Small nuclear reactors could be the future of energy 

I know people who have investment in this Tech for Many Years rubbing their hands together to see it replace the FIRE HYDRANT on every block.

Whats wrong with this overtly thickish/obnoxious accent

The one in Idaho appears right next to water, why? Show me one in the middle of the desert powering a reforestation initiative and I'll get real excited.

@@ReluctantSpirit she’s not an IG / TikToker / content creator. This is a scientific advancement news report. English might not be her first language and so what, the content is amazing. 🙄🤦🏻‍♂️

I say it is about time, yes 100%, go go go.

- Homerrrrrrr Simpson, prrrrrrobably*

Yeah, she has an epic accent!

She's a Pirate, for surrrrre!

@@LeoAngora yep, sounds about ignorant:)

RaCiSt! Reeeee!!

Nuclear is the better option when thinking about carbon emissions, but you need to take into account nuclear waste. Fission reactors create nuclear waster that we can't do anything with and is highly dangerous. I am happy to see such a push towards cleaner energy but realize that Nuclear fission reactors are not the best option. The number one absolute best option for clean energy is Nuclear Fusion. This should be our main focus as a species. No meltdowns, no waste, no carbon emissions. MIT just made some breakthroughs with it so let's get it done people.

Oil companies are running the show.

But, nuclear is not cheap. It's actually the most expensive source of new electricity generation by far.

We have to keep promoting safe nuclear. Its our last hope IMHO.

@@dansanger5340 it's expensive due to the excessive regulation emposed by the government due to the fear of nuclear fallout, for good reasons one could argue. It's also due to the huge size of nuclear reactors that basically make it impossible for mass production because every reactor has to be custom built. The small nuclear reactors are to solve exactly these two problems. They would meet all the regulation due to their small size and modernized safety features - all these new designs are literally impossible to melt down by design. And their small size also allow them to be mass produced thus making them incredibly cheap. Another thing they are working on is figuring out ways to utilize the nuclear wastes, which many solution were produced. Ultimately, even if the wastes cannot be used, we could always just ship them into space, our space traveling technology would be more then capable to do that by the point where nuclear wastes needed to be shipped off. Besides, we'd probably transition to nuclear fusion much sooner then that.

And beautifully strong too.

She speaks fantastic English.

I find it distracting. I'm here for the news. . . which makes it very annoying for me.

@@Hadeks_Marow yep, sounds about American.

@@Hadeks_Marow i had to learn Spanish as a 3rd language to work and obviously I have an accent, not everyone can work using their native language, check your privilege

look wind solar dams all renewed energy nuke is not it creat waste that doesn't go away

@@richardgray7159 Nuclear fuel can be recycled. France has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. Some newer types of nuclear reactors produce waste that will decay in a 300 year time. Nuclear is a very dense fuel source so doesn't produce a great volume of waste.

@@richardgray7159 nuclear reactor are not like nuclear bombs

That is just fantastic. I literally LOL’d!

😂😂

Hydro is not ideal because of the destruction it causes to down stream river environment. The Mekong River is being destroyed by the proliferation of hydro schemes. SMR's are definitely the way to go to provide base load topped up by wind, solar, tidal, biomass etc etc. Lots of small reactors spread around the country should also provide resilience to the overall system.

🤣🤣

@Tim Norris About the expense, usually that happens with really new technology, as economists have pointed out. Costs go down when scaled. Regarding the rest, nuclear is one of the safest technologies. So, I beg to disagree. I remain hyped. Bye.

That's what I thought too

A regular Panzerfaust penetrates 80cm of steel and you can get them for less than 100$ in the middle east... I don't think that the low output power would even cover the costs for security.

@@claudiot.crameri3195 most of the reactor is below ground and in a concrete ‘bunker’ and most will be built in an array with multiple units within the same complex. Security costs will not be as great as you think.

@@bearinmind50 The company doesn't even publish the thermic and electric output power. Usual pressurized reactors already have a low electric efficiency of around 33% since they work with temperatures of around 300° Celsius. I imagine this reactor is less than 25% efficient since it works with even lower temperature levels to ensure inherent safety. You basically waste Uranium in these small reactors....

Melesia: Look up a guy named Gordon McDowell. His videos will explain a lot. Also, look up Kirk Sorensen. These two guys alone will provide a lot of helpful reading.

@@paulbradford6475 ok thanks

They’re actually already developing nuclear batteries that are safe to hold in your hand. They aren’t in late stages as of yet. I myself am still wary of the effects of nuclear radiation and a possible fallout, but that’s why more effort should be put into making nuclear energy more safe.

Burner reactors will eat up any nuclear waste. The tech already exists.

Wind and solar need 100% backup and if that backup is nuclear, what's the point of having wind and solar to begin with?

But commercial projects will only start 10 to 15 years later is a bit late I think... Hope they can start building it now...

They'll need to be built in underground bunkers to protect them from all the typhoons.

Certainly agree on this one but I doubt the oligarchs will approve since they own the energy sector

Check out Thorcon. They're building on powerships for Indonesia.

Everything has emissions when consider the whole supply chain. Making purified silicon, fiberglass wind turbine blades, all the steel needed, etc. But if you start switching to electric trucks, new smelting tech, new mining techniques, that can keep going lower. Lots of work in a lot of areas. No one panacea, but nuclear is a big stick to prevent electrification being just a way to move the exhaust to another location.

Good point. Designs don't have to be standardized necessarily, but should comply with updated, general safety rules.

How is it different?

😂

literally just thought this

imagine people dying of radiation poisoning god people are stuiped worst idea in world make more nukler power plants

Slowly but surely, the NRC is coming around to changing the rules that govern the safety of nuclear plants. The NRC is using (to use a rough analogy) railroad safety regulations and applying them to the aviation industry. It's a slow process, but they're beginning to see the light.

@Tim Norris It's not relaxing the rules, but rather updating regulations to match the new technology. See my analogy above.

@Tim Norris Security will always be a concern, but with SMR's and especially MSR's, the safety is enhanced and simplified due to the walkaway safe design. Also, and to your point, in most designs, the chance of proliferation or theft of nuclear material is reduced to practically nothing due to the salt chemistry being diluted before extracting it from the core rendering it unusable for something like a "dirty" bomb. And logistically speaking, how would a theft of material even be accomplished?

@Tim Norris Oak Ridge National Lab built and tested a Molten Salt Reactor in the late 60's that ran for about 4 years with no problems. They discovered that when the molten salt rises to a given temperature, the neutrons are less likely to split atoms needed for a chain reaction. It is self-regulating. You're right to point out the embrittlement issue. This happens in spent fuel rods in LWR's and they have to be replaced. Newer alloys which resist corrosion have to be developed, but time and temperature are keys to reducing the issue. If a core deteriorates reliably in, say, 10 years, then you'd want to replace that core sooner. It's analogous to replacing tires on your car. Well before you lose the tread, you replace the tires, and you operate your car with a new margin of safety. It'll work out. It's largely a chemistry problem.

Good question. Fast breeder reactors are just one type of small scale reactor being considered for production. Thorium, which is abundant world-wide, would be used as a fertile element fed into the reactor along with smaller amounts of uranium. You can find thorium in plain old dirt. It's everywhere.

With SMRs you don't *really* know until you build 15-20 of them, it keeps getting cheaper the more experience, factories, etc... But with wind and solar , they're cheap, but we've seen that the more you add to the grid, the more expensive it is to store it and move it to where it's needed. It's why Denmark, Germany, and California, who have some of the highest renewables penetration, have the most expensive electricity.

@Tim Norris the first dozen, probably. But how much does a KWh of solar cost at night? Or a KWh of wind on a calm day, or week? Lots of batteries, extra transmission... Gets very expensive while nuclear can run 24/7 for 2 years straight.

@Tim Norris nope

@Tim Norris If that is true-- why is electricity so much more expensive in every area that has high penetrations of wind and solar? That's the problem with the Lazard LCOE study that you're probably referencing, it doesn't take into account the system costs.

and waste dont go away and accident can happen even mother nature nuke is by far by far worst form of energy

@Tim Norris Wrong, the fossil fuel lobby will kill us all.

I was wondering the same… This stuff is not easy to deal with.

Due to it's walkaway design, a small modular reactor would require far few personnel to monitor its operation.

I worry about this too. The USA is falling behind in STEM and the personnel operating these reactors should be a licensed RO