Let's
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2023
- Climate Change is a major global crisis and a clean energy transition is key to solving this crisis. The evidence is clear that nuclear energy is vital to the clean energy transition. WePlaneteer Joel gives you 7 reasons to Rethink Nuclear.
www.weplanet.ngo/rethinknuclear
Connect with WePlanet
Facebook: / weplanetinternational
Twitter/x: / weplanetint
Instagram: / weplanetinternational
LinkedIn: / weplanetinternational
Tiktok: / weplanetinternational
Threads: www.threads.net/@weplanetinte...
Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/weplanetint....
About WePlanet:
WePlanet is an environmental organisation working with a network of citizen movements who are defending the crucial role of science and technology in ending the climate and biodiversity crises.
Spot on 100% nail on the head!!
Great video, keep the content coming!
Thank you for reconciling real environmentalism with the fight against climate change and for bringing energy density to the attention of the public. Hopefully your work can contribute to destroying the delusion that industrial nations can be powered exclusively on wind and solar power.
Really awesome video!!
I love the way u made the video. Especially the way you delivered the message, not confrontational at all!!
yes some of this is an oversimplification or misrepresentation, but as a whole the message is sound. It's not perfect and can be expensive to run, but it's a stable source of power, something solar and wind will never be on their own. Dismissing hydro is something I take issue with, it's a great way to store energy (that doesn't degrade in 5 years and doesn't spontaneously explode, and isn't as expensive as the massive battery pack that a certain billionaire wants to spread), not just make it, and the construction of other types of generation require humongous amounts of concrete as well.
Kyle Hill's channel is a place y'all should stop at if you're whining in this comment section, I'm sure you'll agree an award-winning and widely respected science communicator is a good enough source for you, and if you don't I doubt a youtube comment can suck you out of your conspiracy facebook group rabbit hole :)
Absolutely.
I agree that hydro is a great source of renewable power (in fact it has produced the most electricity of any renewable source by far), but the issue is it is geographically limited and cannot be built everywhere. You need mountains and plenty of water to build a dam, and these are things that a lot of countries just don’t have much of, like Australia. In an ideal world, the majority of the energy mix would be supplied by nuclear and supplemented primarily by hydro where possible. Solar and wind can be of use as well, especially for pumped hydro, but they can’t cover the bulk majority of electricity production. They’re just too intermittent and resource intensive, and those are two things that will never change.
I don´t know if its the case. But in Sweden And Finland We upgraded the old gen 2 reactors to gen 2+(+) reactors and are running most of the fuel a second time, While this is just gen 2+ reactor, we only get about 50-60% of the original extracted energy the second time around.
But something that most people are unaware of is that even gen 3 reactors (that is the bulk of what is built now) can still reuse fuel from older reactor and get something like 80-100% equivalent the original energy out of them
Hey there, so glad to hear someone who is not blindly rallying around ideas. Stance on nuclear is my main issue with our green political parties (BE) here (I have personally confronted them and they will literally just walk away)
However, I need to temper your enthousiasm a little bit, there are some points that are afaik just wrong and are in my view hurting your videos credability:
1. Nuclear power plants, at least in their current form, are generally really bad at covering transient power requirements. So if you go ahead and claim that 'they can do that too', then it really needs to be backed up by something, you can't just claim these things and move on.
2. You cannot just recycle nuclear waste into power again. It may be possible to some limited extent if this was the goal from the beginning of creating the waste, but with our current waste its completely unrealistic, storage has been optimised to be as safe as possible, compressed surrounded with low radioactive waste etc. And its also not economical
Great video, well done! Would've loved it if it included more examples of how nuclear tech has evolved nowadays. There's some awesome work being done right now, like experimental reactors so safe that they can be operated by school children.
Absolutely nice.
It is, I believe beyond the scope of one's horizon as it might require some deeper knowledge of the matter, I suggest, for these topics you could find more videos in youtube.
If we start with gen 2 reactors that most people think of as "standard nuclear reactor". Those was typically built in the 60 and early 70. The 4 in Fukushima was gen 2. (The Chernobyl reactors is often claimed to be gen 2, but they have more in similar with gen 1 reactors).
All generation reactors must meet all of the demands for all previews generations
Gen 2+ (late 70, early 80). Added the capacity to recycle typically 30-40% of the fuel. Increased the efficiency from typical 32% to about 34% (BWR).
Gen 2++ (non ever built, typically retrofitted in 00s). Have the capacity to run with 60% recycled fuel. Typical 37% efficiency (BWR), have independent core cooling (remove the risk of a Fukushima like accident) have meltdown filters. Remove 98-99% of the containment in case of a meltdown (in Sweden gen 2++ is by law the lowest safty standard alowed).
Gen 3 (first deployed in 90s). Can run on 60% recycled fuel, have passive core cooling of at least 60 hours. So what ever happens, with no intervention the core will be passively cooled for 60 hours. Build to have a service life of at least 60 years.
Gen 3+ (first deployed in 00s, first to start in 2018) Can run on 80% recycled fuel. Have 72 hours of passive core cooling. Have a so called "core catcher" that will stop a melted core to be active. Are pre certified prior to building and have a standard construction. They are generally more affordable than gen 3 as well. All SMR on the market are either gen 3+ or gen 4.
gen 4 (first deployed in 2021*). Run on 100% recycled fuel and do so producing more energy than the fuel originally did.
Remove the issue of phase shift expansion
Considerably smaller footprint of reactor building.
Typical turbine efficiency of 40-60% (the on that is online to day have one of 42%).
*BN800 that started in 2015 was originally designed as a gen 4 reactor, but was retroactively downgraded to gen 3, due to the reactor design when it was designed gen 3 and 4 existed, but not gen 3+. When gen 3+ was added the BN800 reactor didn´t meet the 72 hours demand, so it was downgraded to gen 3.
@@matsv201 wow thank you for for a much detailed explanation. Hands gotta be sore after typing that
@@chicoliu6057 The hard part was getting that information. One would think there would be a sheet that just explains it. but there is not. The actuall technical definition are deep in the documentation
Merci pour cet excellent résumé qui nous espérons fera le tour du monde
Vielen Dank für diese hervorragende Zusammenfassung, von der wir hoffen, dass sie um die Welt geht.
Thank you for this excellent summary which we hope will go around the world.
Great video! You should include that nuclear provides the fastest buildout of energy production. Here's a copy of what I wrote in another comment:
--------
The amount of years before the first plant is operational doesnt really answer the question "what is the fastest way to build out energy?" What does matter, is the energy delivered per year in that same period.
Take the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who began early planning of their first ever nuclear power plant 'Barakah' in 2005 where all four reactors are now finnished, the fourth one will be connected to the grid this year 2023. Including starting a new civil nuclear power program from scratch, it took 18 years for the entire plant to be finnished, which indeed sounds like a very long time. However, compared to the amount of energy that was delivered over the building period, it was over twice the energy per building year per citizen than what my home country of Denmark build of wind turbines and solar panels combined, which has has steady growth since 2005. Since UAE has 1.5 more citizens than Denmark I have corrected for this or it would be even faster for UAE.
Nuclear is by far the fastest way of delivering energy when measured properly in energyproduction per buildyear per citizen.
I left out the numbers, but you can do the calculations yourself in half an hour, its very simple.
Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear
Boils my blood when I hear nucular
FFS
If we started a massive nuclear project tomorrow, how many years would it take for the first to come online?
Many years. But we should think of it this way: The amount of years before the first plant is operational doesnt really answer the question "what is the fastest way to build out energy?" What does matter, is the energy delivered per year in that same period.
Take the United Arab Emirates (UAE) who began early planning of their first ever nuclear power plant 'Barakah' in 2005 where all four reactors are now finnished, the fourth one will be connected to the grid this year 2023. Including starting a new civil nuclear power program from scratch, it took 18 years for the entire plant to be finnished, which indeed sounds like a very long time. However, compared to the amount of energy that was delivered over the building period, it was over twice the energy per building year per citizen than what my home country of Denmark build of wind turbines and solar panels combined, which has has steady growth since 2005. Since UAE has 1.5 more citizens than Denmark I have corrected for this or it would be even faster for UAE.
Nuclear is by far the fastest way of delivering energy when measured properly in energyproduction per buildyear per citizen.
Also, what do we do about Jevon's paradox?
@@mortennygaard5335 Your last sentence is just daft. Typical nuclear plant - 1GW, timescale 18 years (your number). Amount of wind generation deployed *per year* in Europe alone 20GW. The US installed 30GW of solar this year, so far. Nuclear is just stupid.
Many many years unfortunately, all cos of the BS and holding back of the technology! We know how to build nuclear power plants safely and correctly!
The things that makes them take so long is all the regulations and red tape that all needs to be gotten through, most of which is nothing to do with safety and running the site and really about restriction and control!!
Excellent video.. since nuclear will do the whole job, and with the newer designs be even safer, and in some instances even use up some of that 'so called' waste, why do be need expensive renewables, or anything else really?
15 years to build a nuclear power plant...then you need even more mining for a 76 year solution. Mining and construction creates greenhouse gases. I refer you to Simon Mischaux.
I am not against Nuclear. There are places for it. Who knows, better technologies are possible. I think small nuclear will be needed in high latitude locations.
Traditionally, nuclear is very centralized. Modern renewables such as Solar, wind, and geo/thermal/hydro are decentralized and cost effective. The danger I see is that nuclear will consume too large a share of development money. The issue is that sunlight and wind are free. When everyone can produce their own power who needs nuclear?
There is 1 reason why I absolutely cannot share this otherwise very nice video. At minute 8:47 you start speaking about misinformation using labels as antivax, anti-5G, etc. ... you should refrain from using these labels (which are opinions you don't agree with and not proven facts) to refer to groups of people. Edit this video only using misinformation without targeting groups who might be proven right in some decades time from now and I gladly support the nuclear cause by sharing this video.
Well antivax and anti-5G indeed spread misinformation. I see nothing wrong with his statement
He never says "nuclear" but "nucular" 😄
We are doomed either way.
why would that be?
That’s what fossil fuel companies want us to think, as if we despair we give up. Change is already happening, and the future is still unwritten 🙏
I want to invite you to Chernobyl. Let’s talk about this there. Welcome. It’s not so far from Kyiv. Someone from station will tell about how many people died there during last 30+ years.
Also could we discuss this issue? ""The representatives of the IAEA reported on the fact that the Russian occupiers placed military equipment, weapons and explosives in the premises of the turbine department of power unit No. 4 of the Zaporizhzhya NPP. This became known during the weekly communication meeting between the IAEA Crisis Center (IEC) and the State Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the activities of the IAEA mission at the Zaporizhzhya NPP site, which took place on May 2, 2023."
I have relatives in village that lives on other side of the Dnipro river just directly with view at ZNPP. They can host us for free, but you need some equipments. Body armor and helmet. I think this journey is totaly safe, because nuclear power is very safety technology. I carry with me potassium iodide, I enjoy this pills. Just how it looks like, without any other reasone. Belive me.
@@kolo_sha Pretty sure the body armor and helmet is to protect against bullets, not nuclear power.
@@chigeh and bomb fragments. Read news about Nikopol and villages near. You will understand what about I mean
Really crushed down information.
No mention about the destruction of nature from Fukushima or Tschernobyl. Here in the middle of Europe we still have to check the soil while building house because of radioactivity. Its a think to talk about, not much people died because of the nuclear energy, but many suffered.
And the use of waste ist a good idea on paper, but nobody does it. Japan started one reactore and had to shut it down, because its so unsafe after just 200 days.
You leave a lot of information on the table.
Chernobyl is now a paradise for wildlife.
Chernobyl RBMK Realtor was never ment to produce power. It was ment as a large scale isotope reactor. But it was retroactively jerryrigged to produce power due to the total lack of control organs in USSR.
So you can´t talk about RBMk when talking about nuclear power, because its not really a power-plant.
"check the soil while building house because of radioactivity."
That have nothing to do with Chernobyl.
For Fukushima its a bit different. Its about a area the size of 2x5 km still higher than the legal background limit. But its reduced still quite rapidly, and with in 10 years the whole area will be clear. A great benefit of Nuclear contamination is that it does clean it self, it just takes time. Not like heavy metals that will be there for ever.
"Japan started one reactor and had to shut it down, because its so unsafe after just 200 days"
You are confusing it with legal requirements.
@@matsv201 Nice overview.
Coal and bananas are probably more radioactive than the soil of tchernobyl land, so yeah, you are just spreading FUD, making the future way more difficult than it should be for us
the issue is you're forming a connection between all nuclear power and an old design (and one of the first of its kind likely) with a known flaw that was *deliberately* not mentioned to get the project done, combined with all sorts of operator mishandling (and yes, a flaw, but one that could never really get through today's cracks), and one which had little consequence, relatively speaking, that came from an incompetent company that refused to acknowledge warnings that came its way. Nuclear reactors no longer have even the possibility of Chernobyl's failure mode, many never had it to begin with. You're connecting this stuff with modern, competently built ones, apples to oranges my guy, and if anything that's an incompetent government and company, not really the technology's fault as a whole.
Consider this: how many deaths come from coal plants? Likely many many more, the massive amount of contamination is well-understood, etc. When nuclear goes kaboom it's a big spectacle, but all the smaller failures of coal plants and whatnot add up, they're less publicized maybe. Nuclear is scary to people, because they don't really understand it, and because hey it's kinda also used to warm up japanese cities by a few million degrees so it can do the same to us (no.)
I also live in central-ish Europe and, though there's indeed remnants of Chernobyl, that's a stupid argument to dismiss the entirety of nuclear power.
Congratulations, I guess nuclear is proud to finance this. Excuse me, but about number 6, how is it that men are so incredibly stupid to store nuclear waste for millions of years instead of using that enormous energy capacity? Could it be that there is currently no way to safely use all that waste? Just as for more than 60 years it has been said that the future of energy is nuclear fusion? I hope you have no problem having one of the nuclear waste collection plants near your house so that your children can be exposed to that healthy radiation when there is a nuclear waste leak. Or will you also tell me that it is absolutely impossible that statistically and scientifically this will never happen?
Lol none of what you said made any logical sense.
@@chigeh Idd!! Just another simpleton talking about things he knows nothing about!
I might have a lot to say, but for now I'll stick to: You are not objective!
But the data he presents is objective.
@@ericdanielski4802 No! They are not.
@@JohnJohansen2 okej? What is the issue with the data?
@@matsv201 For one he's talking about NP as if it doesn't need back up.
Well, talk with the French and Swedish about that.
Especially the breakdown in France NP influenced the extreme prices for electricity Europe experienced last winter.
@@JohnJohansen2 Well. yes talk about it with me, who is Swedish. Barsebäck Nuclear power station visible from my parents lawn.
So what was the problem with NP in Sweden the last 2 years? Right, government forced shutdown of 4 reactors (2015, 2017, 2019 and 2020, the two later was much larger). If we go back a few more years forced shutdown of two reactors in 1999 and 2005.. Of Sweden 1985 12 reactors, 6 is left. All of them shut down due to government interference. That is a quarter of Sweden electric energy production removed from the grid.
Also 11 reactors was quite recently removed in Germany. Because of HVDC links that effect the price of power in Sweden to.
What about in France. During the covid pandemic (most of 2020 and 2021) NP station was not alowed to have full manning for plant revision. So a lot of the revision was postponed to 2022. And then they was not only had a huge backlog for mid revisions, but also had a shortage of trained staff. They have eaten throw most of the backlog but will not be finished until mid/late summer. Ad the two reactors in UK that was forcefully turned of due to government interference.
" For one he's talking about NP as if it doesn't need back up. "
you don´t because they are not effected by weather. Back in the olden days we simply had more nuclear power than we needed and solved it that way. And back in those day electric power was super cheap.
And hydropower works just great picking up the slack. That is harder with wind and solar where the diffrance in high and low production is much higher.
Isn´t it strange how electric power was super cheap back in the 80 and 90s when most of the nuclear reactors (at least in Sweden) was privately owned and built and government for the most part didn´t interfere and there was no wind and solar power in the grid.
Unfortunately you get almost everything wrong in this video and what you get right, you spin as a positive when it isn't. The reality is that nuclear remains one of the most expensive ways to generate power and for that reason alone it doesn't have a chance. Nuclear only gets built for the wrong reasons (usually to do with military or corruption). I could dismantle your arguments one by one if you wish but your whole video comes across as propaganda rather than stuff you actually believe so I am not sure if rational discussion would be worth it.
" The reality is that nuclear remains one of the most expensive ways to generate power and for that reason alone it doesn't have a chance"
Is it really? can you show that in a calculation and not just a report from a oil/gas financed anti nuclear thinktank?
"Nuclear only gets built for the wrong reasons (usually to do with military or corruption"
Light water reactor can not be used for military usage. They are usless as a isotope source. You need something like a zero energy reactor, or a RBMK reactor for that.
And why would people build them for corruption if they was expensive?
How much calculation have you done in the economics of nuclear reactors?
it's simply not true, the electricity produced by nuclear power plant in France is by far the cheapest, stop spreading fud over a subject your obviously don't know
@@elchartps3 That is simply not true. Direct me to a single reference that does total cost of energy analysis for nuclear vs other options for France that shows what you claim. (and isn't 10 years old)
@@matsv201 Show me any report (recent) by anyone that has nuclear coming in the cheapest. If I reference a report you will simply claim it is 'anti-nuclear' and dismiss it.
I currently live in South Africa and there was a push for new nuclear some years ago because Russia was pressuring the government to do it. Nuclear is perfect for corruption because they are large projects that can easily have massive cost overruns and a they are generally very secretive so the public getting the accounts can be difficult and any over charging can be hidden under the label 'safety'. Its rather like the aircraft and medical industries in that regard. Here in South Africa though the main problem is corruption in the coal industry with the coal industry simultaneously forcing the government to stick with coal and sabotaging the coal power plants in order to make more money. As a result our power is off up to 6 hrs per day. Yes the nuclear plants here are very reliable but not the cheapest option and thus not the best going forward. Yes we should keep the current ones running as long as it makes sense to do so but building new ones is madness.
@@TimothyWhiteheadzm You can check the energy price in France as a first guess, if you are able too.