘it’s late ‘ people can take the train.
Nuclear waste can be recycled, which has the twin benefits of reducing its lifespan while also generating power.
Give an example where this actually happens...
@@larsjrgensen76 You should consider looking up "fast neutron reactors", they are very promising
@@larsjrgensen76France or Japan!
@@Gabriel_Ahl Russia has several reactors working on closed cycle meaning they burn their waiste. Just about any fast neutron reactor can run on nuclear "waste". Light water reactors only use less than 5% of their fuel. Waiste products build up in their fuel pellets requiring replacement at about 5% of fuel burn up because of created elements that kill the nuclear reaction. Fast neutron reactors burn up these waste elements enabling all the fissionable uranium and other fissionable elements to be consumed. Fast neutron reactors being somewhat trickier to make since they require much higher enrichment in their fuel and they produce high levels of heat output in a much smaller area. This is part of the reason these reactors need molten metal or molten salt to cool their cores.
@@stanleytolle416 I believe you tagged the wrong person haha, don't worry I'm already all for fast neutron reactors for the very reasons you say here
Isn't Germany importing electricity from France, which produces almost 70% of its electricity from nuclear source?
And france imports electricity from germany, mostly in the summer, when they have shut down their reactors because the cooling is overheating!
Shhh🤫
@@ch.k.3377 If Germany isn't self sufficient in electricity, how are they selling it to France?
@@tushar4evr776 Germany was again the net electricity exporter in 2022 with a total of 26.28 TWh. Exports amounted to 62.05 TWh (2021: 56.99 TWh) and imports to 35.77 TWh (2021: 39.60 TWh). If, for example, wind generates more electricity than is consumed, then it is sold on and Germany buys elsewhere if it does not generate enough electricity itself. That is why hydrogen storage tanks are being built across Europe so that no surplus remains unused.
Germany buys electricity when *Germany* doesn't get enough power from renewables.
France buys electricity when *Germany* gets too much power from renewables and has to sell it for peanuts.
Either way France wins.
Nice video. Nuclear energy is essential until humanity find a viable solution for renewable energy storage.
Yes, we need all the positive contributions we can get. If we are able to make surplus wind or solar, it can be partially stored as pumped hydro. But we also need a better long-distance grid so we can be more flexible in transferring power from areas with higher production. The task at hand is going to take a lot of effort and economy short term, but it is high time we solve this before the climate catastrophe gets any bigger than 2-3 degrees globally. The cost of dramatically changing weather patterns will be extremely costly.
I believe we will get the first real taste of what's to come soon. In 2024 it will be El Nino year, and we will see the greatest effect so far in modern history.
Fuel diversity is king. It's not prudent to conceptulaize a one enrgy source. We will for the next 100 years NEVER make enough energy from renewables to power the growth needed to address the problems of the future.
@@kevintubeit It is true we will need much more energy. I believe fusion in combination with renewable energy and some storage will do. In 30 years all these technologies will be mature and it is really up to us to find the right path. CO2 must probably be reduced to 10% of what we use now.
Love the hand-drawn graphics!
Access to increasingly more electricity for industry and general peoples is a large part of what made Western countries modern and successful. To me it is sad that the goal should be simply to replace the current capacity with some half-assed version instead of continuing this trend to improve people's quality of life. Nuclear power and research is the way forward. If Germany is closing the large coal stations they should convert them for scientific research. A huge potential, same as in Australia and other countries that are doing this.
How does expensive electricity improve peoples lives? Nuclear power is currently the most expensive of all options, money is simply better spent on wind and solar.
@@_Dibbler_ wind, solar and what? You can't have pure wind and solar without blackouts so if you say not nuclear, that means "and" petrol, nat-gas, or coal, because geothermal is situational, mostly in Iceland. You need something to stabilise the grid, and there are not enough EV-s currently to give power back to the grid when needed. (Hydrogen is still extracted from nat-gas). So which carbon producer are you supporting? (I know that dams are a solution, but they are just as "nuclear" as nuclear, because when they break they flood a town, unlike coal that kills a town one person per day for years)
@@_Dibbler_ Existing nuclear power stations provide the cheapest electricity period. Adding only 4 hours of storage to wind and solar push the cost above the highest cost nuclear reactor. The required amount of storage is more like 40 days.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Germany has only very old Nuclear power plants that would need quite some refurbishment (that isnt for free). And most of the cost of nuclear power plants are hidden, like the storage of the waste and the deconstruction of them of the plants. You always lie to yourself when you like something but there is nothing economic about nuclear power plants
@@_Dibbler_ nuclear power is actually twice as cheap lol
Loved this. Super important and informative.
Thank you!
There used to be a place up here where everybody could go look for gold but then they closed it down so only one person could go look for it
Why did you not talk about recycling nuclear waste to provide power in the video? Japan is already doing this. It reduces the time nuclear waste remains radioactive down to hundreds of years.
It is not saying anything about who controls nuk fuel prices
One of them chose the best option while the other chose very poorly
Yep -the economic and waste problems that the UK has will come back to haunt it. France does not have a permanent storage site. Our power companies in Germany export a lot of power.
@@1968Christiaan > Our power companies in Germany export a lot of power.
When the price is low.
Unfortunately for Germans, Germany also imports a lot of electric power when prices are high.
This is published data from your own grid operator - you should look at it sometime.
So far there has been no risk from nuclear waste. This stuff can still be burned in fast reactors.
You're totally correct. Commercial reactors actually create very little "waste" in any case.
Bad move for Germany. Hope they change their mind.
Nuclear is so darn safe and the waste is reusable or storable.
Hope they change course.
Nuclear is the bright path forward.
It's been 40 years since chernobyl!!! Our safety has gone huge leaps and bounds since then.
And nuclear waste?!? They're already developing second use and such to make less radioactive and safe storage like driving the tubes under the water table where.....they came from to begin with
'It's pronounced nu-cue-ler.' -Homer Simpson
*Nuke-u-ler :)
Go green but some coal generators are gonna run a little bit longer. what is logic, sir
It's the leftists and green lobby fraud. Make Germany and the West at large less self reliant and more dependent on enemies like Russia and China. There's nothing green or environmentally friendly about the "environmentalist green party."
Uh, a lot of coal generators are gonna run longer (ie. forever).
After the EU decided to use gas as a weapon, and after the pipeline was destroyed by some mysterious forces from another realm
So by 2030 when the coal plants are suppose to shut down. Where on Green Earth are you gonna find the capacity to replace that??
You don't. There will be elections and the new government will blame previous one and say 'we need to temporarily prolong usage of other sources' (PR firms will probably write the actual statement). Just like Sweden pivoted away from 'everyone is welcomed' to 'we are full'
The altery is called energy poverty and many countries are trying to escape.
Germany should've partnered with France to:-
(1) Develop a 3+ Gen PWR design for mass-construction
(2) Nuclear waste Re-processing
(3) Fast Breeder Reactors
This could've eventually allowed Europe to become Energy independent from Russia, USA & Arab World.
For Uranium & other minerals, Europe could've create Strategic Uranium Reserves.
9:13 NO, most of the nuclear reactors in operation in France were built in the 70s and not the 50s (the oldest to date is Bugey 2, which began construction in 1972)
yes - that may be true - but so many have very serious aging and maintenance issues. If you believe the story from the nuclear industry, the lights should have gone out in Germany and France has had no problems... but this is definately not true. Best wishes from Berlin.
Brah they are still old and with a lot of issues. Bad planning by the french government already and will cost france a lot of money
@@1968Christiaan Yes there are several issues I don't deny that. But I don't like it when journalists don't do their bibliographic work properly and get 20 years wrong. 20 YEARS. That's 1/2 or 1/3 of the lifespan of a nuclear reactor (depends). It's a huge mistake. They just don't know how to use Google properly
@@1968ChristiaanFrench politicians decided by law to stop money to the maintenance of reactors. The law stated that nuclear power should be halved or so. That is the main reason why maintenance hasn’t been at par. Why didn’t the lights go out? Increased gas exports from Norway, mild winter, insane high prices which led to lower demand, rationing and the fact that many countries fired up coal power plants again. It is a shame.
New nuclear reactors are safe. It is the energy source that has killed the least amount of people per KWh. Thousands will suffer from asthma and die early due to the politics of Berlin.
Even though Germany managed now, what is their plan in 15 years? You need baseload power. What will they do in January if there is -15 C, no sunshine and no wind? The entire system has to be built around coping with those days.
Batteries? Sure. Sounds great, but all the batteries on the planet can power Tokyo for 72 hours. The technology isn’t there. It is a huge gamble to think it will in a decade. The most likely result is that Germany won’t meet its climate obligations. The climate is the loser.
@1968Christiaan the reactors are fine, most of the issues are on pipes used for the cooling of the reactor and are replaceable.
Thank
relying on the russ for your energy - how did that go?
To reduce the use of coal and oil for energy generation, we need to build a large number of nuclear power plant worldwide. There is no controversy on this. Any opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants is borne either from ignorance, vested interests or some ill ideology...
Here the title of a Study that shows that renewables are more effective at lowering carbon emissions than larger-scale nuclear: "Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power"
You say: "Any opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants is borne either from ignorance, vested interests or some ill ideology..."
Is that based on scientific studies or on a gut feeling? Happy to read studies that are contradicting my "ill ideology", if you send them to me ^^
Renewables are better at decreasing carbon genration than nuclear, thought not by a lot. The problem of renewables is that all of them, with the exception of hidropower, are inconstant l, meaning you can't choose when you are producing. This is why nuclear can be very usefull, since you can produce a baseline of energy that gets complemented by renewables. For this functions, we can only use Nuclear, Hidropower(which is not feasible everywhere) or coal/natural gas plants, so nuclear ends up being the best option
Why didn't you include the pro nuclear protest that was happening at the same time as the anti nuclear one you showed? It was only 100 m away.
9:50 "...are starting to age" In human time the french npp's are around 80.....
btw: *"Garbage"* is no longer an issue?
my electric bill this month changes my attitude... anything cheap please
Why can't governments just support & not suppress "free-energy" inventions?
Nuclear has received trillions in government support over the last 70 years and Biden has billions more to help build new ones and keep old ones running. What more do you want?
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.
Rare UK W
With river levels falling in Europe, and remaining river water warming, providing cooling water for nuclear reactors is an increasing problem.
Whatever the merits of nuclear power, it is unlikely to avoid the effects of climate change. Planners must be prepared for a climate that humans have never previously experienced, and that must include how electricity is generated.
Hence why they build them along the sea side.....water issue solved!!!!
Even if water levels were consistently falling across Europe, which is not the case, your point would only be a problem if unenclosed, evaporative cooling was the only solution, which is definitely not the case. For most of the year it would not even be an issue in civilized countries where fossil fuel power plant waste heat is already distributed to households. Heat exchangers could simply be integrated into the current systems, replacing one source of waste heat with another at almost no cost. England would simply have to get its act together and start building the energy-efficiency infrastructure the rest of northern Europe started building more than 100 years ago.
Palo Verde Nuclear power station is in the middle of the Arizona desert. It is cooled by treated sewage from Phoenix.
This is not a problem inherent to the power type, unlike low energy density and intermittency, which is inherent to solar and wind.
We will keep learning from previous nuclear disasters that's a great plan. Try and error.
How many exclusion zones the world can sustain?
What about tide energy and many others.
There should be no exclusion zones. Wildlife is thriving in both the Fukushima and Chernobyl zones.
It’s sad cause Germany has so much potential, its already at almost 50% renewable energy generation. Using reliable nuclear power it could have been at 60 to 70% putting at the forefront of renewable energy transition especially for a high carbon emitting country
Now they burn the dirtiest coal you can burn! Way to go, "GREEN PARTY" ya really saved the environment!
Now Germany is increasing its use of coal.
Nuclear is low carbon source of energy but it is not renewable.....
@@aldrinspeck2724 If your criteria is limited resources, then nothing is renewable.
Renewable doesn't mean "infinite", it only means "the supply is HUGE!"
In a sudden nuclear attack event, what will happen to nuclear plants that are hit or suddenly abandoned?
After a nuclear weapons attack, your cities/country/civilization is a smoking ruin post attack, yet you are singularly worried about the impact on civilian nuclear power? - it really doesn't matter at that point.
I am from the UK, and I am potentially in favour of nuclear. I think the video exaggerates the UK position. Bear in mind these points 1) Nuclear energy as a share of UK electricity has been declining over time. New power plant Hinkley C point has been overdue and massively over budget. In addition, it was supposed to be led by a French Chinese consortium. Now the UK is deeply distrustful of the Chinese, so it is looking at ways to get them out of the project. Brexit brings additional complications such as visas for French engineers, etc 2) Small modular nuclear reactors may well be the future. Whether that is truly the future, or a clever way for Rolls Royce to get some R&D subsidies who knows. I think the potential gain, compared to a bit of money wasted on R&D makes the research worthwhile. But unless there is a break-through in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, the role of nuclear in the UK energy generation will be small. Around 16% of UK elecricity production comes from Nuclear, and the strategy is more about keeping some baseload capacity than increasing the share 3) Both the UK's and Germany's strategy revolves around increasing renewable power generation, which in both countries accounts for over 40% of electricity generation.
Nuclear is a wonderful resource and should be embraced.
Nuclear power is too complex, too costly and too slow to build, too costly to operate and maintain, too risky, too dirty... what you're saying doesn't make sense.
Increase in the world earthquake must couturiers of this factor to nuclear power plants as their consequences on operations failure consumes all the initial benefits.
Nuclear energy is the cleanest of all energy sources.
Germany made a big mistake.
Nuclear accidents? Germany cannot alone prevent nuclear disaster.
Chernobyl - Pripyat - was not a disaster. The biggest threat facing the then Soviet State of Ukraine was loss of utility electrical power. It's time people start to understand chemistry and physics before going off half cocked.
One who know fusion and One who doesn't know fusion
Fuel diversity is KING.
the battle is between Germany and France. not UK.
Why? It does not matter. Each are sovereign nations and need to make their own decision. If they want to go back to the Stone Age or move past it, that is up to them.
thorium reactors
Nuclear energy should be used wherever non-intermittent renewables are not available. PV solar and Wind use too much land.
France built most of its reactors between the 1970's and the 1980's, not in the 1950's
Is it true that Germany tore down a wind farm in order to open a coal mine?
I am unsure about that but Scotland chopped down fourteen million trees to make space for solar and wind farms.
Yep, German energy giant RWE has begun dismantling a wind farm to make way for a further expansion of an open-pit lignite coal mine in the western region of North Rhine Westphalia.
A large chunk of construction costs comes from frivolous law suits delaying construction.
Close their nuclear power and buy another’s nuclear power nice job
Could you use the term energy correctly? electricity =/= energy
Nice summary from the production side. To be included is the consumption side were better building technology and modeling will provide more comfortable healthy buildings.
We need thorium reactors
Thorium is a cult. Rather spend the money researching FBRs
It's not a researched field, as is thorium reactors are completely unreliable. There have been some experiments conducted on thorium reactors but compared to conventional nuclear reactors it's decades behind and requires massive investments. There's a thorium reactor being built in China and India but those are "lab" reactors, not for public use.
You look like you have a cigarette in your hand!! 😂
Sorry but solar and wind cannot be used for base load power. Germany should tell it's environmental left to shove it.
Introduce myself my name is Ariful Islam leeton im software engineer and software developer and members of the international organization and investors and employees
None of them happens in Germany 🇩🇪
The "future of nuclear" energy should have included countries other than just European ones.
Let's not forget that nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused in reactors
Germans saw the “Dark” . 😂
Have you ever heard of German Angst...? The mythologization and demonization of nuclear has probably its roots in the stories of Grimm etc.
We attend forums...
Great overview on why Germany is so backwards in its thinking toward nuclear energy.
Stop saying, "nuclear," as though that's a proper noun! Nuclear is an adjective you fools!
My problem with current new nuclear plans is that they take too long, cost too much (the current estimate for the UK's latest one is £30b and climbing and taking 15 years) and leaves a massive clean-up cost to future generations. I've no issue with keeping the current ones we have going as long as possible to enable renewables and storage to catch up to where we need to be but I dont want to see any new nuclear unless its maybe a few SMR's if we have no other choice. The UK is lucky in that we get around 40% of all the wind that hits europe and even 1 acre of solar here can power evs for 1 million miles per year, we just need the government to free up regulations (more onshore wind) and improve our grid to allow private companies to get on with it!
You are multi-mistaken. Many countries (including the UK) builds and uses small modular reactors , built in two years or less, costing millions not billions. No massive clean up costs, reprocess or reuse instead of burial. You are using Greeine fantasy numbers on solar, try again using real numbers.
Adding even 4 hours of storage to variable renewables drives the cost above that of electricity from the most expensive nuclear reactor. So even the longest construction time, most expensive reactor is actually the cheaper option.
Future generations would profit from having much cheaper energy and cleaner air. Nuclear in the long run pays for itself.
@@gregorymalchuk272 can you give me an article title, i am not criticizing i just want access to the information
You need to think about the oncoming replacement of ALL solar panels, because they decrease in value quickly too
There are two camps, and only two camps. There is a third option, and that is to say both sides are crazy splitting up into opposing camp. But the third option does not attract as near as many crazy people, as a matter of fact those in the third camp, the vast majority of people, look on the other two camps with a mixture of pity and disgust at how mindless and idiotic they are.
Risk Management can convert penalty from red into green.
AWS_Gov
ঈসা হ্যাঁ ।
সমস্ত প্রশংসা আল্লাহ্ র ।
AL HAMDULILAH.
I bet this video has a lot of downvotes because it's heavily favoring sun & wind energy, maybe even coal
In sya dari santunn siap a
Introduction
Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and severe.
These disasters can cause widespread power outages, which can have a devastating impact on communities.
Governments need a reliable and affordable way to provide temporary power in disaster areas.
The Problem
There is a need for a reliable and affordable way to provide temporary power in disaster areas.
Current solutions are often slow to deploy and expensive.
There is also a need for a solution that is environmentally friendly.
The Solution
Ideanomics proposes to convert used containers from the pandemic into electric batteries.
These batteries can be deployed quickly and easily in disaster areas.
They are also cost-effective and environmentally friendly.
The Benefits
Ideanomics' solution can provide temporary power in disaster areas quickly and easily.
It is also cost-effective and environmentally friendly.
Ideanomics' solution can help governments save money and protect the environment.
Conclusion
Ideanomics believes that its solution is the best way to provide temporary power in disaster areas.
It is cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and easy to deploy.
Ideanomics urges governments to consider its proposal.
Nuclear still a better option until you have a alternative. Just don’t weaponize it 😅
Apparently nuclear weapons and nuclear power are 2 different branches of work nowadays, it has changed a lot so weaponizing nuclear isn't happening anymore
You are missing the major contributors to this sector (because of your Western bias of course). If you want to see the future of Nuclear power, look at what India and China are doing. India is on its way to attaining 30,000 MW (30GW) of nuclear power by 2030 and considering doubling it to 60,000 MW by 2047. China is looking at 200,000 MW (200 GW) by 2045. You ignore these two giants and you say you are comparing the future of nuclear energy. This is laughable!
rupert murdoch is why
Just like the US who doesn’t want to build highspeed rail while the rest of the world are doing it
HSR are more like white elephants. They're very costly and don't make profit. It's a wise decision by many nations to avoid HSR investments
Not quite.
The US has demonstrated _some_ desire to reclaim rail dominance, but its transportation system is built around Suburban infrastructure, lowering such necessity.
Germany is in *severe* need of cost-effective energy.
The two priorities are orders of magnitude in difference at scale. Your comparison is *false* .
Rail is simply not that economical for US which is sparsely populated and not closely packed.
Plus air travel has rendered them mostly useless.
Power consumption will only increase. This is inarguable. More people, more techmology being used. Advancement requires energy. Solar, tidal, or wind wont do it, even if the tech was perfected. Look at E-vehicles. Lets say a country decides all fossil fuel vehicles must go. There isnt a single country in the world capable of sustaining a population of millions all driving EV's if they depend on so called green energy. No power grid would survive. In the US, even too many people running air conditioning in places like California, causes constant brown outs. Cali even had to run back regulations just to open fossil fuel plants to keep up with energy consumption. Nuclear power is the way. Stop spending so much money on "green energy" that isnt even all that green and use that money to invent better and safer nuclear energy. Notice i didnt say completely stop improving green energy, it does have its place, nuclear is just better. Perhaps, because of recent scientific developments, cold fusion isnt impossible after all.
I find it funny when people say "Then germany should build new nuclear power plants!". The construction for 1 nuclear power plant would take at least 10 years and during this time they also do not generate any electricity!
it's closer to 5 years, which isn't that long
@@PosterityIslesNewsit’s more like 15. look at all the nuclear plants being build in Europe. Every nuclear plant rn is over budget and over build time.
@@GamerBrosLetsPlay thats because they lack funding and government support. most of that time comes from just approving the projects, let alone completing them
Better start now, then.
I think most intelligent people were saying, "Stop shutting down the ones you already have!"
What Germany is doing is enviramental catastrophe, Spain has biggest water problems in Europe and not power to desolinasati enough water ,with nuclear going out. inanity everywhere!
I'm pretty sure this video is referring to a country that is shutting down plants Vs one that is opening new ones, while France already did this a while ago
The downfall of Germany has just started and sped up steadily. In 10-20 years, Germany's current advantage in cars and machinery will be outperformed by China's. A very niche market, e.g. luxury cars like Porse, can still live more or less well, but the rest of Germany seems to collapse by then. The energy crisis in Europe will be remembered as among the last nails to the coffin of downfall.
Germany was once known for destroying other countries, now they are determined on destroying themselves.
China has the worst birth rate and aging population in the world they gone feel the pain we before Germany does
I disagree. I think the opposite is the case.
@@brianbosch3628 You wouldn't disagree if you had researched the facts about ruinable energy.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk the fact that you spelled it wrong is prove for your misconception...
Also note: After Tschernobyl there was a lot of atomic rain in Germany - to this day meat from wild animals contains high radioactive levels
High? Or higher than background radiation?
There’s levels of radiation that’s actually safe but “not preferable”.
Going on a plane exposes you to high levels of radiation compared to the ground, but relative to the doses of radiation that causes sickness, it’s practically moot
Source?
in your head
@@matteobonatesta5601 If you hunt a boar you are required to send in a probe for a "bequerel test!" , especially here in southern germany. Most of the animals are fine, but if the animal ate too much mushrooms at the wrong place the radiation level can be too high. To my knowledge this problem only applies to wild boars, they are the only huntable animals who like mushrooms in problematic quantities.
you are exposed to more radiation in a plane than in your entire life on the ground, you'll be fine
Why go for a super expensive and potentially dangerous option when there is wind and solar?
Sure. What if there is none?
its actually pretty cheap in the long run and isn't dangerous because it's not in the soviet union
Exactly! As long as the sun shines & the wind blows there'll be no problem.
its not "super expensive" and its as safe or safer than wind and solar, coal/oil and gas are 100
Wind and Solar is more expensive in the long run though.
Nuclear power is great until something happens. We still do not have the technology to even approach the 3 meltdowns of Fukushima. Years to decades of profits lost in one day. Until we can handle emergencies and the technology to deal with emergencies we are too immature presently. Maybe thorium is a better option. Maybe Fusion will solve problems in the future. We can not even handle waste as it is stored in pools on site. No state wants nuclear dump sites within their borders. These sites must be protected for decades at huge costs. Even dismantling a nuclear reactor takes decades.
Musk who should be an energy czar had stated not much desert would be needed for thousands of solar panels and battery storage.
It's not safe. Renewables are the only answer. Why? Because they're renewable and safe.
How is nuclear power unsafe? And how are renewables going to service base load demand?
Ruinables are more dangerous than nuclear.
Always funny when all the nuclear energy fanboys emphasize how safe the technology supposedly is but ignore that its just by far the most complicated and expensive way to generate energy. Countries expanding outdated technology will pay a huge price and already are (Flamanville, Olkiluoto). Countries going to 100 % renewable (i.e. not nuclear) will have the cheapest energy of the future. That’s just how it is.
Please elaborate on the phrase "generate energy". What is it you mean by that?
Ruinables are actually more dangerous and more expensive than nuclear.
@@ForbiddTVI agree completely.
@@paulanderson7796 Very irksome when someone strings together a bunch of lies and says "That's just how it is" expecting everyone to automatically believe the nonsense he just spread.
@@ForbiddTV Another common thing is to write "FACT!" at the end of the lies and suddenly this makes it all true.
Plenty of misinformation in the video. No, nuclear reactors are not more reliable and independent of weather and even less of war (See France and Ukraine). From a point of national security, nuclear reactors are a no-go. Why? because in case of a war, the enemy just needs to target the reactors with a few ballistic missiles to severly cripple the country. That would not happen if the power generation is purely renewable.
No, small nuclear reactors are not cheaper than PV or wind generators. The cost of the storage of nuclear waste over several thousands of years should be included in any cost comparison.
And nuclear won't generate electricity when the sun doesn't shine, or the wind doesn't blow. Oh no, wait! That's renewables.
Dude, that's incomplete logic. The same concern applies to _any_ piece of the energy sector: knock out POL, Hydroelectric, the Grid itself (likely the most central point-of-failure anyway), you are *fucked* .
Besides, your true nuclear concern should be that which is weaponized. EMP is going to fry every circuit for miles, meaning, once again, your grid is wrecked (even if otherwise unscathed). It really doesn't matter if it's substantially powered by "renewable" energy or not at that point.
For the record, nuclear energy _is_ renewable energy. It's also the cleanest, cheapest, safest source of energy currently known to man.
@@redslate please educate me on how is nuclear power renewable, cheap and clean.
@Christmas Snow Honestly kiddo, go read about it; there are _easily_ accessible stats provided you quit burrying your head in the ground. This isn't a cop-out, you simply aren't paying me enough to educate you. Send me $100/hr, and I'll consider talking offline.
In the interim however, I'll pose this logical quandry: Do you consider solar power to be "renewable?" Where does solar power originate?
///Spoilers///
Nuclear 🤨
@@redslateYou obviously did not live in a region that made you stay indoors for month, and 30 years later, still has to check mushrooms and wild boar for radioactivity even though chernobyl was 1.800 km (1.200 miles) away...
1:23 - apr26 - typical Ukranian (mis)management
Is divided into two camps: Scientists vs Ignorants