In 2014 Tony Seba said Nuclear would be obsolete by 2030 - he was right

Подписаться 220 тыс.

Просмотров 34 тыс.

50% 1

In 2014 Tony Seba said Nuclear would be obsolete by 2030 - he was right
👇👇 Buy something and support The Electric Viking Store 👇👇
shop.theelectricviking.com/
Size guide and other help for the store 👇
theelectricviking.com/the-ele...
🔔 Subscribe and hit the notification bell! ► / @electricviking
Join me on Patreon ► / theelectricviking
Join as a member in The Electric Viking RU-vid►
/ @electricviking
Members-only videos (see videos before anyone else)►
• Members-only videos
👇 Please donate here for Shanna (Viking's wife) if you can 👇
gofund.me/ef6650d7
See what happened to Shanna:
• Stage 4 can go to hell...
The Electric Viking on other platforms:
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/TheElectricViking
Facebook page ► / theelectricvikingfb
Facebook group ► / theevfbgroup
Twitter ► / theevking
Instagram ► / theelectricvking
Pinterest ► / theelectricviking
Telegram ► t.me/theelectricviking
TikTok ► / theelectricviking
👇 See more about me 👇
• You've been asking; he...
👇 My Bali trip 👇
• I went to Indonesia an...
👇 Video about My Skateboard 👇
• EASIEST & cheapest way...
👇 Subscribe to my kids channel 👇
tinyurl.com/subscribetojackan...
See more videos:
NEW report reveals the insane cost of Nuclear compared to renewable energy
• NEW report reveals the...
Fossil fuels shattered as battery power continues breaking records in California
• Fossil fuels shattered...
Batteries + solar smash records in California and fossil power plants suffer
• Batteries + solar smas...
Renewables break records in California; experts predict end of fossil fuels
• Renewables break recor...
Experts predict global fossil fuel giants will lose billions & struggle to survive
• Experts predict global...
Audi's CEO says fossil car demand will crash in 2026, making ICE expensive
• Audi's CEO says fossil...
California hits 100% renewable energy as solar and wind smash fossil fuels
• California hits 100% r...
The world’s largest solar and battery power plant has 1.9 million panels
• The world’s largest so...
Record solar drives electricity prices down 50% in states using less fossil fuels
• Record solar drives el...
Scientists unveil genius solar tower that generates power 24 hours a day
• Scientists unveil geni...
Massive solar farm being built to charge the worlds biggest battery
• Massive solar farm bei...
Alarm Raised: Are China's Cyber Hackers Using Solar Panels to Spy on You?
• Alarm Raised: Are Chin...
Breakthrough paves way for mass-production of ultra-efficient perovskite solar
• Breakthrough paves way...
EV's covered in solar imminent as Perovskite solar cells set new world record
• EV's covered in solar ...
Australia Begins Installing Power Pole Batteries for Excess Solar Storage
• Australia Begins Insta...
The largest wind project in the Western Hemisphere starts construction
• The largest wind proje...
US firm unveils small 'safe' nuclear reactor that powers 300,000 homes
• US firm unveils small ...
A commercially viable solar cell set a NEW efficiency world record
• A commercially viable ...
Wind & solar send electricity prices below zero for 1 week in Australia
• Wind & solar send elec...
China has enough wind & solar to power nearly 1 billion houses
• China has enough wind ...
VW increase ELECTRIC car sales worldwide by 44% in Q1 2023
• VW increase ELECTRIC c...
The 5 best electric cars unveiled at the Shanghai motor show
• The 5 best electric ca...
Model Y is best selling car in Europe and the United States in Q1
• Model Y is best sellin...
Ford CEO praises Chinese EV maker 'totally different world than Tesla'
• Ford CEO praises Chine...
#tonyseba #nuclear #obsolete #renewableenergy
👇Reference to the news/charts & videos used in this video:
newatlas.com/energy/modular-n...
• The Solar Disruption -...
This channel may use some copyrighted materials without specific authorization of the owner; but content used here falls under the “Fair Use” Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.
Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Contact us for any copyright issues. If you want a credit of any footage we are using, please let us know.
Website: theelectricviking.com/contact/
Email: contact@theelectricviking.com

Опубликовано:

7 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 812

@jeremiahcook6617 18 дней назад

In the video Tony Seba said only a small portion of land would be needed to power every country. So not every piece of open land would have to have solar and wind. If solar panels are used more in residential and commercial areas there would be less need for land also.

@andrewsaint6581 17 дней назад

The last UK coal power station closes in weeks. The site is 3000 acres. Solar, wind and battery on that site would be fabulous because the interconnects are already there. Obviously some upgrading but the power lines for miles in every direction should be put to good use.

@ForbiddTV 17 дней назад

If everyone went solar on their roof we face a grim future of exorbitant electricity rates, energy rationing and massive rolling blackouts.

@rozonoemi9374 17 дней назад

@@ForbiddTV A....H....

@casperhansen826 17 дней назад

@@ForbiddTVthe truth is, you have no clue

@205rider8 17 дней назад

@@ForbiddTVZero proof!!!!

@terryward1422 17 дней назад

Great video! The province of Ontario has been generating electricity from nuclear since 1971. Currently 58% of the electricity generated from nuclear. You can rest assured that the cost on maintains and refurbishing those nuclear reactors is very high. There is no way any nuclear power plant can compete against renewable energy from solar mated with battery storage. Ever...

@eclecticcyclist 17 дней назад

Many people are attracted by the word 'small' in the name. It's true that the reactor itself is slightly smaller than a conventional reactor but the reactor is only part of a power station, none of the rest of it can be scaled down at all and the footprint of the site all and the manpower costs are almost identical. Proponents claim that these reactors will be cheap because of mass production but don't take into account how many need to be produced to reach true mass production.. It woud take centuries to scale up manufacturing enough for cost reductions to become significant and that would only be a reduction on a part of a power plant. On top of that 49% of uranium currenty comes from Kazahkstan, Russia or Uzbekistan, so won't help energy security.

@IronmanV5 17 дней назад

Not centuries, but about a decade. Of course, by that time renewables and storage will have significantly dropped in price.....

@eclecticcyclist 16 дней назад

@@IronmanV5 I was exagerating in the style of the Electic Viking.

@kennethferland5579 2 дня назад

It is well established that Nuclear has a cost scaling law. Doubleing Reactor power incresses cost by 40%. Which means your capitol costs are 30% lower per unit of reactor power and your final cost. This is why making reactors smaller will never be economical, if you do the reverse and half the size of a reactor the capitol cost is going up 43%. And that is just a SINGLE halfing, cut in half again and you have fully DOUBLED your cost per unit power.

@eclecticcyclist День назад

@@kennethferland5579 Yes, people keep on harping about how the military use small reactors extensively forgetting that for the military cost is a low priority.

@kurtjensen5798 16 дней назад

Hi Mr. Viking, you've become one of my favorite channels. No bs info.. not click bait like most of the other Tesla channels.. and focus on sustainable energy and not just Tesla.. loving it, keep going.. 😍

@terryward1422 17 дней назад

You covered the material clearly and concisely so none of the viewers have any doubt that the business case for renewables matched with grid storage is the cheapest solution and the best choice for rate payers.

@robmigrates 17 дней назад

Nuclear maintains the existing power structures in the market and ability to extract monopolistic pricing. Renewables much more decentralized and therefore suppliers have less power. I suspect incumbents don't like this potential shift in market power.

@my2cents395 17 дней назад

Wind and Solar do not have an energy input cost, especially one that varies or has supply chain risks. When comparing costs one needs to look at the total cost over the life of the project. Nuclear has risks that has severe consequences. It is not a question of if but when and which one. All thermal power generators heat water to make steam to turn a generator. This creates heat which causes warming. Plus a lot of water is turned into vapor. As you say the costs are always more than predicted. The sad reality is, is that Politicians are "Used Car" Salesmen. There is someone behind them thinking. They want what is good for them, not what is good for the people.

@swhbpocl 16 дней назад

The water vapor is condensed and used again in a closed system.

@gregbailey45 15 дней назад

It's not the heat from burning coal or gas that's the problem, it's the CO² produced by combustion that causes global warming. The heat generated from burning the fuel is almost microscopic and completely inconsequential on a global scale!

@kennethferland5579 2 дня назад

@@gregbailey45 It's less then inconsequential, if the Earth Atmosphere is unchanged then heat release on the Earth surface can not change the long term temperature equilibrium AT ALL because temperature is determined by a balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. It's like trying to pour water into a full glass it just overtops.

@jasontrades4x 17 дней назад

I love how you always bring up the drawbacks of nuclear and never the benefits. Solar is very intermittent, and we go weeks, even months, without any sun in the winter. I have Solar and go months with little to no energy even when I knock the snow off. Nuclear in up 93% of the time, and the cost will come down as more units are deployed. It is amazing to me how little you know about many of the subjects you spout out about.

@TechnoMonkeyFarm 17 дней назад

Does Nuclear make sense in Australia?

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

You are so totally wrong. Name just one ex nuclear site which has been returned to farmland or housing.

@raensaeck 16 дней назад

@@TechnoMonkeyFarm Yes.

@tothimre7950 16 дней назад

Yes I also keep commenting similar answers... Green energy is GREAT!!! But unreliable and I keep linking the "dooms day" link which actually happened already. And similar catastrophic events can happen again... Like volcano eruption can CRIPLE ALL SOLAR for 1 YEAR!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

@jasontrades4x 16 дней назад

@@TechnoMonkeyFarm yes

@MarksElectricLife 18 дней назад

“Build it in 100 days or it’s free.” 😉

@dodgygoose3054 18 дней назад

If only nuclear plants could fly!

@stevemsmith1 17 дней назад

UK has just given Sizewell C the go ahead.

@sparkysho-ze7nm 17 дней назад

……… Jus cause there ain’t no love button -NMFS. !!!!!!!!!!

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

@@stevemsmith1 Whoop-de-doo. Sizewell C will be 3.2GW - wow-wee! 20 years to build, billions of pounds then even more billions over the next few centuries to 'clean' up the site. Site ready to reuse in 2000 years!

@MauriceOldis 16 дней назад

@@stevemsmith1 Sizewell C has been jointly developed by EDF and the UK Government - the Government is now the majority shareholder and is currently investing a total of £2.5bn in financial support for the project-at $38 bullion.That is the original price of Hinkley C which has doubled to $90 billion-with government subsidized power, insurance and decomissioning!!!

@karlwest437 17 дней назад

I remember watching a documentary about climate change where an expert said we can't build nuclear plants fast enough to make a difference, they're too expensive and take too long to build, I've always thought it would be much better to go full tilt on renewables, they're simple, relatively cheap and can be built out super fast

@mikewallace8087 17 дней назад

The Sun is the driver of Climate / Weather not CO2.

@mattgs1671 17 дней назад

@@mikewallace8087That's nonsense, from beginning to end. Greenhouse gases are the overwhelming cause of climate change.

@vanadium0101 17 дней назад

Because there is a big différence between drivable and intermittent power. You are seriously ignoring grid fréquency stability issues when considering going full renewable.

@laughinggas5281 17 дней назад

@@vanadium0101when enough batteries and energy storage is deployed what is the relevancy of intermittency? If enhanced geothermal comes along well enough and it looks like it's headed in that direction why doesn't that mitigate your base load issue?

@karlwest437 17 дней назад

@@mikewallace8087 tell that to Venus

@pgiatrakis 17 дней назад

Solar and wind are natural nuclear. Everyone that builds nuclear are against solar and wind and almost everything else in terms of energy. Cost overruns are a result of the total economy that have their livelihoods threatened by its success. It’s just easier to go wind and solar from a regulatory standpoint. The safety regulations drive the costs up because the regulators don’t want nuclear. It’s also just so much easier to do solar and or wind. Both are wireless and convenient. It’s been said geothermal is nuclear as well because of the nuclear reactions taking place within the earth’s core. This planet is just flooded with so many energy sources it’s not really that crucial but the human effects make nuclear unfeasible. Thanks Electric Viking for all your hard work ⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️👍⚡️⚡️⚡️

@philiptaylor7902 17 дней назад

You’re right, it’s all nuclear fusion if you go back far enough. We are stardust, we are golden.

@raensaeck 16 дней назад

I have never met a single person that wants to build new nuclear that doesn't want to also expand renewables. The enemy is fossil fuels. Not fossil free energy production.

@philiptaylor7902 16 дней назад

@@raensaeck I’m not anti-nuclear on principle, it’s just that faced rapid climate warming we need to decarbonise as quickly as possible and solar, wind and battery storage can be deployed in a fraction of the time of nuclear, at a fraction of the cost. Not only this but renewables hold out the prospect of genuine energy security and independence for many countries, currently dependent on imported oil, coal and gas. Nuclear still requires the import of a costly fuel, namely uranium. In the current circumstances it’s not clear to me what the case is for new nuclear.

@philtimmons722 14 дней назад

@@raensaeck There is the money math, as well. Keep in mind, the Grid operates on Money -- not energy nor electricity. Typical ratio is you 10x more generation capacity from Renewables over Nukes for the same money. Take that down to runtime or what is called Capacity Factor --and it works out you get about 3x as much overall electricity from Renewables over Nukes -- for the same money. So the fastest and cheapest path is saturate the grid with Renewables, let Coal drop off, let Gas sit around un-used, and let Nukes continue to dwindle down while building few or none New Nukes. In 10 to 20 years, most things should be fully renewable.

@andyfreeze4072 18 дней назад

even I could see the nuclear industry is dead man walking. Nuclear industry yearly report has been clear about the trend for over ten years. Tony Seba just confirms what has been apparent for many years.

@StuartConsulting 17 дней назад

You are perfectly right Sam, there might have been an argument for deploying nuke reactors 20 years ago, when solar and batteries were expensive, but now the costs of these have plummeted, and will continue to drop. CATL battery manufacturer has predicted battery costs will drop 40 % by 2025. Can you imagine how much they will drop by 2034, the 10 years it takes to build a nuke power plant ? Plus renewables are virtually maintenance free, nuke plants will be expensive to maintain to keep them functioning and safe. I’m a retired electrical engineer so I am more familiar with power generation options than most.

@chillfluencer 17 дней назад

Isn't that because of this ominous "overproduction" western Europe and the US are complaining about? 🤣

@mikewallace8087 17 дней назад

The argument for nuclear in a green energy arena is , green energy production is never producing power on demand . Nuclear power supplies the power void. A 100 percent green electric energy system will make Hades on Earth. Battery storage to even out and supply the demand void ? I don't think so.

@nordlandak6853 17 дней назад

You mean nuclear power that actually works. It only takes so long to build because too much red tape. Solar is unreliable and kills birds.

@calamityjean1525 17 дней назад

@@chillfluencer Overproduction of what?

@alibro7512 17 дней назад

If governments were genuine about climate change and pollution they would incentivise industry to install solar on every warehouse roof. There is plenty of suitable real estate that could be used before covering farm land with solar, businesses would be queuing up to install solar on their roof tops if they had the incentive to do so.

@calamityjean1525 17 дней назад

I would also like to see solar panels suspended over parking lots also.

@christopherfry2844 17 дней назад

Great video Sam! I like Elon's comment. We have a gigantic fusion reactor in the sky. It radiates more energy than we can use. Just capture it (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc).

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

Geothermal too - that's just really old energy that came from the early sun, it's never far below anybody's feet and could power the world - basically - for ever.

@user-bf4dx2ob2q 18 дней назад

The 2 MW Copenhagen Atomics molten salt thorium reactor will produce power at a cost way less and much safer than high pressure water cooled uranium reactors. They will produce one reactor a day on an assembly line. The first prototype should be running in two years. Look up their recent RU-vid video.

@user-bf4dx2ob2q 18 дней назад

Everything said in the presentation is correct for high pressure water cooled uranium reactors so I agree these will not help with global warming.

@jm493 17 дней назад

In which year will they be producing one reactor per day? When they do, we will be able to see $/MW and $/MWh and judge if they are a good fit for Australia.

@peteinwisconsin2496 17 дней назад

2 MW = 2,000 kW of output. If one was built in a market that was willing to pay 25 US cents per kWh, that is in income of $500 USD per hour. What kind of system can be staffed, financed and paid for on $500/ hour?? Not even a kwickie mart can be profitable on so little net sales profit.

@richyfoster7694 15 дней назад

Yumyum love that koolaid.

@elmerdenbraven5643 10 дней назад

Two years will easily become four years and then scaling production will be insanely difficult and then they will simply be too late. Solar, wind and batteries will eat the market

@Pingel1951 18 дней назад

Let's talk about that again in 2030.

@lucadellasciucca967 17 дней назад

Most definitely will! Do your research, invest in Tesla.

@rawnet101 17 дней назад

Definitely. I’ll be waiting here for you to eat your words.

@ForbiddTV 17 дней назад

@@lucadellasciucca967 And where do you think Tesla gets its energy? Ans: fossil fuels. SpaceX is even worse.

@icosthop9998 17 дней назад

...And let us not forget *Mr. Bill Gates* is *_"Just Starting"_* to build his "Spectacular Nuclear Plant" ! Nuclear will be here in 2030 as reverent as it is today.

@icosthop9998 17 дней назад

...And let us not forget *Mr. Bill Gates* is *_"Just Starting"_* to build his "Spectacular Nuclear Plant" ! Nuclear will be here in 2030 as reverent as it is today.

@johnnyel 17 дней назад

The cost and construction time blowout for nuclear is off the charts, and that's when the California High Speed Rail guys said, " HOLD MY BEER"

@ln5493 17 дней назад

Unfortunately you have only considered the current financials instead of a more correct whole of life asset management approach. A nuclear plant lasts 80 years, coal or gas lasts 40 yrs and solar 25 years and batteries and wind 15 years. So this means the whole of life comparison should be over 80 years during which time a coal or gas plant would be replaced twice (x2 costs), solar replaced 3.25 times (x3.25 costs), batteries and wind replaced 5.3 times (x5.3 costs) etc. One must compare the multiple times these short life power generation assets and there renewal costs including disposal costs, for an equivalent 80 year period... So with asset costs don't just compare a one-off installation cost, take into account the multiple (x2 or x3.25 or x5.2) whole of life costs of short life assets over the full 80 years to make it a fair comparison. When you do this then you get a favorable cents per kWh comparison... and you will see like most things, assets built to last, may have higher costs upfront but over their full life its a different story.

@studyonline4763 17 дней назад

Which nuclear plant has lasted 80 years?

@philwelling7172 15 дней назад

Your calculation should be more like: Renewables = (1/3 + 1/6 + 1/12) * Nuclear. (To account for the halving of Solar, Wind and Batteries every 15 years)

@philtimmons722 14 дней назад

@@philwelling7172 Most Solar Electricity is used as it is produced. Needs no battery.

@philtimmons722 14 дней назад

Not a bad stab at Engineering Economics, but you have some basic information wrong, and you entirely missed two factors that wipe out all the money on New Nukes. Basic information error is Service Life on Solar. Typical commercial production warranty for Silicon Solar PV is 25 years, with some now at 30 years. But that is just the warranty. They keep running beyond that -- 40 years Service Life for Silicon Solar PV is now a reasonable number. Missed cost factor #1: Operations and Maintenance Cost. Nukes have a very high O&M Cost as they must be "baby-sat" 24/7, every day of the year. O&M for Nukes is so high that functioning Nukes have been shut down early, even though their construction cost has been fully "sunk" years ago. All US Nukes have now been put on "Welfare" to avoid bankrupting early. Meanwhile Solar PV has almost no O&M Costs. You can leave the stuff unattended on an island or in space for 10+ years, and the stuff just keeps going. Missed cost factor #2: Time Value of Money. The entire construction cost of the MUCH more expensive Nuke is all upfront, and you have to bear interest costs and/or Return on Investment costs across the Service Life. Meanwhile Solar PV is about 1/10th (or less) on the Construction Cost, so it has a much (much, much) lower cost of ownership across its Service Life. So THAT is why the US is now building mostly Solar PV, and letting Nukes dwindle down.

@slightlyskewed 6 дней назад

Nice overview. However I would add that Nuclear fission reactors require fuel. The cost of mining, refining, transporting and storage of this fuel over the reactor's 30-40 year lifetime is rarely factored in and is very very expensive.

@tomblewomble3369 17 дней назад

I suspect it would be cheaper to pay to have solar panels and batteries installed in people's homes than building a nuclear power station. Distributed power makes significantly more sense.

@Petriiik 17 дней назад

And then there are days when you still need a cable to the distribution network and therefore you have to share the cost of a large central system. Especially in mild weather europe where you have winter days with 0 sun at all (fog, clouds, snow several days in a row).

@philwelling7172 17 дней назад

It does, but not every home can have Solar unfortunately.

@raensaeck 16 дней назад

There is not a single study that shows that storage + solar is cheaper than nuclear. And the difference only increases for nuclears favor if you also factor in grid costs.

@garysouza95 16 дней назад

@@raensaeck No, factoring in grid costs tips advantage to on site solar even more. It is now cheaper to generate solar power on site than to deliver it. Distributed generation and storage, and efficiency are now cheaper than coal everywhere. Centralized power plants are dinosaurs.

@philwelling7172 15 дней назад

@@raensaeck www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/media-releases/gencost-confirms-renewables-remain-cheapest-form-energy-cost-nuclear-reactors-skyrocket#:~:text=“CSIRO's%20report%20also%20shows%20that,clean%2Dgreen%20jobs%20for%20Australians.

@stephenbrickwood1602 18 дней назад

Dictators do not trust Dictators. 😮

@DDDecarbon 16 дней назад

Great video! I'm actually going to be debating against nuclear on July 21st and cost is my main argument.

@stephenbrickwood1602 18 дней назад

The biggest problem with centralised generation is the extremely expensive national grid to the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of customers. The grid cash flow means 5 cents kWh from the central generator costs the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of customers 50cents kWh. WTF. If customers go offgrid, then electricity costs will explode for the remaining customers. 😮😮😮😮😮 Nuclear needs fixed interest rates. Nuclear needs government guaranteed cash flows. Nuclear needs government disaster insurance.

@genieb 18 дней назад

Totally right, I came across a study (proper researchers, not a Google search) that proves that overbuilding of the cheap renewables (onshore wind and solar) plus storage, was cheaper than centralized renewable generation and upgrading the grid. It was in fact a part of a set of studies I got from a renewable energy charity that is pushing to get NZ fully renewable asap. The studies would be applicable to a lot of other countries with a similar layout as Australia, where these studies were done. Large population centres, spread out quite far from each other. We'll get there, I just wish it would go faster. More and more people are reaching the same conclusions and acting on it (I'm one of them :)).

@iscadean6038 17 дней назад

Not quite. All those off-grid solar generators (plus battery storage) will make a massive contribution to the grid - thereby reducing costs.

@icosthop9998 17 дней назад

@iscadean6038 And if it does reduce costs, it will reduce costs to the producers. But that reduction in costs hardly ever get passed down to the consumers the customers. 😒

@trishanchetty5791 17 дней назад

I've just moved to Australia from South Africa a month ago, watching the news in Oz said that nuke power will cost twice as much and will be ready in like 2040. As renewable will cost way less and ready in 2030 will backup.

@stephenbrickwood1602 17 дней назад

@@icosthop9998 the new OFFGRID customers will leave the remaining ONGRID customers with a bigger grid cost. So more will go OFFGRID. That is the Tony Seba S curve. Landline telephone businesses collapsed with mobile phones' popularity increasing.

@michaelfields8981 17 дней назад

I bought his book, I've read his book. It's BRILLIANT! Bring on The Green Revolution!😊

@robertfonovic3551 17 дней назад

Expensive toilet paper !!😊

@AltruisticWarrior 17 дней назад

Literally the exact opposite of what we need right now too. Eh at this point I'm convinced that humanity decided that it has a pretty bad flesh wound and has opted to just keep injuring it while rubbing dog feces on it as well instead of seeking basic medical treatment. I suppose it will just hasten things and diminish the long term suffering. 😮‍💨

@neildolan7177 17 дней назад

So if I go back to the 70s electronic cars were the future. It's taken around 50 years for it to come to the market. This is where the small modular reactor is. The technology is sound but the commercialisation is challenging, just like batteries have been.

@philiptaylor7902 17 дней назад

Thanks Sam, great video.

@electricviking 16 дней назад

Glad you enjoyed it

@thanksno4911 17 дней назад

Anyone who's paying attention has said for 50 years now 'Nuclear is the most expensive way to boil water known to man'

@garysouza95 17 дней назад

First heard it from Barry Commoner.

@greatearth5861 17 дней назад

Nuclear is the most reliable energy source period. Cheap, safe, tiny footprint, clean and massively misunderstood.

@Cinconegativoprimeiro 16 дней назад

@@greatearth5861Most of the things we don't understand we fear!

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

@@greatearth5861 Please tell me what you're smoking - it must be really good.

@garysouza95 16 дней назад

@@greatearth5861 Not by people who know what they are talking about. Too expensive, little carbon abated per dollar spent, too slow to build, modular reactors are even more expensive per Kwh, the non nuclear part alone is 85-87% of the cost because of a steam cycle. Remove all subsidies from all energy supplies, nuclear dies a swift death and renewables/efficiency storage thrive, we are that far up the S-curve on them.

@dmitrykozhin6884 17 дней назад

According to the 13th five-year plan (2016) China was supposed to build 100GW this decade. In reality it is at least x2 less. In best case the global nuclear fleet will grow from existing 400GW to 700GW in 2050.

@Ghosy01 17 дней назад

They might be in the west but it seems like Russia Korea and China seem to be making nice profit on it . India is coming along nicely too

@jsanders100 17 дней назад

Until they face the decommissioning costs

@stephencullum8255 17 дней назад

I live on a little more than an acre in Florida . I am eyeing solar panels. If battery storage gets cheap enough I will go off the grid. I may even able to go EV and escape gas taxes and gas prices. By law I have to be connected to the grid, so will have to pay a tax to the power company. My power bill is cheaper right now than what I expected . Got a feeling my power company knows this too. A sharp spike in electric price would trigger me to do this sooner.

@jwetzel3141 17 дней назад

In WA state they tax your EV tabs to make up for you not paying the gas tax. There’s no escape.

@stephencullum8255 17 дней назад

@@jwetzel3141 Florida so far has not. But as more and more cars are EVs that will happen here too. And it is fair.

@peteinwisconsin2496 17 дней назад

Batteries are already cheap. The trick is to build your own pack with large LiFePO4 prismatic cells. Do Not buy Tesla PowerWalls at $1,000/ kWh or Signature Solar packs at $325/ kWh. Build your own for $150/ kWh. As far as being forced to pay to be on the grid, maybe so but they can't make you buy electricity from it.

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

Poor you, living in the fascist republic of Florida :( Firstly be wary of the insurance companies who are in the pockets of the utility companies and will happily double your rates if you put panels on the roof - so put your panels in the yard somewhere. Sure, you have to be connected to the grid because, well, communism... but nothing stops you having two sets of wiring in your house. Run the low power lighting circuits off the grid and then other stuff can be run off the solar/batteries - they *do not have to be* grid connected. Good luck! And best of luck thumbing your nose at the utilities!

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

@@jwetzel3141 It's about time road tax/fees were based of a 'how much do you use and wear out the road system' basis. What would be fair is to base the tax on the mileage you do multiplied by some weight factor of the car. The heavier the car, the more wear it does to the road; so tax accordingly.

@Jaw0lf 17 дней назад

I used to think that small modular Nuclear reactors could help, but with the falling costs of solar and battery storage, I have changed my mind and believe we could do all of this from renewables. This would also be achieved at a much cheaper cost.

@Leonardo555ZZZZ 15 дней назад

The latest forum concluded that nuclear energy needs to triple in order to reach net zero 2050. Doesn't matter whether they are small or large.

@pr7049 17 дней назад

I disagree. Smrl is still in prototypephase. There are yet no factories building them in serial production as is the goal. Outside sunbelt they are part of the future. We do need thorium reactors to reduce nuclear waste to 1/10 amount and to reduce radiation time from 100 000 years to 300 years and get energy at same time. Thorium is abundant, low radiating and can be extracted from mining waste.

@andreycham4797 17 дней назад

Rosatom has over 30 preorders for small nuclear reactors. Uzbekistan signed an agreement with Rosatom to install 6 small nuclear reactors

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

The pro-nuke people NEVER mention the fact that once these reactor reach the end of their expected lifetimes, the problems and expense only start then. By that time the private money people have taken their profits and dumped the pile of radioactive waste and plant onto the public purse. You name ONE ex-reactor site that has been returned to farmland or housing - just one. And no, thorium is no better and neither is fusion (if that ever materializes).

@AWildBard 18 дней назад

I think the average time to build a nuclear power plant is 16 years, not 10.

@brendanpells912 18 дней назад

Sizewell B took 7 years to build. I should know, I was there.

@iareid8255 18 дней назад

Mr Bard, depends wher you live, for example:- "It took on average 190 months to build each plant. During that period, Korea has built a total of 13 nuclear power plants. The average construction period for each plant was only 56 months, more than three times faster than other countries building nuclear plants.

@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye 18 дней назад

@@brendanpells912 But of course you understand how averages work I expect, which is what the OP was referring to, which would mean, with plants like your example, there are other plants that have well and truly exceeded the average. So don't leave those out.

@brendanpells912 17 дней назад

@@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye Yes, I know, because like with the UK AGR reactors, they're a new design and it takes a long time to get it right. This is why Sizewell B was based on the well-proven Westinghouse PWR design with a few extra safety systems added. Once they built the first, the rest would just be direct copies, but, of course, the rest never got built because gas was cheaper.

@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye 17 дней назад

@@brendanpells912 So in the 2020s, 1970s generation technology should be used? I see.

@ellWayify 8 дней назад

I 100% agree. I can't see how Nuclear stacks up on cost or timeframe compared to renewables. You didn't discuss Australia specifically here but there is no Nuclear industry so it would be even longer to get a plant or SMR up and running. I would say it would be at least 20 years knowing how govt works and all the approvals that need to be done. 20yrs is just not time that we have. We need to act now on converting our energy grid to 0 emissions. Over that 15-20 yrs that we would use to get nuclear up, solar, wind and battery would get cheaper and better so there really doesn't stay up at all

@felixsu375 17 дней назад

Not only that but there is ZERO danger when using solar. It's simple to build. Easy to maintain (give it a wash every week or so). And NO moving parts. Maintenance is huge in power plants. It eats money like crazy. Solar doesn't need maintenance. If a panel breaks for any reason, just replace it. Solar is also massively redundant. Same with batteries. You can replace individual cells without taking down the entire plant. Just that module. Turn it off, replace cell, turn it back on. And you simply can't beat solar on cost. Zero maintenance for 30 years. After 30 years, 80% output. No thermal power plant can even compare to solar and batteries. Oh and if they over provision the batteries, it can last for 50 years.

@patrickmcguinness1363 17 дней назад

Solar is more dangerous than nuclear if you look at deaths per GW generated. People fall off roofs.

@amochswohntet99 7 дней назад

They are the future for countries that have a functioning government.

@davehasenford3985 17 дней назад

unfortunately the amount of electricity we are using keeps going up. we are no longer facing demand only for mobility, industry, and domestic energy. Now we need to feed the metaverse and the internet of things, which are growing exponentially.

@patdbean 17 дней назад

Where is this? In the UK power use has been doing nothing but fall. 375twh in 2007 down to 306twh last year. And probably less than 300 this year. Yes I know ONE 1963 style winter could send it the other way, but for now down is the trend.

@CL-gq3no 17 дней назад

Not really. Energy usage overall is pretty flat the last couple of decades. When you consider what the internet replaces, it's probably more energy efficient than most of the older methods. For example, consider magazines and newspapers. Growing/harvesting the wood, paper mills, distribution, printing presses, more distribution to each and every home, then into the trash. Rinse and repeat daily or monthly. Compare that to hosting it on a web server and people access through a common device used for a myriad of other tasks. When you stop and think about it there are a ton of examples like this.

@davehasenford3985 16 дней назад

by the way i am in the electric power business. i am not just talking out of my ass. if electricity demand hasn’t gone up where you live it will soon.

@philtimmons722 16 дней назад

@@davehasenford3985 tomorrow, tomorrow, always tomorrow. Only a day away. Sorry have you seen the mythos stuffed into the business side of the business? Wall to wall BS. Since it is what the Utility WANTS to hear, it is all they hear.

@richyfoster7694 15 дней назад

so you would be aware of how many consumers are adding solar , and/or battery. Many of us realise we can't wait for the government .

@mdombroski 17 дней назад

There is a very vibrant growing nuclear movement. Podcasters such as Robert Bryce, Chris Keefer, Emmett Penny and Mark Nelson have a much higher level of intellectual content. Michael Douglas from the movie, The China Syndrome just switched to pro nuclear.

@philtimmons722 14 дней назад

wow. If some paid salesmen and even a Hollywooder said so . . . . It MUST be true! Take Muy Money!

@Petriiik 17 дней назад

Those SMRs are all first of a kind. Which makes them expensive they can be cheaper, when the experience and the supply chain is build up. When we want to be fair, then we have to say that China is getting fast by building the hualong one 1GW plant, it takes them 6 to 8 years (4 unita are already running) and they are now building a lot of them. But the most important thing is do not switch the existing NPPs off like Germany.

@axiomic 17 дней назад

How many Steven Mark Ryan’s are there..?? Imagine the RU-vid revenue… and size of their TSLA portfolio…

@vekaterava-jd2ui 18 дней назад

Not here. We just opened (2023) a new 1600MW nuclear powerplant and we are going to use it next 35 years, minimum!

@rawnet101 17 дней назад

That only works in countries that already have a nuclear industry and the legal system to protect it. But even they will become isolated assets once energy costs get so low they are unprofitable to run. Unless of course you want to pay more for electricity than others will who generate and control their own energy needs.

@jasjordan1 17 дней назад

Ok...I had to lookup who Tony Seba was and once I did, I understood why I never heard of him. But putting that aside, here are some facts, most of which I already knew, but verified that they can be found with a ten minute Google search. One nuclear tractors take about 5-8 years to build and have a lifespan of about 80 years, extended in 20 year increments. There are currently 15 power plants on extended licenses in the US with more to come. Upfront costs are high, but operating costs are low. They operate at 92% efficiency compared to solar and wind which reach at best around 35 percent. Only a tiny amount of nuclear waste is unrecyclable and dangerous. Wind and solar power damage the environment. Wind kills millions of birds each year in the US alone. Solar also kills birds for some unknown reason, but it also creates toxic waste which needs to be disposed of at the end of a psnel's 5-20 year lifespan. Since a panel's waste never degrades and no one seems interested in recycling it, it is currently dumped along with the rest of our tech garbage, in poor, mostly African countries that none of you care about. For all that, a solar farm needs 3-8 million solar panels to produce the same electricity as a single nuclear reactor. For context, wind and solar generation would take up 25% of England's land just to meet its current needs. There you go, feel free to look it up. There are plenty of actual scientists even on RU-vid who can explain it all for you. There are also papers available online on the subject. Fortunately for the species, how this will go is not in the hands of idiot techbros and grifters. The US. and other countries are quietly moving towards building new nuclear power plants and refurbishing existing ones because they know the above facts and they realize that windmills and solar panels will not fare well in extreme weather conditions. My prediction is that nuclear power will be the dominant renewable by around 2035 with other renewables being employed on a case by case basis. Anybody can make a prediction, but it doesn't mean much unless you can see the future.😏

@robertwhite3503 17 дней назад

Wind turbines do kill birds but less than house cats in the UK. Colouring one blade brings the number down considerable. A large number of birds die flying into buildings too. Over time, birds may learn not to fly into wind turbines, I suppose.

@jasjordan1 16 дней назад

@@robertwhite3503Here's the thing. We are once again repeating the same mistakes that led to where we are now. Dumping your trash on poor people in a faraway country doesn't mean it went away. Destroying ecosystems to build solar and wind farms is counterproductive and will have disasterous consequences in the future.

@cardinalwarrior8555 16 дней назад

You can't get a single watt of power until the whole nuclear plant or natural gas plant or even a concentrated solar thermal plant is built. You can get power out of a single photovoltaic panel as soon as it is fabricated if you wanted to. If a photovoltaic installation has to end after only a fraction of the construction is completed, power can still be generated. You can also add on more generation capacity in modular fashion. This greatly reduces the financial risks for energy providers and investors.

@BMWHP2 17 дней назад

I dont think so. When the Netherlands would use the Northsea in total for windmills, put huge amounts of electrolysers on land to make Hydrogen to use in powerplants . . . . there would be hardly enough land and sea to power the consumption of the Dutch industry and homes. We are a small country with a lot of people. To fill the gap when the sun does not shine, and no wind, and in the 4 months winter time, there is no amount of batteries large enough. So, we need Nucleair energy to help out.

@Buran01 18 дней назад

Nuclear industry is done. In 2001 they were 20% share of the electricity commercially available in the world, in 2021 their share was below the 10% and in 2040 they wouldn't even reach the 5%. The main reason is because is utterly unprofitable; France, the whiote kninght of nuclear electricity production saw his third largest nuclear company going bankrupt in 2012, then in 2017 the second one (Areva) was bought by EDF (the largest one in the world) at the edge of bankrupcy. But in 2019 the mid term debts of EDF were above 70k million €, and in summer 2022 the debt were already above 100k million € so the French Goverment had to withdraw the company from the stock market. Is still the largest hole in the EU economy, a machine which works burning money, depite EDF is the largest reactor operator in the world. American companies as General Electric and White Westinghouse were only capable to go bankrupt one or two times due their nuclear gereration business but weren't able to tank the French economy in the way EDF is doing it. Small modular reactors aren't different and also aren't new: they have been the core of the nuclear powered warships (destroyers, cruisers, carrieras and specially submarines), with scaled downs type II reactors. The only innovation in the "new" SMRs were the introduction of more safety through passive designs, but that didn't help at all in terms of finnancials. They are even more expensive than traditional designs due lack of economy of scale. EVERY nuclear company (in both conventional reactors and SMRs ) is just a money beggard asking for founds to solve their iresoluble problem: they will never be profitable. And things will only go worse since renewables are constantly cutting down costs due improvements in efficiency, economy of scale and the simple fact that wind and sun as power sources are free. Base load concept is also a outdated concept: you only need x2.5 peak demand + renewable diversification + good interconectivity to have your electricity needs covered. Batteries aren't needed that much, and in places were water storage is available (upper to lower dam systems) they storage of electricity is massively larger/denser than using batteries.

@andrewsaint6581 17 дней назад

And I thought SMR was solving the money problem. Not making it worse. 😉

@ForbiddTV 17 дней назад

If we let the Greenies get away with eliminating fossil fuels without nuclear energy we face a grim future of exorbitant electricity rates, energy rationing and massive rolling blackouts.

@ForbiddTV 17 дней назад

@@andrewsaint6581 It does, but some people are hopelessly anti-nuke not even knowing why.

@mikewallace8087 17 дней назад

@@ForbiddTV Yes, with on site A.I. as overlord supervising ,the worry of human error is greatly reduced.

@ForbiddTV 17 дней назад

@@mikewallace8087 HAL would disagree.

@philiptaylor7902 17 дней назад

Not sure where it was, probably the excellent “Just have a think” channel which looked into the economics of “small modular” reactors. It just doesn’t stack up because the cost of building them is not much less than a “normal” reactor, you just get less power out once it’s built.

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

It was either Dave Borlace or Sabine Hossenfelder - or quite possibly both - both of them talk a lot of sense with data and reports to back them up. Sabine is a bit pro-nuke but then she's German and she likes physics :)

@kovarm1 17 дней назад

the main issue is not night time but winter time... in central and northern europe the yield of solar panels in winter is like 10% compared to summer..

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

So? put up 10x more. And while you're at it, install some wind turbines and some geothermal. I installed a solar PV system in Scotland at 57 degrees North - and it's still worth it - even in winter.

@enviromad 16 дней назад

i have been on off grid solar for 17 years and it costs me about one dollar per day to replace batteries

@ChrisTorino1 17 дней назад

Sam, we need to compare the costs per kwh for each type of power generation in a medium to longterm scenario. In absence of this, talk is cheap. The first SMRs will be expensive. The question is the price of power from mass produced SMRs.

@marlan5470 17 дней назад

The truth is that Russia and China are building nuclear plants, and in some cases, even nuclear sea vessels. Also, with the wakening up of Africa, the leaders of various countries are eyeing nuclear power very seriously.

@studyonline4763 17 дней назад

Yet, they are investing in solar/wind/batteries

@marlan5470 17 дней назад

@@studyonline4763 They're investing and manufacturing everything. The materials for renewables and their construction don't come into existence via magic.

@markae0 17 дней назад

Thanks for the facts!

@terryward1422 17 дней назад

You might want to dedicate a video to the new installation going up in I believe is Queensland and do a detailed breakdown including not only the cost but also the time it took to complete the project. Your viewers might be surprised and some may even be shocked.

@user-se3bw8ku8i 17 дней назад

the major reason biggies were all hot on nuclear was simply coz it would be good for weapons industries

@phillipherron6289 17 дней назад

He did not predict data centers for AI that have a power demand equal to a state. Nuclear is not done.

@philtimmons722 16 дней назад

except . . . they do not. Those "demands" are mostly industry wishful future thinking being misrepresented as reality.

@grahambrown42 17 дней назад

In the UK new nuclear power station (Hinkley Point), 14 years and counting, plus 6 Prime Ministers 😅

@robmigrates 17 дней назад

To be fair, conservative prime ministers last about as long as a 2 Lt in Vietnam.

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

Sizewell C is being built - golly wow - when finally complete (in decades) it will output a whopping 3.2GW. China installed 200GW of Solar last year - not one radioactive particle in sight. The UK government state that installing 70GW of solar is completely feasible just by using commercial buildings. There's already 22GW of wind turbines in the north sea and enough room for ten times that generation. Nuclear is just so dumb.

@fairryalp.-de5qb 17 дней назад

Don't know what type of power plant Tony was\is talking about. But nanny power plants just built in 2020's. China has lot built recently. Right now, the top 3 countries are USA, China, and France Even Russia has built nuclear power for some countries (few recently) but n Russia is the 4th. China is the only one with advanced technology which can be safer, cheaper, more power etc I've only read little few years ago. China is building a nuclear power for Pakistan (?) and was attacked by terrorist twice (they think US behind these terrorist attacks)

@feedvid 17 дней назад

Solar and battery is the way to go. Clean, renewable, well understood, and getting cheaper every day. 👍

@Leonardo555ZZZZ 15 дней назад

Still too expensive , and requires enormous land area and massive increases in mining to make toxic batteries.

@jack0dds11 17 дней назад

Add enhanced geothermal for some base load energy generation. Cost will be comparable to solar. Its safe and can be done in 18 months.

@mb-3faze 16 дней назад

Exactly. If a hundredth of the money spent (wasted) on the nuclear nonsense was spent in drilling/geothermal research and technology, we would have unlimited power for the entirety of human existence.

@gregbailey45 15 дней назад

Where geologically available, I.e. not many places!

@IverKnackerov 14 дней назад

An evaluation of nuclear is incomplete, without explaining how the natural intermittancy of renewables gets filled. It’s going to be a long time before renewables are widespread enough to fill in all the gaps in wind/solar

@rossjohnson7916 17 дней назад

An argument cited in favour of SMRs is economies of scale. With so many unique designs competing for a limited number of deployments, would any of them really succeed in bringing the price down! Seems more likely SMRs would remain more expensive than large scale plants.

@mv80401 17 дней назад

Correct, there about about 50 different designs and we're looking at a very small number of builds. Plus, the 'power block' (where a steam turbine is used to make electricity) is already as good as they'll ever be so no cost reduction through 'learning' to be expected here.

@andreycham4797 17 дней назад

The winner will be the one who provides full service for such reactors. Installing , refueling, utilizing waist and reactors decommissioning

@DenfordBerriman 18 дней назад

You're right. The nuclear option has passed. We are already well underway in moving to cells of storage and generation

@cryptocoinkiwi8272 17 дней назад

The initial cost is extremely prohibitive. The benefit of solar and wind is that you can build a small/large solar plant/wind farm You can't build a little nuclear reactor.

@BrentonSmythesfieldsaye 16 дней назад

It's amazing how many experts on nuclear power plants there are loitering on social media platforms. Must be impossible to get a job in the nuclear energy sector these days.

@terryward1422 17 дней назад

It might also be fun to have you do a review of all the upcoming renewable energy projects planned for Austrailia in the next few years. Some people might be surprised at the scale of these new projects.

@IOSALive 18 дней назад

The Electric Viking, nice video keep it up dude

@CharlesBrown-xq5ug 17 дней назад

《 Arrays of nanodiodes promise full conservation of energy》 A simple rectifier crystal can, iust short of a replicatable long term demonstration of a powerful prototype, almost certainly filter the random thermal motion of electrons or discrete positiive charged voids called holes so the electric current flowing in one direction predominates. At low system voltage a filtrate of one polarity predominates only a little but there is always usable electrical power derived from the source Johnson Nyquest thermal electrical noise. This net electrical filtrate can be aggregated in a group of separate diodes in consistent alignment parallel creating widely scalable electrical power. As the polarity filtered electrical energy is exported, the amount of thermal energy in the group of diodes decreases. This group cooling will draw heat in from the surrounding ambient heat at a rate depending on the filtering rate and thermal resistance between the group and ambient gas, liquid, or solid warmer than absolute zero. There is a lot of ambient heat on our planet, more in equatorial dry desert summer days and less in polar desert winter nights. Refrigeration by the principle that energy is conserved should produce electricity instead of consuming it. Focusing on explaining the electronic behavior of one composition of simple diode, a near flawless crystal of silicon is modified by implanting a small amount of phosphorus on one side from a ohmic contact end to a junction where the additive is suddenly and completely changed to boron with minimal disturbance of the crystal pattern. The crystal then continues to another ohmic contact. A region of high electrical resistance forms at the junction in this type of diode when the phosphorous near the ĵunction donates electrons that are free to move elsewhere while leaving phosphorus ions held in the crystal while the boron donates a hole which is similalarly free to move. The two types of mobile charges mutually clear each other away near the junction leaving little electrical conductivity. An equlibrium width of this region is settled between the phosphorus, boron, electrons, and holes. Thermal noise is beyond steady state equlibrium. Thermal transients where mobile electrons move from the phosphorus added side to the boron added side ride transient extra conductivity so they are filtered into the external circuit. Electrons are units of electric current. They lose their thermal energy of motion and gain electromotive force, another name for voltage, as they transition between the junction and the array electrical tap. Aloha

@icosthop9998 17 дней назад

@@CharlesBrown-xq5ug Does any country have one of these contractions up and running ?❔️

@tedchandran 18 дней назад

Jai Hind. Other than Russia, we Indians had build a commercial Sodium based Fast breeder reactor which could potentially use spent nuclear waste or thorium for energy production

@brendanpells912 18 дней назад

Fast reactors. Whether or not they breed more fuel depends on whether or not you allow it to bombard depleted uranium with neutrons, but it's not fundamental to how the reactor works. You can have a Fast reactor that doesn't breed fuel.

@pgiatrakis 17 дней назад

Power exists where people THINK it exists therefore it’s self fulfilling. A breeder reactor like LFTR is important to rid the world of the nuclear fuel left over by traditional nuclear power stations all over the world.

@LoneWolf-wp9dn 17 дней назад

potentially sometimes eventually we might get a pilot going by 2040 give us the money now or we will make it 2050

@Julian_Wang-pai 17 дней назад

I've seen / read quite a bit in recent months about molten-salt Thorium reactors; comparatively simple system with fail-safe shutdown. The entire reactor unit is close to shipping-container sized and produces waste that has very much reduced radio-activity within a few centuries. Thoughts..?

@Julian_Wang-pai 17 дней назад

@@LoneWolf-wp9dn Copenhagen Atomics.

@Democratiser 18 дней назад

Most capital projects which involve new tech run significantly over budget. The more accurate description is not a cost and schedule ‘overrun’; rather there is systemic UNDERESTIMATION of time and cost, because they haven’t been attempting before. The key question is whether the cost and schedules can be reduced with the experience of having built a few.

@robertwhite3503 17 дней назад

Who cares about cost or schedule? When that becomes an issue the decision makers will be long gone as Sam nearly said in the video.

@ComplexKangaroo 17 дней назад

The amount of energy we are collecting from solar is amazing. Australia probably has no excuse to not running 100% on solar since they don't have super cold weather (so it's ok if there's an outage here or there), and the sun is always shining someplace. But the US needs to be very careful. A power outage here in winter means people die. Until we have permanent energy storage that can power the country for 2 years straight, we need to allow nuclear to remain as an emergency backup system. Heaven forbid we get another 536 AD volcano that darkens the sky for 2 years. Putting 100% trust in solar and wind seems too risky to me; doing it before our enemies (CCP, Russia, etc) seems downright stupid. The innovation at TerraPower with super safe natrium reactors seems really promising. We may get lucky and see viable Fusion come along soon which would be amazing. I do love the idea of a completely decentralized grid, and solar is helping to do that, huge power plants are too much of an easy target in war. Fortunately, Russia was not stupid enough to bomb Ukraine's nuclear power plants, can you imagine what a catastrophe that would be. But solar has shown other weaknesses, like hailstorms in Texas and cyclones in India destroying large numbers of solar panels. Wind is still such a tiny fraction of the total power equation it's not worth considering from a strategic defense point of view but building them offshore might be great for steady wind but make them an easy target for submarines. Just saying. Power infrastructure has to be strategic, unfortunately, our current crop of politicians seem incapable of thinking strategically. Hopefully, one silver lining from the evil Russian attacks on Ukraine is that people who do bring up strategic issues will no longer be ignored.

@DaxxTerryGreen 17 дней назад

Exactly friend. Don't forget about the TOXIC waste!

@Reimalken 17 дней назад

That's really almost a non issue, the actual amount and danger of the waste created is vastly overstated and fearmongered. The real issues are dealing with planning, zoning, cost overrun and delays. If the amount of battery/storage capacity can be mobilised to bypass the intermittency issue then it is a done deal, but I am uncertain that we are there in a practical sense.

@philtimmons722 14 дней назад

@@Reimalken You have not looked at Time-of-Use and Time-of-Production. Humans mostly use most electricity during the day. Since Nukes run flat production day and night, they are surplus in the night (not profitable) and weak in the day (cannot hit Peak), unless they way overbuilt in surplus and/or massive storage. Meanwhile Solar PV produces much faster and cheaper during the day when electricity is actually wanted and used.

@lewisk3725 17 дней назад

It is already hard to get permitting for solar. Imagine convincing NIMBYs to put nukes in their backyard.

@peteinwisconsin2496 17 дней назад

Good point! Maybe we should promote SMRs by saying that we sure don't want any of you people to have to look at a large solar array or battery bank. Maybe that would soften up their resistance to solar?

@gregbrown7163 17 дней назад

Solar is not practical for base load power in northern US and Eroupe. And batteries have to be replaced and recycled. Most of the US have giant hail storms every 3ish years and destroy solar panels. Our neighborhoods have replaced their roofs from hail damage 2 times in last 10 years. We need a combination of wind, solar and nuclear if we are all going to have electricity in the coming years.

@mv80401 17 дней назад

I've had my roof replaced three times here in Colorado (2004, 2010, 2017) due to massive hail. My solar (installed in 2006) was not damaged. Nearby National Renewable Energy Laboratory with their then (2017) ~1700 panels had to replace six.

@carlsapartments8931 17 дней назад

SMR's are still possible. The very small units are portable and are very safe compared to what most people have seen in the media and could still find very useful application at low costs.

@mv80401 17 дней назад

The electricity cost from SMRs is very high. What is "cheaper" is that you're only building small units so the investment is obviously lower - but you're also producing less that with one big plant.

@gsestream 17 дней назад

sometimes you need million times more dense energy than just batteries or combustion, spacex.

@studyonline4763 17 дней назад

"Sometimes"

@daveh6356 17 дней назад

The main issue with wind & solar, is climate change. To build farms based on current weather patterns & not expect them to change is ridiculous. Current nuclear is too expensive when scaled down but new tech is emerging, so we’ll see.

@maptap6654 17 дней назад

I fear we are forgetting resiliency against natural disasters in the quest for the lowest overall cost per kwh. While I agree battery backed solar will be (by far) the lowest cost, we should not be so quick to mothball or abandon other means of production. Solar farms are not immune to freak storms, tornados or flash floods.

@swhbpocl 16 дней назад

I produce 15000 kWh per year. About 3000 kWh in may. 60 kWh in December. My power need is 180° out of phase with my production. To even it out, I would need like 7000 kWh of storage. That would fill my entire house with batteries…hmm.

@billrobinson198 16 дней назад

Well said.

@GoroDan 17 дней назад

I wonder what kind of security it would take to run a small modular nuclear reactor.

@gregbailey45 15 дней назад

It's about the nuclear industry surrounding the reactors. The nuclear fuel needs to be procured and manufactured and then the waste reprocessed and reused or stored as long term waste.

@patrickmcguinness1363 17 дней назад

Seba is wrong. He is talking about 1970s era pressurized water reactors and not next-generation molten salt reactors, which are 1/3rd the cost and have 1/100th the waste stream of traditional nuclear power. Traditional nuclear plants are expensive because they have been regulated into uneconomic. This new type of nuclear power plant can be load following, so can complement intermittent wind and solar. BTW, unlike communism, nuclear power has worked in the real world. Look at France, getting 70% of power from nuclear.

@EngineersFear 16 дней назад

Unless they run out of coolant (low river levels) or find cracks in their 40 year old reactors. Electricity is cheap over there - because it's heavily subsidized. Spot market prices are higher than in Germany but end user prices are lower. Molten salt reactors are cool, theoretically. Practically they don't exist and have not proven the figures you claim.

@hadtobe4502 10 дней назад

Better tell Dutton, he still thinks it's the only way to go.

@garryellis3085 17 дней назад

Great video Viking. Just goes to show how out of touch Duttons mob is by pushing the idea of setting up small nuclear reactors everywhere as a backup or replacement for renewables.

@PETERVIKINGNAVY 17 дней назад

I think a SMR the size of a V8 motor is the sweet spot we are looking for.

@jcfallows 11 дней назад

What I don't understand is why building new nuclear power stations seems to get harder and take longer and be more expensive than the last one? Surely with all the experience gained especially France & China they should be able to build them easier and faster as well as being safer! It seems like they are building one for the first time?

@bertveilleux1701 10 дней назад

Except nuclear subs and aircraft carriers are still around yet no one talks about them. Because of this they’ll never disappear. And don’t forget thorium.

@anthonyriley-lu6kb 17 дней назад

It’s not an either or proposition. We will need all sorts of energy to satisfy future growth

@llee4225 17 дней назад

Nuclear requires very scarce and expensive talent, extensive safety and environmental regulations, infrastructure, maintenance and disposal costs. Plus user cannot install it at home (especially for rural and country homes)! No comparison.

@mikewallace8087 17 дней назад

As green energy supplies increase so does system complexity . When circuit controllers fail the time to repair will increase / problematic for customers . K.I.S.S. will always be the ruler of reliability.

@marcusk7855 17 дней назад

Europe is ditching renewables for nuclear. What the hell are you talking about. The electricity cost have dropped by 75% since they have ditch renewables. Do some research.

@EngineersFear 16 дней назад

European here. Woke up this morning, all solar panels have disappeared and wind turbines, too. Including those on my own roof. Get real kid, renewable share is increasing here while nuclear is decreasing. Check energycharts or something

@chlistens7742 17 дней назад

Honestly every power generation will have its uses even if they are almost unique situations. we need a mix of power generations because of the many unique locations on the earth Well I have figured out the only Nuclear installations that are worth it over the alternatives. What is it.. Nuclear powered Submarines (military). The US Navy has many of these in operation for many years and of all other options Nuclear is still the best option, for submarines. I am sure there are some other locations that nuclear will make sense. There are also a few Space proves.. Like Voyager 1 (launched in 1977 ) being a probe launched to leave the solar system Nuclear decay power generation ended up being the best solution. (yes it is still working). when nuclear power started it has a great chance to be a good source.. but like anything else to make them cheaper you need to make many of them... and then there were the accident's and the protests.

@belowme4927 17 дней назад

PEOPLE MAKE PREDICTIONS THAT NEVER COME TRUE. HOW'S EVERBODIES FLYING CAR?

@markdressel3311 17 дней назад

There are scores of conventional reactors already under construction across the world, nuclear is far from dead. There are many parts of Europe where there isn't enough wind and sun for renewables to meet demand, even with Battery storage.

@icosthop9998 18 дней назад

Tony Seba seems to be our modern day *Nostradams* .

@glennjgroves 18 дней назад

Imagine you understood the laws of gravity before anyone else even understood gravity existed. Tony Seba has sort of done that, but with uptake S curves in disruptive innovation instead of gravity.

@---nt5mb 18 дней назад

Except that he doesn’t write in ambiguous riddles and he uses historical data to predict the future rather than mind altering drugs

@archiefleming652 18 дней назад

Historic data doesnt necessarily predict the future, sometimes it is a warning

@glennjgroves 18 дней назад

@@archiefleming652 historic data can only be a warning if it predicts what is likely to happen.

@petermclaren2665 18 дней назад

I hope not - Nostradamus only got about 2% of his entire predictions right which is approximately the incidence of co-incidence.

@patricec.2957 17 дней назад

Personally, I don't think that solar or wind power will be the only way to produce electricity, because not all countries are the size of Australia or the USA, there are many countries where there isn't enough space to build all these installations, and let's not forget that nobody wants a wind or solar farm next to their home. Of course, wind and solar power will play a bigger role in the future, but they won't be the only way to generate electricity.

@mikewallace8087 17 дней назад

Pat , many people here are dense and unwilling to discuss, you will be ignored.

@robertwhite3503 17 дней назад

@@mikewallace8087I'm dense and willing to discuss. All roofs should have solar and there are plenty of places to tuck away a battery. The main complaint about wind turbines seems to be noise, but I don't have enough experience to judge that. If I was a farmer I would be happy to have both. There are crops (e.g. grass and poly tunnels) and livestock that will happily co-exist.

@ericmichel3857 14 дней назад

What you failed to consider here is why is the cost and delays so awful with nuclear? Wind, solar, batteries, is heavily subsidized and has its own set of environmental issues, many of which will not be realized for another 30-40 years. However, when that bill comes due, it will be far greater than most realize. Nuclear power looks awful from a cost and time perspective because it has been demonized for so long they make the regulations involved in building/operating ridiculous, and that is what drives the cost and causes severe delays. Also there are virtually no subsidies or political will to push for a nuclear solution. And so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There is literally nothing "renewable" about wind and solar. There is a huge cost (monetarily and environmentally) that is hidden with these options. Besides all the cost in creating these options they also require maintenance and will have to be replaced on a regular basis, and it all involves highly toxic chemicals that must be mined and then properly disposed of to prevent toxic pollution. This idea that wind and solar are some environmentally friendly low cost power option is complete BS.

@michaeldietsch1054 5 дней назад

I think the steam generator tube alloy you refer to is incorrect. Alloy 6000 is a group aluminum alloys which are used in many applications, mostly aircraft related, but never PWR steam generators. I think the correct alloy is Alloy 600, which is more accurately called Inconel 600 or generically as NiCrFe. Inconel 600 is a nickel based superalloy commonly used in PWR steam generators as well primary and secondary plant piping systems.

@jimsouthlondon7061 17 дней назад

You have nuclear power not because of the electricity it produces but because of the clever Scientices and Engineers it produces . Also Nuclear give you seat at the world nuclear table. The Auchus attack submarines are powered by hyper expensive small nuclear reactors don’t forget .

@RawandCookedVegan 17 дней назад

Great stuff Sam. Thank you! I was not sure why Elon thought this would be a good part of the energy issue. If we get to fusion, maybe. But Tony Seba made the point that you still have to transmit the electricity over power lines. That's a huge expense. Elon has said that if you took the space allocated for nuclear reactors and used it for solar power, solar would be cheaper.