America's $35BN New Nuclear Power Plant 

safest form of power in existence, just had very bad press from particular groups. You seem to have lifted all your information on Nuclear accidents from those sources unfortunately. Can't believe you don't mention France, which has more nuclear plants than most countries and the lowest Carbon Capita and has had no major incidents, ever.

​@@JamesTyrrellOnline So if it's info contrary to your echo chamber it's all some vast conspiracy

yes. dunno.

Yes, the world does.

The T is silent: Plant "Vogel." This area is very familiar with nuclear energy. It's near the Savannah River Site which produced tritium for nuclear warheads. It's now focused on environmental clean up.

Wow, I learned about that when I started at Farley and why we have "Comp Measures" now.

@@kc2nrb we had run that scenario several times in the simulator. I wouldn't authorize the work in the switchyard but I was over ruled by the outage manager. Work was ongoing to the "A train" diesel generator and one off-site power source was undergoing maintenance. A contractor in a truck backed into a disconnect that took out the available off-site source and the autotransformer from Unit 2, which was at 100% power. The "B train" DG started up but tripped out due to high vibration. My BOP Operator reset the DG and tried to restart. It restarted and tripped out due to high vibration again. Containment is open to atmosphere because of outage work. We're in a total loss of off-site and on-site power and the core, being refueled, is beginning to heat up and we have no fuel pool cooling. The sequencer has locked out the DG from starting but I knew that I could go to the sequencer panel and reset it, then we would have 2 more chances for a restart. The outage manager was freaking out and saying we didn't have a procedure to do that. I told him do you want to irradiate the southeast or do want to try another start, because it was warm now and starting vibrations would be reduced. Me and a SS went to the sequencer and reset it. The DG started and closed in the output breaker and gave us "B" train power and cooling began. The Senate Subcommittee was formed and Georgia Power was treating us as if we were renegade operators working without a procedure. The Subcommittee found that although we had no procedure to act, with our knowledge of the systems, we did the right thing and thanked us for stopping the crisis. After the ruling Georgia Power was acting as if that hadn't hung us out to dry initially.

No it's not. Let's talk about waste.

Safest ? Worst case scenario and the Planet becomes Mars. What other energy source as the ability?

No. But its the most expensive for sure!

The amount of money and time spent building new nuclear power plants is unreasonable. There are better and faster alternatives, such as solar and wind energy with batteries, compared to nuclear power.

@@ericchapman5975 fossil fuels?

Without ever any problems.

Imagine when they get destroyed in battle!

“Imagine”?… okay

@@bigtime4794 I'd imagine It'll be exactly like every other incident. The world imagines apocalyptic radiation killing them from afar, while in reality one fish gets prostate cancer and is eaten by a crab. Or maybe you'd like to imagine a nuclear explosion, in which case you'd better be prepared to wait a while. Protons might start to decay first.

@@amarissimus29 stop wasting your time

Same with oil.

Source: Trust me bro😂

A coal power plant releases way more radio active material in a year through their emissions than a nuclear power plant in its entire livecycle.

@Tonad_Drump Source: The economist an article called stellar solar.

What a joke!!

nice! Thank you. What is "natural uranium?" Is there any other version of uranium?

Enriched...

What's the cost per kg for both?

@@skyfinancellc9538 isotopes - There are different isotopes of Uranium.

renewables = no need for fuel

Every time he utters the word "Vogtle" it makes me cringe

This was hard to listen to

I was there with Georgia Power Company doing the start up testing and maintenance on units 1 & 2. Hard to believe it was 40 years ago.

thank you.

I agree. Showing rusted drums in place of the super secure, bulletproof canisters actually used, showed me all I needed to know about the author's bias. Storing canisters on the site of generation, like has been done quite safely for the past 40-50 years, and not "burying them in a hole." seems to be pragmatic and for the time being, an acceptable short term storage method.

@@jimmurphy6095 nuclear waste is also pellets that look like Coin Batteries. Not Simpson green goo.

Modern plants re-enrichment happens in the facility so zero hazardous waste ever leaves.

Yep. This guy is somewhat of a jerk.

This guy didn’t even read the wiki page. No scientists agree with his statements.

Exactly! I wrote a comment about this. They should be ashamed of themselves for creating disinformation like that.

And "waste" from existing light water reactors can be used in breeder or burner reactors and actually used up, leaving just a tiny amount of unusable waste that only needs to be stored for like 100-200 years...which is very easily doable.

😂😂

Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy production. That is the reason. Also nuclear also requires buying from other nations. Most of which hate the US.

⁠@@AL-lh2htyou missed the point of the original comment. The point was we don’t have money to invest in building a robust nuclear energy infrastructure, but we do have hundreds of billions to send to other countries for war. Interesting. Also, the idea that we would rely on other countries to supply us with equipment to build these nuclear plants is laughable. If that is not what you mean by buying from other countries, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Nuclear is by far the most efficient and cleanest way to produce energy for humanity.

Does it run on fentanyl?

@@garebaregoof4226we’d have money for both if we weren’t so wasteful with these overblown budgets. We honestly don’t need to have a military budget that big.

We always had a life time for nuclear power plants it was sixty year life based on all workers at the plant would be retired by then when the life span could easily be 120 years and we need to build hundreds more of them my son and I had a discussion on need when he was eight he’s now 30 years old and a nuclear engineer

@rayisland23 Repairing bearings is just a small part of the biggest problem we are facing in this country We do not have anymore the industrial capability to produce the major components of power plants be it nuclear thermal or hydro. We have also lost our engineering abilities and our craftsmanship. Revival of nuclear plants is a very good plan but reviving manufacturing, engineering and construction will take a huge amount of time and preparation in addition to a market that needs to support all the new projects. And by the way, do you know of any US company that is today able to build some large hydro turbines or large electrical generators or high voltage substation equipment?

Nuclear elements usually come from other nations.

@@AL-lh2ht Yeah, like Australia and France. The mortal enemies of the US. The enrichment in Russia also still made sense before the Biden administration.

YES - it doesn't have to be one OR the other it can be BOTH - why different in America? Well there are reasons Solar safely - yes, and if used across the country can provide power at the right time for many areas - evening for east cost morning for west, but not so good the other way. Uses a lot of land - but can coexist with many farming types these days (vertical panels). Costs are low - and while they are made in China there is no ongoing risk. Greenhouse payback less than 1 year The USA could make them but it will only be to address importation - not cost. Unless a new style of panel is developed with better characteristics and put into production earlier than what China does. Nuclear safely? The operating plants are WAY safer than coal powered - particularly for the surrounding communities. The issue still is the waste, there still isn't a reliable way of ensuring the waste can be kept safe (out of the environment) for the time needed. Also the cost of this is NOT priced into the current use - rather it is a cost pushed down the road to consumers that don't get the electricity. I presume nuclear are more able to cope with variable loads than coal - if so they are better at load matching with solar for time of day variation. The cost is eyewatering (so would solar at that scale of power delivery, it would be interesting to see real comparison including ability to supply across 24hrs for solar (storage of some type) The impact of the amount of concrete and steel used in greenhouse emissions would be HUGE but at least is basically a one off emission Nuclear Fuel may well come from other countries - like Australia. But that isn't a real risk, unless USA wants to make it so, so its up the the USA really. USA is already energy independent for oil and awash with natural gas Wind doesn't make a lot of sense for USA - unlike many countries. I think the same applies to tidal and wave. So until something else shows up as being scalable in the USA context Solar and Nuclear are the biggest plays in town.

Solar is a complete waste of time. Wind on the other hand.

They're green except for the fact they're made from concrete and steel...both made from highly intensive CO2 manufacturing. When determining whether or not something is 100% green you have to consider the supply chain involved...therefore nothing is 100% green at the moment.

@@zaklex3165 true,absolutey nothing.

@@zaklex3165 Like all those "green" electric cars that world Governments are pushing so hard.

Sorry for being that guy, but Ackchyually, both incidents are human made. Fukushima was not maintained good enough, there was couple violation of safety regulations, like not working water pump in the basement where backup power generation was located. So yea, it just dumb design + human ignorance.

@@delancre5858 Main culprit was found to be a diesel generator to power that water pump, but was left outside and unprotected when the tsunami hit. Once identified, several men chose suicide.

And then you remember how many people die each year due to oil and coal and the their long term health effects. Yea, it’s like saying surgeries should be banned because sometimes they die while in operation.

@@delancre5858 I think ultimately It was cost cutting at the design phases and corruption with operation in both cases.

Coal emissions kill more people per year than every nuclear energy related death in history including both atomic bombs COMBINED.

You forgot the lobbying of oil and gas companies in the states

He didn't mention a whole lot of stuff.

@maxvanorden2850 Are those serious questions or are you trying to be funny about the subject? --- nuke power plant accidents are extremely rare: Yes --- not particularly deadly: It depends; some can be contained in the control room of the plant and some can be terrible. France, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, Spain, the UK, etc, never had any serious accident with fatalities. --- storage of nuclear waste takes up very little space: No, but space is not the problem. The possibility of radioactive leaks is the important issue. --- massive power generation can also take up little space: Not much more space than a thermal power plant but definitely MUCH LESS than a wind farm. And a hydro plant, if you consider the surface of the dam and spillways takes quite some space also. --- runs 24 - 7: Nothing new, a hydro plant or a thermal power plant can run 24/7. I am not sure that solar runs at night. Don't you think so, at least in our galaxy? --- is thus more efficient and economical than "renewables." Yes and no, thermal power plants have (by thermodynamic principles) a limit to their efficiency and that includes nuclear. But solar panels and wind turbines cannot be compared to other plants because they do not work 24/7 and the comparison over a year for example would put the renewables very low compared with all the other power generating plants --- more green than renewables. Yes and no. That is tricky because when you dismantle a wind turbine (at the end of its useful life) you are left with a concrete foundation forever because it is so massive that even dynamite controlled explosions will not get rid of it while solar need of rare earth and other metals causes huge pollution problems (much more than making steel and cement). --- Did I get that right? NO and it was not even humorous or intelligent.

Not to mention the coal power plant shown has identical cooling towers.

@@willythemailboy2 -- The only "validity" of the towers is that nuke plants aren't as thermodynamic efficient as coal fired plants. This translates into needing more cooling per kWh produced.

Renewables are reliable - as long as you did the math to know what to expect before installation. Other than hydro they aren't typically baseload capable sources. Fact is they're already cheaper than you think, but they're nowhere near a 100% solution, at least not yet.

@jasonlind6790 Yes but you are dealing with irrational people brainwashed by unscrupulous politicians.

@burntjohn You are saying the right thing but you are not politically correct. And today, being politically correct and woke matters most.

Well you see France gets nuclear materials almost for free because of neocolonialism (yea France never really stopped doing colonialism, seriously look it up, it’s messed up)

Just read that they plan to build 10GW of natural gas power plants to provide backup when wind & solar cannot produce. And maybe more...

Collectively, with 8 units. But these are all very small units putting out less than 900 MWe each. The entire site puts out 6,550 MWe. By comparison, Palo Verde produces 4,000 MWe with just 3 units.

@@stevealexander7772 I work at Palo Verde and there is talk about adding another reactor in the near future.

I believe the Gen 5 reactors can recycle spent rods to boil water for the turbines. We have a LOT of nuclear waste which could generate heat sufficient for power generation.

The problem with the Chinese reactors was cost cutting during the builds then kicking out the foreign operators. The original designs were pretty great though.

Satsop! I visited there when I traveled through Washington and Oregon in 2020, I wish that plant and the others in Washington would’ve been completed instead of abandoned 😢

Financing killed them. Interest rates went high quickly. WPPS 2 was finished and has produced a great deal of power over the years. (Columbia Station.)

Because he doesn't know any better. Just because someone makes YT videos doesn't mean they're experts on anything... or actually know anything.

Wind power is pure ignorance: anti enviroment, extremely expensive, an eyesore, kills birds, makes noise, is ugly, non recyclable blades, expensive to maintain, and the kicker, the wind does not blow 24/7 so all other sources of power have to be 'hot', ready to assume the load.

Now days we can build nuscale power plants developed in Oregon USA and use very little space and are stackable at affordable prices

Dude made a video that was full of lies that no scientific agrees with. Like, this is not even reading the wiki level of bad info.

​@@AL-lh2htwhat video are you talking about about?

eia.gov data (US cents/kWh) average retail prices, average residential prices 12.72 - US retail 2023 15.98 - US residential 2023 11.36 - GA retail 2023 (with the super-expensive NPP) 13.73 - GA residential 2023 24.73 - CA retail 2023 (with the super-cheap solar/wind) 28.92 - CA residential 2023 So, not only is the nuclear GA rate lower than the solar/wind CA rate, it is lower than the US overall! 10.07 - US retail 2013 12.13 - US residential 2013 9.69 - GA retail 2013 (with the super-expensive Vogtle NPP) 11.46 - GA residential 2013 14.30 - CA retail 2013 (with the super-cheap solar/wind) 16.23 - CA residential 2013 What we can see, over the last 10 years of CA installation of wind/solar, prices have doubled. Not a great track record. What we can see, pre-Vogtle and post-Vogtle is that yes, prices rose - to about the same as the average US price 10 years previous. They certainly did not crush the GA ratepayer due to an expensive NPP! and for March 2024 12.73 - US retail 16.68 - US residential (super expensive nuclear; with extra cost overruns) 10.65 - GA retail 13.57 - GA residential (super cheap wind/solar; can really feel that low, low, low LCOE) 25.81 - CA retail 32.47 - CA residential

Having humans and animals on the planet has some carbon cost. Good grief. The earth isn't dying.

@@TrendyStone no, but for big infrastructure projects, especially in energy production, you need to look at the total carbon footprint, not just the footprint at a specific point in the project's life. So initially, the carbon footprint would increase during construction, then it'd stay constant during operations (or increase slightly), then potentially increase again at demolition & decommissioning. E.g., wind is fantastic, but has an ecological cost at the end of the life of the turbine because the blades are hard to recycle. The main point is that nothing is truly zero carbon, some things just produce a lot more carbon than others. (e.g., the carbon footprint of coal is massive, especially if you factor in the mining operations)

@@thisismissem building a coal plant use a lot concrete too. You have to look at the complete live cycle to compare them

@@thisismissemthe concept is simple. High cost in the beginning to have a very efficient and clean system in the long run. While you may produce lots of carbon in the beginning, you’ll pay that back over time with the difference between the energy produced and the total carbon emissions. For example, it’s like solar, where you pay a lot more to install this new source of power than you would if you kept paying the electric company. However, over time, your savings from the solar system will eventually pay back that investment, and then continue on afterwards saving you money. To bring that back to nuclear, you have a high investment of carbon to build the reactor and then over time, having a carbon free system will eventually bring the footprint to a net zero and then continue to be negative. If you were to invest the same initial carbon into a coal plant or some other type of non-clean energy, you’ll just continue to pollute the planet. The factories produced will likely never achieve net zero emissions because the power is unclean. Nuclear power is something that addresses the root of the problem and not just a bandage that covers it up for a spell.

So what?

Like Huger in SC is actually called Hugh gee.

Yeah, this was way wrong on so many points.

It feels like they have a bias against nuclear power. Based on the bad info and downright disinformation, they are against nuclear power.

that is the point of the channel😅

@@figjam88au lol