Nuclear Power: The Road to a Carbon Free Future 

They're my two favorite candidates but they both need to do their homework when it comes to nuclear. It may be they know the truth but it's too risky in a primary to say it, or maybe that's just my cynicism. I wish someone like Al Gore would come out publicly in support of nuclear... that could make a huge difference. More people have been coming around on this but not enough. Hopefully it will reach a breaking point soon.

It’s one of my few view points I disagree with Bernie on. Hoping he will talk to the world leaders of Finland and France and change his mind on including it in the Green New Deal

Nice try....Your misrepresentation of RRR is revealing. Reagan said that as sarcasm, as criticism. He said that as a rebuttal to the Big Government sleaze that we are now all too encumbered by.

@@pvsheridan of course Reagan said that sarcastically. He is a a market fundamentalist whose job as corporate salesman is to bash the public sector and any type of consumer protection as this overreaching "Big Government" boogyman who will infringe on ppl's gods giving-right to cumulate endless stream of profits

LOL did you know fukushima is 100 times worse than chernobyl... a nuclear expert Dana durnford has tested the coastline of USA and proven that species are dying and gone... where there was 7000 species are now just 100... its a huge huge disaster and the next one is coming... there has been 100 disasters in USA, most of them small... did you know about santa susana disaster? 300 times worse than three mile island... watch dana durnford channel PLEASEEEEE

Fukushima only killed approximately 2000 people. Coal plants killed slightly under a million people.

@@fukufukushima4697 Are you attributing this loss of species to the Fukushima disaster?

@@fukufukushima4697 Ok, I checked out Dana Durnford. He is a known conspiracy theorist crackpot. Track down where all his sources he points to in his studio come from. They come from conspiracy theory websites, and one source he used is the RT broadcast channel which is run by Russia. There is no science here. Wake up!

@@fukufukushima4697 Pure anti-nuclear energy propaganda fear mongering...and it has obviously worked on you. Just look at France. They get over 70% of their electricity with nuclear energy and have a stellar safety record. The Laws of Thermodynamics require that there is no free lunch. Nuclear waste is small, containable, and we can deal with it. Carbon fuels, when burned, release several heavy toxins, including mercury, that go straight into our atmosphere, sullies our collective air, water, and soil, and is totally non containable. Pick one.

Licensing? What does that mean?

Bob Nichols @ veterans today ,

Doug lightfoot of the lightfoot institute Nobodysfuel agrees the conversation to nuclear for ships is a must.

"Both Battery EVs & Hydrogen FCEVs are the future of Mobility in 21st century." - wrong, we have oceans of oil still in reserve, so much better for the environment than all the chemical-filled batteries needed for EVs.

@@malthus101 Not every country has the Ocean of Oil & Gas so its better for those Nations that lack such resources to invest in Battery-EVs & Hydrogen FCEVs.

@@sk8899 nope they can buy from countries that do. Besides, how will they make their solar panels and wind turbines without fossil fuels?

I too like the BWRX-300, among other reactor designs. My only gripe with the whole SMR thing is that it's dependant on economies of scale and a constant flow of orders, and I'm not sure how many utility companies across the world will be buying the technology at a sufficient scale.

​@@adamdanilowicz4252 If you accept the future of electricity generation will be politically forced into deploying low-carbon generation technologies, the future market is enormous and essential. The battle is a straightforward one between renewables and nuclear, with wind and solar being the predominant renewable technologies. With the BWRX-300's build programme being reduced to 2 years - same as wind and solar - the quick returns these pseudo-green, quick-buck, pension fund managers so desperately seek, will be available from SMR nuclear power. A single BWRX-300, with a capital cost of £456 million, will generate 142 million MWh of dividend-paying electricity over a 60 year lifespan. £456 million spent on onshore wind, would finance 450 MW of onshore wind, which would generate 30 million MWh of dividend-paying electricity, over a 25 year lifespan. Put the same money in and get nearly 5X the earnings - it's a 'no contest'. Those fund managers will be crawling over one another to get their money out of renewables and into SMRs. The politics will follow the money; the general public will be told - you're getting nuclear, it's safe and it will cut your electricity bills. There will be the shrugging of millions of shoulders and a 'just get on with it' response.

If containment structures are built as they should terrorist attacks won't be an issue, from the outside. SMR's are good because they're easier to assemble and though they generate less energy than a large plant they can still power up towns. My hope lies with Thorium Reactors, or as you said molten sodium reactors.

um terrorists don't really exist, they are a fictional creation of the CIA to scare people like you.

are you using a gamma spectrometer

@@lennihaapala8169 I'm a poor boy, can I borrow some cash?

@@charlessands9228 do you even know about background radiation

@@lennihaapala8169 yep, after 2000 nuke bombs background 20-30

Because solar may be cheaper to build per mwh. But the sun isn't always shining so you still need that dispatchable base load that nuclear provides.

@@Sschieffelin If that were true, then energy bills would be decreasing in areas with solar/wind not increasing. The per MWHr rates are BS, based on unrealistic assumptions. Reality is when you have solar/wind you have to run the backups inefficiently, buy electricity from neighbors during high demand, and pay neighbors to take excess during low demand. When those realities are considered the per MWHr rates explode for solar/wind.

Yes! Let's become solely dependent on a single energy source that can't be mined off of every country on earth. What a great idea let's do it!

Wind and solar are better on buildings(especially on midrise. Example you creat a power nest enhanacing both. Solar panel are more optimal at certain temperture levels while the turbines will cooll down the solar panels as well as generating electricity. This is why the need for diverse sources of energy.

@@Sschieffelin You also add turbines on rooftops especially on midrise where the wind is stronger.

Doesn't exist right?

Nuclear waste is not now or ever been a real physical problem, only a political problem. The tiny amount we have is safely stored in nearly indestructible steel reinforced concrete casks that can withstand being hit by a train. It will just sit there waiting for the commercialization of molten salt breeder reactors to reuse and consume it as fuel, it's worth a fortune. That type of reactor is in the licensing phase in the US, Canada, Russia, and China. Wind and solar are not cheap, they can only add cost to a reliable electricity source. They just upgraded the mega battery in Australia, it went from 11 minutes of capacity to one hour. It is not the kind of storage battery that you think it is. It's a buffering battery that smooths out the current going to the grid, which allows them to have fewer diesel generators running 24/7.

They burry waste inside bunkers then put some resin and concrete over it, basically makes impossible to contaminate anything even if earth crack down in that area, because that resin will expand and fill any cracks.

Let's store the waste @ your huis

@@charlessands9228 Okay. Rhodium is worth about $20,000 per ounce.

Yes let's become solely dependent on energy sources that either can't be mined off of every single country or are not available in enough quantities for every single country let's go

santa susana disaster in usa 300 times worse than three mile island... WTF

You can make a nuclear bomb from highly enriched uranium though the isotopic separation of U235 from U238 using a system of centrifuges - no reactor is required.

@@adamdanilowicz4252 not only that but there are countries with nuclear power and no nuclear weapons

You’ve heard of North Korea right?