Small Modular Reactors Explained - Nuclear Power's Future? 

I think the renewables and liquid air storage are a better bet. If something goes wrong, it's like popping a big balloon instead of nuclear disaster. It's the difference between power generated by the sun and wind and that generated by invisible poison rays that when spent turn into invisible poison producing waste that lasts longer than most civilizations. Smaller, modular power sources that you won't mind being in your neighborhood make more sense than scary nuclear power plants. Even if nuclear is safe, it's expensive to make it so and renewable/liquid-air will probably win on price.

Go nuclear!

Liquid Air battery, we already have these, it's called gasoline.

Thank you. Great balanced presentation of this technology. It didn't change my mind about nuclear being too expensive. In the UK 3 proposed nuclear plants have been cancelled due to costs and the single reactor being built is way over budget already. The waste in most countries is being stored in ponds and planned to be put in deep holes, hoping for the best. The Uk has many hundreds of tons of spent fuel sitting in rotting pools. It will take decades to decommission all our existing closed nuclear reactors and cost 100's Billions of pounds.Its just too much trouble compared to the alternatives.

@@etsio6972 That is a bit sad, knowing that most energy in Norway already comes from renewable sources, mainly hydro. Tell me, what will you do with your nuclear waste in 1, 10, 100, 1000 or 10000 years?

Are there resources where I can go to find out more about the potential for SMRs?

@@beyondtwominutes Yeah, I'd like to know too.

Got the news today that Alberta will be

The only reason the SMR runs on uranium is because powerful resource corporations want to sell more uranium. If we pursue Thorium Molten Salt reactors the fuel would be virtually free and therefore not profitable. We could have unlimited free energy but the uranium miners are holding us back.

Hi Lee, which SMR companies do you like/trust the best? How does NuScale compare on that list?

Alan I am truly envious of you sir! That is what I wanted to be growing up. In another life, perhaps 😄

I will never work for a large scale reactor plant, but I would be all ahead full for life at an SMR. USS Florida B! Hoo Ya!

We definitely need better energy sources but.... if you think nuclear waste is safe??? Don’t think many engineers would agree with that. The damage to a Chernobyl will last for 500 years before they can repopulate that city! Scientists are studying the effect of radiation on the animals there and while interesting the data is not good. Three Mile island most have forgotten about but it was very close to going complete melt down, now that area is completely closed off for hundreds of years . Fukushima’s reactors are still leaking into the Pacific Ocean. Seeing that cancer rates are rising it would probably be safe to reduce human exposure to radiation ☢️ to help reduce chronic exposure. So man made accidents and natural disasters have caused 3 cataclysmic events. Autopsies can reveal peoples ages based on radiation exposure in this earth based on the amount of radioactive isotopes found in the bones. These are factors that must be considered for its long long future with mankind.

@@davideade542 Blah Blah Blah. Small nuclear energy is the way to go until we can get the Stellarator ready.

@@UltraGamma25 so then you’re in favor of moving to Chernobyl?!! Just you. Living there all alone except for the dark eco tourist who take your picture as you succumb to slow radiation poisoning and bleed from orifices! No thanks! Or are you volunteering to accept the dispensed uranium to house at your house until your brief demise? Not sure what you’re in favor of? Blah blah blah...... perhaps small nuclear reactors are better .... let’s be extremely cautious as 500 years is a BIG mistake. Paying attention to details helps one not repeat the past! Blah blah blah

Chernobyl was graphite moderated as well, not the most safety redundant....All fast breeder reactors are.onlg good for making weapons grade fissile material....so.... its a counter intuitive behavior in my humble opinion....

Thorium. Cheap safe versatile

The soviets in general had low consideration for human life, including their own citizens' lives

As a member of the Soviet then Russian Academy of Sciences and the Moscow Physical Society, the care about the lives of anyone who is not a member of the elite Sekretariat is still of no value, to a degree unimaginable to anyone in the West. The "modern" Russia is nothing more than a massive, quasi-legalized world wide drug smuggling kleptocracy headed by the third worst kleptocrat on the planet, behind only the Rothschilds (by orders of magnitude) and Xi Jingping - a wholly-owned stooge of the Rothschilds, who totally control all of the much greater than US$50 Trillion that they have stolen from the generally wonderful Chinese people, or at least they used to be up until the early 1990's. The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is beyond any doubt the most evil group of cretins on the planet only exceeded by the world controlling Rothschild Cabal. Notice that no one ever dares to even mention their name in any public forum as they and their entire family will be murdered within 48 hours. I was a Chief Scientist for the infinitely corrupt CIA and BATF and the mostly corrupt FBI, NSA, NRO, DIA, ONI, etc, and 27 others whose existence are totally secret and unknown to the American public. Three of my fellow physicists and Chief Scientists for the abovementioned 3-letter agencies, despite being retired for over 13 years, have been murdered, or officially involuntarily "suicided" (in Washington DC speak "Fosterized", as he was shot execution style 3 times in the back of his head at the order of Hillary Clinton while she and her staff thoroughly "sanitized" all of his records. All of those cretins who are conceited enough to believe themselves to be fully human, only have the shape and form of a human. Any cretin so profoundly stupid as to care more about some intentionally asinine entertainment, be it some football, basketball, baseball, hockey, golf, ... , etc. ad infinitum has the mentality of a 3 year old - hardly the mark of an adult human, when a great many other animals exceed that level by far, as in at least an order of magnitude or greater. For those few who may read this with an IQ above room temperature Celsius, go to RU-vid and search for "Federal Reserve Fraud" or "Federal Reserve Scam" and start from there, and follow on where that leads. Our current, severely demented demented but always quite stupid President Biden (and, far worse yet, the sub-protohumanoids who ever voted for him as Senator or, worse yet,, as President) and his exceedingly corrupt crime family are but highly paid stooges of the infinitely evil, massively murderous Rothschilds and their wholly controlled, despotic Rothschild Cabal, the Illuminati, and the Bilderberg Group. Do your own homework instead of watching TV or other braindead endeavors. Absolutely everything in the world is controlled by the utterly corrupt and evil Rothschilds, as the more intelligent of you will find out.

They are above ground, but Fukushima had it electric supply knocked out, and its diesel generators as well. Had the generators been better protected, the plant would most likely have survived.

i might watch his videos with grain of salt if he missed this fact that other channels got... then again its not like it's crucial to the video and the point is still there. One plant in finland isnt going to solve everything.

Digging a deeper hole in the ground like they did in Finland does not solve the problem of nuclear waste containment for 100,000 years. Just fooling yourself if you think it is. The storage is far from 'permanent'. It is just creating a headache for future generations.

@@waynemcleod6767 it's arguably better than pumping greenhouse gases. Any energy source has drawbacks and problems It would be better if we could use the waste and reprocess it to reuse as fuel, but enriching waste is something countries dont like because its easy to weaponize it also i dont understand when you say it isn't permanent. nobody is planning to dig the waste up. Its not a solution for all the nuclear waste of the future, but its a permanent solution for the waste it can hold

@@silingbiling Cancer

Put a breeder reactor beside a regular one, and they'll use the vast majority of each other's waste. I remember the figure being over 90% efficiency.

Power OVERWHELMING

Upvote for starcraft reference

You need more minerals.

_Insufficient vespene gas._

People in the 40s ...

What you describe is the difference between anecdotal evidence and reality. Anecdotally, you survived two near disasters (scrams), so what. The reality is, that the guy who didn't survive the nuclear disaster is not around to dispute your "anecdotal" evidence with his own "anecdotal" evidence that they are very dangerous and extremely inefficient way to make power.

@@WeBeGood06 true is that nuclears disasters had very few victims (short and long term). If you consider how many people kill polution from coal energy, its another league. All options have downsides. Natural gas is not carbon free, renewables needs backups and massive storage system (and is not effectivelly usable for all destination) and nuclear is potentionally dangerous and have radioactive waste. You have to choose priorites.

@@WeBeGood06 LOL @ scrams being disasters. What the reality is you have no practical experience working around nuclear equipment (obvious with your comment) and yet you presume to tell the world of your worldly experience because "you know stuff"

@@WeBeGood06 well probably the scramming was part of the security system so I wouldn't say it might have been a disaster. And sure the marine wouldn't have chosen these stuff if it wasn't reliable lol. Or do you really think that the military put inefficient and dangerous stuff in billions of dollars of carriers and submarines?

@@WeBeGood06 A scram is not a near disaster it is simply a ways to shut down a reactor quickly, either manually or from automatic functions that protect the core.

They always seem to leave out the cost of subsidies when they price renewables. I believe all things considered nuclear is the Cleanest, cheapest, most reliable per megawatt of generation.

@@jluvs2ride you're right, and it's not clear how they're pricing those megawatts over the lifespan of the facilities. Cost per kilowatt is rising specifically because they've lost market share with the (sometimes unnecessary and often politically motivated) decommissioning of existing nuclear plants.

@@jluvs2ride The oil and coal industries are also heavily subsidized.

@@JollyOldCanuck and they actually work.

@@jluvs2ride Easily.....

Actually, the LCOE of 2021 does include batteries for solar, a mere 4 hour backup if I recall. As well as includes batteries as a standalone item. Whether combined or not within the LCOE, the data is still there and shows that wind and solar are more expensive.

OR, Adding a smattering of these to the grid to compensate for load. One of these in a typical transforming yard would hardly be noticed.

Is nuclear waste disposal included in the cost?

@@porcorosso4330 Yes. The costs of waste disposal and decommisioning of the nuclear power plant is part of the kWh pricetag.

@@matth.imaging8952 Doesn't seem right. Since they need to keep the waste safe for more than thousands of years, I would think the storage/disposal cost itself will be astronomical.

The problem with graphene is that it's super expensive to manufacture.

The problem with graphene is actually just a failure of how the public is presented scientific research and how the general public are taught to consume scientific media. Graphene is a rather useful material, but the development of plants that can make it take time to build, experts are learning things as they go, and then they need to find people willing to add graphene to their products. So while it's funny to say "oh graphene can't leave the lab," it's a generally frustrating thing for engineers and scientists to see. What the public sees as a waste of time, money, and energy, they should be seeing as possibilities.

@@gaussmanv2 I like your explanation better.

Yaa, graphene, oh my good, the way it was hyped and marketed I remember, where the hell is it now.

Maybe the 4S was released but it's just classified.

Yes but don't shoot it whatever you do.

@@Duncan_1971 don't punch it also.

Why stop with a lawnmower? I want my swing to be fission reactor powered as well.

@David Rodgers At's least it's solid and you could conceivably bury it, unlike CO2. Also, I believe a single fuel load lasts for years, so the volume of material is small.

@David Rodgers ...a Pipboy!

The best way to deal with human factors is to treat them as a constant and work from there. Just telling these people they're wrong won't work.

@@lozoft9 actually, if you continue to perpetuate a certain message people will start to believe it. it how people got scared of nuclear in the first place

and also interest from the fossil fuel industry to "tighten up regulation". when you see Helen Caldicott jetting around the world, you have to wonder if she is sponsored by rhinehart coal.

@@mobius2176 yup, that and foreign countries that don't want our nuclear programs advanced

@@mobius2176 Companies are so diversified today I'd be surprised if the major petroleum companies didn't have holdings in nuclear fuel as well.

Yes in part.....But those are technically micro fission reactors since SMRs have become too large to fit inside submarines....but most of the 20+ SMR variants originated from NAVAL reactor research.

and very reliable and safe. crazy how we have that tech yet cant even have a government ran electrical grid based on it and even have their own trained/training naval personnel to operate them.

And those nuclear submarines have even smaller, tiny actually, nuclear bullets.

@Pedro Daniel Lopes Ferreira 50000 years!!!! Your entire comment is filled with both irrational fear and gross misinformation......Do some homework before posting comments.

@Pedro Daniel Lopes Ferreira There are about 5000 container ships in service globally. A big one can carry 10,000 cargo containers. The video shows an SMR fitting into a cargo container (typically 40 feet long by 8 feet wide by 8.5 or 9.5 feet tall). So, the total number of SMRs we need doesn't seem too huge.

YES! Actively *reducing* the size of our current waste stockpile!

@@garysmith5025 A MSR designed to operate using a molten salt fuel literally cannot melt down (as the fuel is already molten). Any breach of the reactor results in the fuel solidifying as it spreads out minimizing the negative effects of the breach. How? As fuel spreads out less fission can occur resulting in less heat. This principle allows for MSRs to have a built-in passive safety feature. A drain line salt plug kept solid by moving cool air over the pipe would be able to melt if the reactor over heated or there was a power loss event. The salt fuel could drain into shallow pans where it would solidify. Lasty using salts with incredibly low solubilities (fluoride salts) prevents the spread of nuclear material in surface and ground water in the event of any type of breach (during transport, during refueling, etc.).

@@garysmith5025 ORNL and INL both developed MSRs in the 1950s and '60s for the Aircraft Reactor Experiment.

Check out videos on Elysium’s MSR which burns nuclear waste, including spent nuclear fuel. Also attention is given to reducing residuals to negligible quantities and near zero proliferation risk.

@@garysmith5025 Actually they have and it was oak ridge 60 yrs ago...... and no all dont need reprocessing. you need to read up more on this as its disingenuous to cherry pick.

I vote for u for president!

Does the " fusion " reactor operate on the same cooling principles ?

Thank you for that break down. Fascinating!

What do you think of SMR's?

@@mcgems754 Well, the affordability of BWRX-300* looks promising, and NuScale got their much smaller 50MWe design licensed, which is at least half the battle. Both of them are supposed to achieve high safety at lower cost than traditional reactors, but I haven't found a detailed explanation of their safety/cooling strategies. (* calling this an SMR may be a bit of a stretch, but it is compact for its high power output.)

What about the LCOE comparison ? If renewables are cheaper, why bother building nuclear ? (I'm quite amazed that even Bill Gates is investing in nuclear while renewables' LCOE is lower.... Is there something wrong with this measure ?)

@@benoitodille5617 yeah, the main problem is that LCOE doesn't include "integration costs". Which is an understated way of saying that if you want a 100% renewable electricity system that is reliable, you have to build tons of storage (batteries, pumped hydro, etc) and/or overbuild capacity and transmission lines, and be ok with over generating wasting electricity a good portion of the time. Which are both expensive. It's worth noting that 100% renewable has never *actually been done* unless 1. You have a ton of hydro (norway, costa rica) 2. You have a ton of geothermal for baseload (iceland) And these are very geographically dependent. California, Denmark, and Germany have among the highest penetration of renewables on their grids. They also hold the distinction of having some of the most expensive electricity in the US and Europe. "System LCOE" is the term used to describe actual cost of you want to google around a bit. Peace!

@@EricMeyer9 thanks for the answer ! I will definitely search for this "system LCOE". I already dug into the "material footprint" of renewables and it's quite surprising how it is mining-intensive...

@@EricMeyer9 I found the original study on System LCOE (from Germany), it is very interesting and seems serious ! www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.mcc-berlin.net/uploads/media/Ueckerdt_Hirth_Luderer_Edenhofer_System_LCOE_2013.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjVze_Zs8vtAhWlxYUKHe3YA98QFjADegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0yr3p1_LFFZ1XUh3G6AV5p However it is from 2013... I wonder if generating costs of renewables have not decreased since... And I found backup costs quite low. I didn't understand what were "Full-load hour costs" which indeed represent 70% of over-costs... And, to be honest, I didn't quite understand what were "overproduction costs".. is it the fact that we have to build more power capacity to have a secure baseload ? Surely, I'll investigate that :)

@@benoitodille5617 Also the popular LCOE statistics of late are artifacts of how private financing for projects works. While system/grid projects are built often from public funds, the expectation is that the power producers themselves have to be privately financed. And nuclear is seen as a "risky" investment these days because so few projects exist and a lot of them face opposition and risk cancellation before startup. That means that not only the overnight costs increase 2-3 fold, but the interest rate demanded by the private investors is very high and leads to most of the LCOE consisting of just interest payments back to those private investors. If you could fund nuclear power plants with low interest government backed loans, the LCOE drops to half or a third of the publicized LCOE for nuclear. And this isn't the case with other energy sources that are not so sensitive to interest payments.

ABSOLUTLY! The Elysium design using chloride salts and a fast reactor is a great design also. Thanks

That is something we need to see working in the real world, regardless of any planned expansion of nuclear power. I'd love to see those tackling the waste that has already built up. And if it works, that is a timeline that can realistically be dealt with, we have bottles of wine that are older than 300 years. And if the volume/mass reduction is that significant, nuclear could become viable. I still doubt it can be done quickly enough to matter for climate change though.

@George Mann I presume you're NOT a democrat.

Well, sure. When will they come? 2100?

@@anders21karlsson Already happening in India, China, 11 in USA, 2 in Canada.....but far more in University research labs around the world not to mention many gov science research vessels...

Can you expand on your comment?

@@mrgyani If we were to employ SMRs or Thorium Cycle reactors then we could have an over abundance of electricity, so much so that inefficient cracking of water would not be an issue and then we could have abundant hydrogen for fuel cells etc… (Desalination via reverse osmosis for California is another vastly inefficient process that could be enabled by a vast surplus of electricit)

You can't fuel reactor only with thorium since it is a fertile nuclide (it produces fissile nuclide u233). U233 has a major disadvantage which is low fraction of delayed neutrons. E.g., for u235 this number is around 0.0066, and for u233 it is just 0.003. Hence, to operate a reactor on thorium, one needs twice faster control rod mechanisms and automation.

...not to mention that the only reasonable way to do breeding with thorium is with a molten salt, where the fuel is circulating and all the precursors for the delayed neutrons are leaving the core!

Totally agree, great movie, and debunks a lot of the fears about nuclear. It is already safer than almost every power technology today, but it's still important planning to get right to prevent a Fukushima, like not putting the plant on the oceans where there are chances of an event like that.

About safety I'm disappointed these videos and discussions don't mention the obvious, that accidents like Fukushima wouldn't have happened if they weren't running first-gen reactors decades after their intended lifespan. Ironically at least some fault lies with hippy environmentalists who oppose investment without proposing a viable alternative.

@@jeebus6263 A couple of things: 1. Your statement is spot-on. During the post-war boom, we built things, all things, quickly and without the unimaginable red-tape there is today. I believe that generation assumed it would always be that way. Elevated freeway worn out? Replace it, no big deal. Power plant getting old? Build another! In 20-25 years they'll have gone through several new generations anyway. Those who built nuclear-plants in the US in the 1960s and 1970s had no idea how impossible their children would make building a water fountain in 2020. 2. Hippy environmentalists are neither hippies nor environmentalists. They're sad, ignorant people who desperately need to be a part of something. I would say the biggest hinderance - the one that gets the ignorant-but-otherwise-rational people headed down to the town hall to protest "NOT IN MY BACKYARD!" - is the relentless pop culture attack on all things nuclear. The Simpsons "green goo". The China Syndrome movie. Most recently the HBO Chernobyl series. Naked fear mongering presented with little or no context.

@@brianp6965 i mostly agree, the suspicion was reasonable when radiation was poorly understood and government programs were intended for weapons production rather than energy. Towns exposed to radiation in US, UK, and elsewhere (some not by accident) took decades to understand the link with cancers etc. Now anyone can buy a geigercounter, governments and corporations don't have means or incentive to mislead. We really haven't seen a serious conversation in media or otherwise, it's something politicians are still hesitant to advocate.

Well the whole nuclear industry is on it's way out. I'm always amazed when people group it with clean energy. When a reactor breaks we have 100 square miles of deadly poison ground and water for 10,000 years. Coal can't come close to that kind of damage to life on Earth. That said, I believe using small reactors in space is the safest form of power. When the core wears out you just send it into the sun, or Jupiter. You never have to live around spent fuel rods. The best small reactors would be ones that used spent fuel rods from large reactors. They still generate major heat, but not enough to melt through steel, and can last more than 20 years at these reduced levels.

and if every roof had solar you wouldn't need SMR. Nuclear energy is just another con game, but if you think it's cool let's build tons of them only question I have is considering how our languages change over time what sign do we put up so people 100 generations in the future know not to go there?

@George Mann George, you are spot on. Renewables are beaten by the logistics. Solar is fine for reducing or zeroing a domestic power bill, but is grossly insufficient to power heavy industry, including increasing demand for transport electrification, greatly increased cooling and desalination which become essential as the globe warms. And then of course there is the risk of universities energy sources, what happens if a solar storm takes out all the solar panels.

@@spudknuckles1815 Solar panels wont run my air conditioning or appliances in the evening or at night. Also rooftop solar kills more people that nuclear on a per Kwh basis because people climb up on ladders to scrape the snow off of their panels. Rooftop solar may be a good augmentation for commercial businesses with large roofs who can employ techs to safely access the panels, but this doesn't solve the need for baseload power.

@@jimgraham6722 The cost of renewable or "green" energy sources is often miscalculated on purpose. For example: You can get the energy costs from solar and wind unbelievable cheap, if you don't build storage solutions and build way too much "green" energy sources. On every sunny and windy day the price will get extremely low (because way too much is produced), so the average price for "green" energy gets also very low. But other energy sources that have to produce electricity, when the "green" energy is not available, have still to be maintained (produce less, but maintenance costs stay the same) and this energy sources get sometimes extra taxation to support the "green" electricity that does not get stored properly. The result are seemingly cheaper prices for "green" energy that do not find there way to the consumer. This article shows that the overall price of electricity increased in Europe, but it fails to mention why the taxes increased and what this has to do with the seemingly cheap "green" energy: strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/ I am not against renewable energy, but the statistics are often questionable.

@@xijinpingpong4426 Jin agree all you say. I live off grid and have domestic solar and wind with battery storage as well as some capacity to load shed (stopping water pumps etc). To be assured of 24/7 supply I have had to overbuild the system to cope with seven consequetive overcast (or smoke filled) windless days. I originally thought five days would suffice but in recent years have had to increase by two. My minimum daily usage (with load shedding) is 5 kWh, the house is heavily insulated so doesn't need aircon and only minimal heating, additionally lighting cooking, hot water is all ultra efficient. The solar array to power this is 5kW and wind turbine 1kW. The battery is 25kWh. I live in a generally sunny location and nine days out of ten generate far more power than I can use. But when extended periods of adverse weather sets in we just get by.

Just remember to get to the high ground, and you'll be fine.

and most importantly economically.

...too bad they CAN"T do any of that and so the major problems of the old style massive reactors would still exist in smaller reactors which would exist in far greater numbers. Smaller yet still conventional reactors is an asinine idea.

A reply here seems to claim that it cannot be done, but of course these are real technologies backed by real science and engineering.

@@Kezoman1 And electric cars will never have a range of over 120 miles, right? Since you want to deny the existence of technologies that existed 15 years ago.

@@specialopsdave I read your opinion but see no proof that the specific criteria listed is being demonstrably addressed. Being sceptical of nuclear power does not make one a luddite. Grid load fluctuation is easily and safely addressed already with even more robust solutions coming on stream in the next year e.g. wind into hydrogen. None of these suffer from the current major failings of nuclear - decommissioning costs, waste management and security. I confess to being highly irritated by both extremes on this topic - if it can be demonstrated to work (criteria defined earlier) then great, let's use it. If it can't then shelve it. Regardless let's get on with what we can do.

So its Chernobyl Beta? In Nobyl it was crew incompetence that provoked the disaster

Jumping after a rope that slips from the hand usually ends bad.

If...(If is the ignorance of hindsight! If there wasn't a Tsunami then Fukushima wouldn't have the problem that they do now!) If there wasn't human error then everything would be perfect. If there wasn't bad people there wouldn't be murders! (Simple minds are incapable of understanding the laws of probability!). If you have a power source that can cause world wide devastation and you continually use it the likelihood for that disaster increases the longer you use it. That's why I would like all the proponents to live in Chernobyl for 2 years, Fukushima for 2 years and TMI for 2 years. Then at the 7th year we can discuss the matter at your grave.

@@davideade542 If they had the correct anti earthquake and anti tsunami measures like they should, no problem would arise at Fukushima. Or if the crew at Chernobyl didn't do dumb experiments with an already known to be flawed reactor design. And not to mention that newer reactors have plenty of passive safety measures that don't need human intervention. But if you prefer destroying whole landscapes for deployment of crap coalar panels and Wind gadgets, while also destroying landscapes for the necessary oil, coal and natural gas to back them up.. Sure, be my guest. BTW, radiation levels around Pripyat and TMI are pretty much the same as the ones elsewhere.. Antinuclear scaremongering at its best.

@@AlldaylongRock If... Simple minds have simple solutions too bad they never work. All of you still don't get it. So here is a fun fact can we date individuals who die based on radioactive contamination of the planet? Yes we can! Based on the 3 major catastrophes and that human error, and environmental error will always be an issue large scale nuclear facitlities will never be safe! Never! smaller scale that don't have the severe radical catastrophes will be more likely to help. But it looks like all of you radioactive hugging morons haven't taken me up on my challenge. If you truly support nuclear power then go live by Fukushima, Chernobyl and TMI for 2 years each and I'll wait to discuss your findings on "If".

@George Mann Actually nuclear needs production that can be easily turned up and down. Nuclear is fine for baseload, but nothing more (unless you want to see the costs rise immensely). The main problem with nuclear now is 1) public opinion, 2) cost and 3) time to put into service (6 years is optimistic in the west, more like 8-10 years). By the time these new plants come online cheaper and better gen 4 might be ready to deploy and or renewables+storage might have become more cost-effective and you are stuck with a more expensive production for 60-80 years. I personally think a mix of nuclear and renewables will be used in the future (especially 24/7 industry will be great with nuclear), but using new nuclear is just complex politically and economically at this moment.

@George Mann *Navy reactors go from 10-100% in a minute.* Maybe, I don't know enough to say that they could, but I do know that these these are very expensive reactors not fit to be competitive in the current market. *France load follows with their reactors. Its just most economical to run them baseload and if the grid managers were not corrupted by political interference that's how they would operate.* Which is why I said that you'd see costs rise if you do use them to follow load and not as baseload production. And even then, we are talking about minutes or more to ramp up/down. Your first point is irrelevant, the public opinion is overall not really welcoming to nuclear. Yes, mostly because they aren't properly informed, but don't you think it wouldn't be tried? The public doesn't always follows facts and logic, feelings do also influence a lot, even if it means they are making the wrong conclusion. And it is much easier educating a panel, than the entire citizenry. *2) Cost is still far, far lower than wind & solar in any apples to apples comparison.* No, it is not, even with storage solar is just slightly more expensive than nuclear, the same for onshore wind. And with storage costs coming down, it is very possible that by the time a new nuclear plant is built if the procedure starts today, it will come out cheaper when it starts operating, let alone the next 60-80 years of operation. *3) Rate of nuclear expansion Twh/yr has historically been 4-10x wind & solar's maximum rate.* Can you give me a source for that? *4-5yr construction times in Asia & the UAE.* Yeah, just like anything else that gets build there goes up faster than in the west. And 5 to 8 years seems to be the norm for construction, but before this you need to actually go through the procedure of getting the licenses etc. and the planning phase. This alone could double the time. Ofcourse a country like China or the UAE might not have problems, due to space and the kind of government, but in the west? This can take longer than the actualy construction, or can even stop projects before they get of the drawing board. *No reason it can't be faster in the West. Corruption is the problem.* No, it can't be faster, not without enormous political will and money. Onshore windturbines are set up in around 6 months, you know how long the total procedure takes before construction, just because of procedures? Usually 2-2,5 years. Imagine this for a new nuclear reactor, the debates, petitions, court battles, getting the rights, .... *4) Wind/Solar plus storage is a joke. Not even close to economical.* Actually in some cases (lots of sun or wind) it is as commercial as nuclear, for now it is overall a bit more expensive, but not even double. *And the EROI is so low that it is physically impossible to replace fossil.* This is just laughable. The EROI can even become better with storage due to not losing energy with curtailment. Ofcourse the system needs to be properly designed to much storage can be detrimental. And then it also depends on the kind of storage, not all storage are batteries. *Wind/solar has no place in our energy grid except as a bit player for off-grid cottages or areas on diesel generation with good solar or wind resource.* You clearly have no idea about renewables if you are making this claim. *Over $2.5 trillion wasted on wind/solar with zero results. No reduction in emissions.* Yeah, you clearly have no idea. Consider this discussion closed, unless you come up with something truly relevant and factual.

@George Mann *Coal, Hydro & Geothermal share that same problem.* Yes, but they are less expensive than new nuclear. Hydro especially is very low cost and so not having it running all te time is no problem. And geothermal is around as expensive as CCGT. The main problem for geothermal and hydro is not the costs or the difficulty to throttle down/up, but rather the geographical constraints. *Hasn't stopped all them from being used for economical power for a century or more.* Because what are the alternatives (and geothermal, hydro will remain in use for a long time either way, low cost+renewable)? Nuclear was the only possible alternative up untill maybe 10 years ago when the decline in RE started to really happen. The fact that they remained in use and were not replaced by nuclear should already be an indication nuclear wasn't the great saviour, even when it was still cheaper than now. Why is France the only country with such an amount of nuclear if it clearly is so great, ever wondered that? France is easily used as an example, but there isn't even another country with more than 60% from nuclear. France is the exception, people that use it as an example should wonder why. Something to consider is that France is a major exporter, which can help them keeping a higher nuclear %, we see a similar (but bit smaller) trend with Germany's renewable electricity. When France has too much production, it just can export to neighbours, seeing that older nuclear is very cheap, they won't have trouble selling it. This however means not everyone can do what France has done. Would its neighbours also have used nuclear, it wouldn't be able to sell excess electricity. France exported 41TWh in 2019, that is more than 10% of their nuclear production in that year. Maybe this is why they can keep nuclear (partially) so great in their mix. If that is the case, what would happen if they can't do that because everyone else does the same as them? *With 1/2 the electricity price as wind/solar Germany* Yes, if you look at the total bill, however Germany has more taxes in their bill. Purely on the cost of production, Germany is only 2 cents/kWh more expensive, and considering France uses old reactors that I admit are cheap, this is definitely not bad. And yes, Germany also has a 5 cents/kWH renewable subsidies in their bill, however this is because renewables were expensive when Germany started the energiewende. Cost have come down a lot since then. It is predicted this subsidie tax will shrink every year from now on and be gone by 2030. *which has taken longer* Not true, if we look at it, Germany is now with renewables where France was after +-10 years. The energiewende started around 10 years ago. So if Germany is capable of getting 75-80% from renewables by 2030, it would have been around as fast as France in the past. *spent far more* *If Germany had spent their wind/solar investment on nuclear they would be 100% clean energy by now* No, they wouldn't I already calculated it once and based on current prices for new nuclear, they would have had to pay around the same amount as they did now. And this is taking into account that renewables were much more expensive when Germany started the energiewende. And the costs on the bill (for the production part) would be similar or higher. *and all its achieved is emissions 10X larger per kwh than France* Germany has historically been a nation that used coal, even when it had built nuclear plants it still stuck with coal. Since the start of the energiewende co2 emissions of electricity production has gone down by around 40% more or less the amount of renewables in the mix. You are acting like every country has the possibility France has, France is lucky to have such a great amount of hydro available, many other countries haven't, Hydro in Germany is only minor, and if it could easily be increased, they would have done so. Between 1960 and 1975 hydro made up between 25% to 50% of France's electricity generation, that is a large amount. *instead they have killed 50 thousand Europeans with their coal emissions.* Germany's coal production went down by around 50%, it would have been more if they hadn't closed half of their existing nuclear powerplants (which was stupid). It could have gone down by around 75% if they hadn't. And they will make the same mistake in 2022 if they go through with the closure. Personally I aim for 50 years of operation for the older reactors, that would mean that Germany will close the next bunch around 15 years too early. *You know storage can be used with nuclear also daily for peak demand, in fact it is far more economical than with solar & wind?* This is just laughable, even when new nuclear plants are operating at 90% of the time, they are more expensive than solar and wind, to say nuclear+storage would be cheaper than renewables+storage is plain stupid. *And in fact nuclear, unlike solar or wind is the perfect fit for BEV charging which is mostly at night, that will flatten the demand curve making the problem insignificant.* While yes, nuclear can be helped with BEV's, it wouldn't be a better fit than renewables, it would around the same. The reason people charge their ev now at night is easy: prices are cheaper and they have the infrastructure at home. However most cars sit still for most of the day: at work, in the store, going out, ... In other words it could charge during the day with solar power and with wind when there is extra available, it just needs the infrastructure at work and around stores, this infrastructure will eventually become standard, hell at this moment people who can charge at work already often do so, because it is free (work pays) or because it is cheaper than even at night. BEV's would be a perfect fit for renewables, it could even take away some of the need for storage if bi-directional charging is used. *And molten salt reactors can add a secondary solar salt heat storage & standard CCGT steam turbine and store sufficient heat for the daily peak/shoulder load @ $50/kwh, cheaper than any battery storage by far.* And this is in favor of nuclear and not renewables how? Also it is expected that by 2030 battery costs would be around $60/kWh. *Look at what France did 20yrs before Germany, with ancient nuclear tech* Look at what France is doing with current nuclear technology. Expected to be 10 years over time, and 6 times higher cost (€19,1bn vs €3,3bn) according to a recent audit. Or in Finland where it is expected to be 11 years over time and 4 times over budget. In the US one project is expected to suffer a delay of 5 years for both new units and an increase of 11bn on the 14bn estimated price, another nuclear project in the US was stopped due to the company going bankrupt. For some reason the US and Europe just doesn't seem to be good in constructing new type nuclear reactors. *Dumb statement. Storage ALWAYS worsens EROI.* Dumb statement from you, a study found it wouldn't. Why? because you get more usefull energy produced. If you curtail, the energy is wasted. If the loss of usefull energy from curtailment is higher than the energycost of the storage to stop this curtailment, you decrease the EROI of a project by adding storage. *Weissbach did an full lifecycle analysis of ...* And his study is from 2013, that is old regarding renewables. The E-66 for example was developed in 1995 and is not being build anymore. *Ferroni found a EROI of 0.82:1 for solar PV in Switzerland* The study by Ferroni was rebuted by another article which put it between 7 and 10. *Hall found an EROI...* Halls study also is already 6 years old. An article that looked at several studies concerning EROI of renewables found that for wind the EROI is between 34-58 onshore and 16,7-17,7 offshore (from 4 studies) and solar has an EROI between 5-34 according to 7 studies. *nuclear 75:1* A meta-analysis of 2013-2014 using 15 publications for nuclear came to an EROI of 14, maybe the values from the references are outdated, a possibility is that weissbach looked at heat energy instead of electrical energy (though why would he do that), that would mean this 14 is something more similar to 56 (heat energy is around 4 times higher than the actual produced energy in electricity). Though I too was surprised by this low number, since even if new nuclear isn't really economical, energywise I expected it to be very good, I'll look more into the analysis and the referenced studies/publications when I have more time. But eitherway, EROI isn't the only thing to look at, costs are considered way more important as long as EROI is decent enough. This analysis found that hydro is by far the source wih the highest EROI btw. *All of those are far below the 14:1 needed to sustain a modern civilization.* Where did you get 14 from? I can't find anything about that. As for the clip you provided, I have some issues with it, ofcourse some things are right there, but if I really need to go into that clip/site, I will have to write another reply possibly as long as this one, so I'll wait with that for later if you want. And just to be clear, I am not anti-nuclear, if that is the best source, fine use it, personally I expect a mix of nuclear (probably gen 4) and renewables+storage, but as things stand now, new nuclear just isn't economical. Most nations are wel below 30-40% renewables, which is considered the point where renewables will start becoming expensive without affordable storage, so at least they can build renewables up to that point. by 2030 hopefully we know whether gen 4 fullfills its promise or not and will storage have decreased in price enough to be truly affordable.

Thank god i thought i was the only one. and by the way, wanna have snickers?

Well played Sir.

Well played indeed

is Harold Pinter of Hungarian origin

@@aspopulvera9130 I'm not even Hungarian, and that annoyed* me too. (*About as much as a small hangnail)

I honestly think that projects like new Vogtle are tools in a grand scam. It's supposed to cost too much. It's supposed to be late. It's not intentional, but it's intentional. All this to kill nuclear by fossil fuel interests. The electric utility industry and Georgia Power are politically OWNED by the fuel industry. Yes, SMR nuclear is the only logical approach. It's much better than wind & solar because these are not reliable, huge eyesores, take up too much land, result in lots more condemnation of property and I believe in the end cost more than SMR. I love SMR.

We could use nuclear for cargo ships,but first,for the next 20 years we'll install replacement for deisel natural gas and coal,easier to make H2 with nuclear and use it in fuel cells for ships.

H2 is much better for that use case.

lol why its eye-catching when professional people do such mistakes :D (othewsie wehn I tpye, I carp all orve adn I dnot care!)

Your 4 nuclear power reactors performed admirably, with only one of the STP Units losing a MFW line and having to shut down. Apparently the natural gas plants didn't get the memo....winterize your plants, even in the South.

Nuclear will never beat any source with respect to cost but it will always be best and probably the only way to decarbanize ..unless we have a miracle new battery ..

Nevermind health, environment and all kinds of other indirect costs. As if oil, coal and gas don't have to be transported via much more polluting ways than electricity. For sure the costs are not easy to calculate but when you compare energy sources with immense differences in pollution generated, it's absurd to not even mention that it needs to be considered.

I'm buying a used nuclear sub' for my small town.

or the subsidies that renewable energy receives

Wind and solar power is cheaper than the fuel of gas power plants so once you got a gas power plant built, a wind farm is basically for free. If you build it, you are not increasing costs. you are cutting costs.

@@erikengheim1106 Until maintenance happens and big time gov subsidies disappear. you got that right.

Have you heard of Hesajoki?

@George Mann I used to work in the wind industry back in the 1990s. Ontario has no real resource except for a few small areas on the parts of the shores of the Great Lakes where they are exposed to wind coming from the West over the water. The true potential for wind energy in Canada is in the coastal areas of Atlantic Canada and the Prairies. Wind energy needs to be combined with the kind of Hydro where you have large reservoirs, such as in Quebec and Labrador. The reservoirs essentially act like batteries to counter the intermittency of wind power. What would make sense would be a national hydro/wind policy where Ontario imported electricity from Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It will never happen though because it makes too much sense. Hydro-Quebec's average cost of producing power is 20$ per MWh, although the marginal cost of new capacity of both grid-scale wind and hydro is now over 100$. Add another 20$ for long distance transport on the 735 kV lines.

Unclear power? Lmao

@@Alex_Plante China and India are building the 1MV HVDC powerlines needed for bulk transfer of electrical energy around their countries. The rest of us need to catch up.

It makes great tank rounds.

Oh! Has Finland found a way to stop fission? Well then, we can go and clean up all the mess that has been left behind by Nuclear energy! Start with Fukashima and then Chernobyl and then Winscale and so on and so on... Go Finland!

You can't get rid of nuclear waste because everything in the universe is nuclear waste. The only solution is to fire it into the Earth and call it a day because the core is radioactive anyway.

@@PeterMilanovski You can't stop fission as matter by definition is not stable because everything has a half life, however, 10^18 for photons and 10^34 for protons are a longer than the age of the universe.

@@KRYMauL you talk about photon's and protons like you have actually seen it!!! Could you possibly be the only person in human history who has seen them with your own eyes or you are possibly another person who is using a theory like it's a fact? Let's just face it, you don't know what photon's and protons are! For all that you know, they probably don't even exist, there could be something altogether different inside an atom but unlike you, I don't easily subscribe to an idea without actual evidence. Show me a real picture or video of photon's and protons neutrons or electrons and then we have something to talk about... Until then, your just kidding yourself if you think that you know what's inside an atom and that you have the ability to educate others.. you don't have a clue! The age of the universe hahahaha ROFL how do you know how old it is? Were you there when it was born? You are so gullible...

BS Its A Nuclear END One Way Or The Other Any Time Now Do The Math

@@FixItStupid Troll sense is tingling.

Terra is building the Nartrium right now!

Spend fuel is not recyclable. The majority is Uranium Oxide that you can take home but that has no value.

Most renewable energy sources are laughably unreliable. Wind, Solar and Wave are completely reliant on the total randomness of weather and management is a nightmare. The only viable way to store excess production atm is Pumped Hydro, which is very expensive to deploy, although pretty efficient and long lasting. Batteries are laughable, and then you have either Hydrogen or Synthetic Fuels, both with their pros and cons. Not to mention that if you get a wind drought or long term overcast they don't do anything. Then there's Hydro. Semi deployable as needed, because you can store water and only turbine when needed. The reservoirs also have touristic and other economical potential. Problem arises with prolonged droughts. Then you have Tidal. Fluctuating output, but extremely predictable. Then you have Geothermal, which is the only RES that can reliably substitute Fossil fuels(Look at Iceland for example) because just like Nuclear, has completely controllable output up to max. Big Fossil does not care about Wind or Solar because well, those sources are not predictable or reliable at all, so Fossil based backup is always necessary.

For me it's quite the opposite: why bother with nuclear when we have renewables? For renewables, what exactly are "all their problems"? Solutions for storage, intermittency, distribution and environmental impacts are developing faster than the incremental and often incompatible advances in reactor design. Nuclear technology has many problems besides public misconceptions about radiation. The most glaring problem is, we've run out of time.

Not entirely correct, naval reactors are pwrs using highly enriched fuel raising concerns about weapons proliferation and waste. SMRs for civilian power generation using molten salt operate at higher temperatures (typically 600C) using Brayton cycle and don't need high levels of enrichment. They also have much better burn up, with the waste relatively short lived.

And so have POWER STATIONS - Nuclear Reactor LIES.

I don't understand the point of your post. Do you live on a submarine? Because I live on land, where we haven't been using small nuclear reactors in the power grid. Therefore, starting to use small nuclear reactors in the power grid that I'm using is entirely new. Maybe think about the intent of posting on the internet before you leave your verbal diarrhea all over the place. Everyone knows submarines use small nuclear reactors. Your post is revelatory and relevant to nobody.

@@Dan-lt8vm Boy, you must think your edgy! Your not. Your just being rude. If you cannot think of any way having this product that's newly being pushed as a consumer product, would benefit from actually being an old tested product I truly feel sorry for you.

@@Dan-lt8vm the beatles all lived on a yellow submarine at least that's what they said, i don't believe them

then attach it to a hydrogen generator

SMV have a pricing problems, thorium reactors even more. So less waste but you pay ~4 times more then for renewables?

*SMR

@@Kamikater2the priceing is because everyone one is invested in shitty oil companies and big pharma sucks their dick

I need one for my secret spaceship !.😁

I Know, or hooked up to a big bitcoin farm...

Totally agree.

I guess you missed the part about China producing a demonstration reactor by the end of next year.

The issues are political. Big oil is the biggest sponsor of renewable energy. Nuclear is the long term answer but lobbyists are making it rain for wind and solar.

@@jwatson181 so-called renewables rely on resource extraction just like fossil fuels, so that's right up big oil and big coal's alleys.

@@MrTaxiRob not to mention, you will need oil as a backup. For instance, Germany built coal plants after their green new deal. It never hurts that renewables coat more for the end user.

@@jwatson181 - "The issues are political." That doesn't say much. Could you clarify. - "Big oil is the biggest sponsor of renewable energy." What sponsor? Do you mean investor? What makes you think that those companies prefer to make a bad investment instead of a good one?

@@ruialbano5340 I’m not sure how you are coming up with ‘Thousands’ ? In the U.K. Rolls Royce have proposed 16 plants which equates to approx 160 SMRs. Because of their small size and being manufactured as a complete unit at a dedicated facility, the safety of each unit would be vastly superior.

Yes, exactly. While so called “green energy” is getting reduced regulations and increased subsidies, nuclear is overly regulated, shunned and resisted by government. If you want to see an example of government corruption and crony capitalism just look at the energy industry. Perfect example of federal government picking winners and losers.

Excuse me? 1. Nuclear energy has had more than itˋs fair share of subsidies in the past. 2. What about the Waste for the next 1.000.000 Years or so??

@@ingoclever1722 Problem has long been solved.

@@hotrodsather 😂 enlighten me. With sources please.

@@ingoclever1722 The fucking internet!!! Duh, they put it in a barrel and hide it in a mountain.

YES! That is a totally unfair comparison. The total amount of power available is very different. Most wind has a 30% capacity factor while solar by it's nature has a 50% capacity factor. Nuclear has had a 95% capacity factor. I find it amazing that he lists refueling as a negative for Nuclear. Every plant has to shut down for maintenance from time to time.

@@williamphillips3375 It's just amusing that you think capacity factor is everything. I think 95% is a bit exaggerated, but whether it's 90 or 95, obviously it can't exceed 100. You can only exploit that for so much. Yes, refueling IS a negative factor. With nukes, this generally takes quite a while. In the future, this may not be an issue, but for now that's about where we are. Of course, if you're in France and have a couple dozen reactors, and neighbors who have lots of juice that you can import, mostly from other sources, it's not such a big deal. And yes, it cuts both ways. Germany can import juice from France's nukes when it's dark, and Denmark can get German PV electricity and French nuclear when the wind is slack. I'm concerned with the trends, and the trends are that nuclear is dying, mostly for economic reasons. . But if you're in, say, New Zealand, I wouldn't recommend building nukes. The whole country might need, what, two or three reactors? If that's most of your generation, you're really SOL. Of course, they're not going down that road. . BTW you really should learn to spell little words like "its." It's really not that hard. Geez.

@@ronaldgarrison8478 Yep, missed a word. I also missed the exact capacity factor for Nuclear. Currently 91%. www.ans.org/news/article-183/us-nuclear-capacity-factors-resiliency-and-new-realities/ The refueling is done in the fall and is planned for several years in advance. The new Small reactors range in size from 1 MW to 300 MW. New Zealand or the Philippines could easily match the size needed. Refueling is NOT a negative when the reactors last for 20 years, or as in the case of NuScale there are several reactors on a single site so that the refueling only means a slight decline in capacity. Well planned and accounted for. Not a negative. The trend that nuclear is dying for economic reasons has to do with the billions of subsidy given to wind and solar. Try removing that subsidy and see what happens to costs. Also, try requiring that Natural Gas have enough reserve fuel on hand to make it through a month and see what the cost of NG production becomes.

@@williamphillips3375 Where to start? Or maybe just to finish. First, I'm not here to advocate for gas, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding it. It sounds as though you're saying it gets an implicit subsidy, and some rule needs to be changed. Maybe. Whatever. . Small reactors go as low as 1 megawatt. That doesn't mean much. If it was 1 milliwatt, no real difference. The typical size, or average size, is more relevant. How efficient are those smaller reactors, and what do they cost per megawatt? That's what matters. . You can certainly arrange things so that downtime for refueling is reduced. Yes, you can have a whole bunch of smaller reactors instead of a bigger one. Just having a whole lot of reactors, of whatever size, in close proximity, however you make that happen, helps in that regard. Some reactors, such as CANDU, can be refueled as they run. But is that economical, and safe? The overall picture has to be considered. . Just as a side topic, speaking of CANDU, I've heard the proliferation issue for that reactor type argued both ways. Some say CANDU is good for preventing proliferation, some say it's a terrible risk (pointing to India's bomb as an example). How do you size that up?

@@williamphillips3375 the funny thing is AGR reactors never needed to be shutdown for refuelling

Yes, it's enough to power a small city. Who says a power station can't hold more than one reactor, it's actually standard practice. :)

That's not entirely true, the reactors used on the Ford class output 700MW thermal each, not the best comparison for a reactor that is just providing electrical power. Even the Nimitz class are bigger than the SMRs at 550MW thermal each.

@@VJCastle 700mw each is the thermal output. According to wiki which I’m embarrassed to rely on, it ends up being translated into 125mw each of electrical output and 260mw each of propulsion. I admit I thought the output was 125mw total each and that the propulsion was electric and thus less than the , but the answer is in between.

300 MW is still very small in comparison to modern plants like the Framatome EPR (1650 MW) or the Mitsubishi APWR (1800 MW). SMRs are mostly the trend of reducing efficiency of the power supply as much as possible, like renewables do too. There is no reason to build a smaller power plant than necessary, as it just gets more expensive by that.

@@KarlKarpfen I understand the utility of larger power stations, and just wish we weren't so bad at building them. Experienced builders like GE Hitachi, aren't just claiming that their reactors are cheaper or quicker to build - they are claiming a significantly lower cost per MWh which quite frankly is the only metric that matters. A power station housing 4 BWRX-300 reactors is 1.2GW, while the cost of each reactor is less per MW than had they used larger reactor vessels.

They are called "small modular reactors", but they really aren't that small. And on board a ship you can only use reactors which are optimized for weight. And yes, carrying around nuclear fuel is a very bad idea.

@@Andreas-gh6is in the case of air craft carriers and submarines all the fuel is contained in the reactor itself and is actually smaller than the petroleum fuel counterpart

@@ADHDgonewild7 yes. But critically those reactors are optimized for weight, which SMRs, being used on land, are not. The "small" in the name is quite misleading. They still require a massive building with lots of concrete to be safe. The "mobile" reactors are optimized for weight and volume, not for safety or cost. And even very little radioactive material is dangerous. Both in an accident and as the material for a dirty bomb.

I think that was one of the LFTR or thorium reactor videos.

Or "happy".

Lol….when you came along it quickly became a Chernobyl incident…I know exactly how you feel….lol👍

I honestly don't get the hype about Thorium. A Molten Salt Reactor or High Temperature Gas Cooled reactor on Uranium will be more than safe and these can run on waste from current reactors. Hence we got all this Uranium sitting around which we need to get rid of anyway. So why bother with Thorium?

Your comment caught my attention. Please. Tell me more of RR development of this technology. Very interesting.

MSRs sort of suck atm

At this point MSRs are a meme

Perhaps a promising choice if they can "burn up" (i.e. transmute) nuclear waste into short-lived isotopes. There are presently 250000 tonnes (at least) of high-level nuclear waste Worldwide, so we need an awful lot of MSR SMR's !

Even For terrorists i guess

This is more true than people expect. The rejection of nuclear led to more coal, and in terms of public health effects, it's difficult to see coal coming out on top even if every nuclear reactor on the planet suffers a meltdown: www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/jtm6hm/how_bad_is_meltdown_world/

Lots of clever people are working on solutions to this. One somewhat viable/realistic solution is to use electric cars as bulk energy storage but that's not going to fly with the US and EU. Plus that doesn't really solve the problem. Tesla is pushing batteries hard but there's not enough production at the moment to meet the predicted demand energy storage will have. Quite the challenging problem to solve isn't it? Nuclear is nice and reliable, cheap even in the long run. It's just that no politician will approve a nuclear reactor when wind and solar is so damn cheap thanks to China. Unreliable energy? Just install quadruple the capacity.

@@LiveType The problem is that wind and solar aren’t really cheap if you compare the real costs. They are only cheap due to the grid subsidies. Using EVs for storage is an absolutely nutty idea.

Problem is being addressed, check out the Molten SSR being planned for New Brunswick. it is designed from outset to work with wind power with storage handled by molten salt. The reactor simply ramps up and down, producing sufficient heat to make the molten salt heat store is kept up to temperature regardless of wind conditions.

The Russians already have such a machine connected to the grid.Nice thing about it it eats spent nuclear fuel.

As it stands right now it is cheaper to mine and process uranium than to reprocess spent fuel rods. It would take a lot of R&D money to bring the cost down and the anti-nuke crowd have done everything they can to block any public discussion of waste recycling.

@@VictorGallagherCarvings You’re right. Which is why the public desperately needs to be re-educated on nuclear technology. They need to know that we have learned from our past mistakes and truly have better systems.

@@VictorGallagherCarvings sounds like issues that can be overcome. Or ideally ignored. Just start tossing the waste fuel in the reactor (I know that is over simplified) at a 1:10 or even 1:100 ratio. Slowly but surely the nuclear fuel disappears. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Again an oversimplified thought process but this is a RU-vid thread so....

@ Back in the early seventies, burn everything reactors were proven to work and work well. Unfortunately the combination of a powerful oil lobby and and the growing anti-nuke movement made it easy for the politicians to kill research into that type of reactor. Also reactors are licensed and designed for a specific fuel type. The cost of licensing is one of the reason you will never see thorium reactors in the states. But on the bright side countries like India are willing to commit to long term research and thus free themselves from western tech dependency.

@@VictorGallagherCarvings and the moment India does it watch the US scramble to either invade, assassinate or economically suppress them. Or if we're lucky they'll scramble to roll back the bullshit laws and regulations.

That is why the Canadian government is pushing for SMR's so hard, they know there is no options for wind, solar and storage to get northern communities carbon zero. Solar and wind are only so cheap because they are backed up by nat gas peaker plants. I would love to see how much the levelized cost per kwh would be once you add enough storage to not need nat gas plants, it would be far higher than nuclear even old big nuclear.

@@ContentConfessional MIT has this

And harvested to make a “small” boom.

At one time they had an experimental nuclear engine and I think there was a plane on problem was fall out

nuclear may end the world though

Slovakia is an advanced nuclear nation.

I'm buying a used nuclear sub' for my small town.

Sir this is a wendy's

It would have to be buried every thing that come in contact with high radiation levels becomes radioactive ☢️

I recommend you take a look at NASA's Kilopower project, which is a solid state micro reactor designed for this very purpose.

If it can be transported by a standard semi, than Starship would be able to take it to the moon or Mars one day. Likely too heavy for any other rockets that cannot refuel in orbit though. Maybe SLS.

www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview weight (presumably in short tons, and for 1 module) 300 tons.

With what Fact Not Fiction shows (300t), that wouldn't be possible to send to space at all. Not even close. However, those also wouldn't be able to be transported by semis, like the video showed. My guess is that they are wanting to shrink it down to closer to 40t per module. That is what would be needed for the transpiration options the video showed. If so, sending it to the Moon would be possible on Starship and maybe SLS (doubtful though).

@@anthonypelchat It is unclear for what the 300 t is. Perhaps it is the total of what you need (ex building), but each piece is small enough to be transportable by truck.

I thought same thing...I might be a little confused about the many different types of smr's but I was under the impression that Thorium based salt reactors were proposed to use the waste from older full sized reactors thus taking the waste with a half life in the neighborhood off 100 thousand years down to as little as 300 year half life which is a win win in my opinion...to say nothing of the safety improvements of old style nuclear reactors.

@@livingourdestiny9075 Actually since it's a liquid you can just keep the "waste" in solution until it's gone completely

@@1inspiration466 not all MSR are necessary liquid-fueled (LFTR), some designs are basically a traditional Uranium reactor and use molten-salt for cooling. That's why Kirk discussed the need for that acronym.

Totally agree!

The big problem is that salt corrodes such a system too fast let's hope they solve that problem soon.

Would be amazimg but I'd imagine electric engines do not have the right characteristics for shipping. I think you just need fucktons of torque.

Terra is already sourcing parts for natrium they bought 200,000 sq feet in Everett.. they are gonna build it in Idaho.

That's not how it works... Spent fuel is no uniform stuff... It's a complicated mix of many isotopes... Most not useable as fuel... Reprocessing is dangerous and very costly...

Hungary is an example of why nuclear sometimes can be dangerous. The current regime is batshit full nazi crazy. How can they be trusted to keep the reactors safe?

@@headcrab4090 Orban prevented Europe be overrun via the Balkan route. Merkel is the batshit.

it strange when a democratically elected president, doesn't give a shit about the opinion of other European countries and their leaders. His only motive is to stay in power, spend all the money to bullshit causes while giving most of it, to his close family and friends. Slowly leading the country out of the EU

For a sovereign state, it is certainly better to listen to the leaders of other states than to the will of its own people. The leaders of the EU states have only the best intentions with the interests of Hungary. During the Soviet era, the leaders in the Kremlin also knew better what was better for its vassal states in the Eastern Bloc, right?

It's a bit harsh to compare the EU to the Soviet Union. Nevertheless even Orbán doesn't take into consideration what's the best for Hungary. His only motivation is to keep the EU founded money in the pocket of their own.