If you haven't come across it already, the Thorcon project is really neat, and their website has a ton of fascinating info about their plan and design for modular molten salt reactors - they want to build the modules in shipyards and ship them to where they'll be installed! They believe they can make nuclear power cheaper than coal, even including all the start-up costs, and are working with the government of Indonesia. I really hope they make that work and show the world that nuclear doesn't have to be massively complicated.
I'm not familiar. There are lots of nuclear projects. But I'm not holding my breathe tbh. The nuclear industry has a tendency to over promise and under deliver. I do hope that I'm wrong and we can implement them cost effectively though. But until then it's just marketing to me until we get some real proof of concepts.
I think Germany made a mistake with abandoning nuclear power. Making a power grid one hundred percent carbon neutral is difficult with just renewables. A few reactors that meet perhaps just five or ten percent of our electricity needs would be very beneficial in this regard.
Friend of the channel @Decarbonize11 pointed out that at [1:58] the term dispatchable is probably not the best term here. As it more means energy on demand like peaker plants. Whereas I meant Nuclear is not geographically constrained.
Great Video! But, tbh, I personally have doubts if inertia really is important. I mean couldn't you just build a number of giant fly wheels to get as much inertia as you need? I honestly can't imagine that those would be expensive enough to matter in the grand scheme of things... (But also, I'm not at all an expert, so just a thought) Also, the law that began the shutdown of the German nuclear plans was over 10 years old when the last plant finally closed... So I would think that they were run until the end of their lifetime, but again I could be totally wrong about this. But again, love your content! :) ❤
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoy it! The inertia question is fun and I will be talking about it in a future video but it's even similar than fly wheels! Look up grid forming inverters, but they are the saviour in this case. This video does a good job of explaining, though: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AJBrZhdHlLs.html
Then the second point would be that the Germany case is probably a bit more nuanced, but if you're goal was less emission trying to extend the lives of those plants probably would have been a good option. A big reason I like to use Spain as my example country rather than Germany.
@@DDDecarbon to begin with nuclear power is the cheapest way to produce poser. Only coal comes close. Government over-regulation and political risks takes the cost way up. Hinkley Point C had its costs demonstrably bloated 400-600% from the beginning. An identical plant made by the same supplier with the same factories was built for less than 20% of HPC but without the political risks. But that is not relevant to my point. The big spinning machine is built because it is needed to make power. Its not build to provide inertia. Inertia is a free by-product. You don't need to pay extra for it. For solar it is an extra cost that is never factored into the cost of solar.
I really don't know what you're talking about. You keep saying NUKULAR, nothing that I'm aware of. If you're trying to say nuclear (pronounced new clear) then, how can anything you say have any significance when you can't even say the word???
Language is based on usage it's an accepted way of pronouncing the term, especially in Canada and Britian: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear. You can't gate keep language as it's descriptive not prescriptive. Maybe try engaging with substance rather than semantics :) since all language does is communicate information, and you obviously know what I'm talking about so it did it's job.
Nuclear power is a technology too advanced for our stage of civilization. It would take peace and true cooperation among countries to get the full benefits from it.
