The Economic Advantage of Nuclear Energy  

The economics of nuclear require a massive upfront investment, but once it's built and running and that investment has been fully recouped, it's a money making machine because of the sheer amount of energy one reactor can produce in a year. Problem is that investments can take 10-15 years to see a return, so it requires patient investors and a stable market.

for the love of God, you don't have to loop it it's awkward

"Noooo, nuclear is bad!!!" *this message was sponsored by big oil*

“Nukuler energy.” - George Bush

I'm glad that it seems like the majority opinion is shifting in regards to nuclear. It's really our only viable option in the near future, and it's been held back heavily by people not understanding that fact.

To just say people don’t like nuclear because of nuclear bombs is misleading. Nuclear accidents have happened and will continue to happen just like accidents happen in every other industry. The difference is, nuclear accident are incredibly difficult to contain. Nuclear energy produces waste that is more toxic than anything humanity has produced. There is no perfect solution to dealing with that waste. Denying those facts is just as ignorant as denying climate change.

agree that shorts are not good enough

More and more people are beginning to agree that _____ _____ ____

Where is the economic part of this short?!?

Are beginning to agree ….. nice ending. Hate to actually have a conclusion drawn in a short

Nu-clear not nuk-yah-lur

The first pic is a gas turbine plant in bursa, turkey not a nuclear plant

The US like Germany is early retiring nuclear plants at a time when we need all the clean energy we can get. It is insane.

THORIUM REACTORS can provide the energy output, but the thorium waste does NOT produce a material that can be weaponized.... We should be using THORIUM reactors

We need more nuclear!

Computers and power transmission technologies (like HVDC) are way better than it was 50 yrs ago. New reactors with minimum staff and away from population centers is now possible and deserves another chance.

Fossil fuels or green energy, pick one! Can't sit on the fence with a smart solution. The public picks clear sides and they just don't like nuclear. I wish more ppl considered it as an option.

Whilst agreeing with you that nuclear power is the most efficient, saying that the fear of nuclear weapons is the public reasoning against it, is imo a straw man argument since most people I've talked with about this have a completely different concern: we still haven't found a way to reliably get rid of the waste and natural human traits like corruption or negligence could have (and already had) devestating effects when handling that waste. It's like unpacking Christmas gifts in your room without even owning a trash can and kicking the paper around your room for thousands of years whilst it harms you.

Your video is borked! The ending is cut off.

You guys should just make these shorts into a video

I think people always forget that nuclear weapons can be turned into nuclear power plants

I love y'alls work but I can't with the "new-q-ler."

Rest of the video ?

Nuclear is is not as capable of adjusting to rapid increases in power demand as coal is so while it may be cleaner, we're not at a point where we can completely replace coal.

If I project out population growth, add in growing demand, then look at max output from solar (wind, tide and cell) and consider depletion of oil, gas and coal I always get the same results. We need nuclear. There is no choice (just delay). Because of all the negative issues that people have listed, maybe it is time for some major rethinking, major research. Japan is moving forward with a decentralized approach. There have been breakthroughs in fusion research. Prioritize the environment and de- incentivize shortcuts a solution for clean energy may become a reality.

It can actually produce far more energy depending on the method and resource used. For example Uranium can last for a decade or two but Plutonium can last way longer since it’s a by product of Uranium and is far more energy dense.

I agree and everything, but this short could have taken a few more minutes in the oven to finish baking. And it's not really suitable for a short, it needs at least double or triple the time if you want a pithy, short and digestible statement without going too bare, this left out the economics and just kinda described what it does and why people get polarized about it.

NUCULAR

Not a great loop. Overall, it's under utilized but there are significant costs to account for

*nu-clear not nu-key-lar*

Fusion ha!

Sure that's one reason but another must be the huge upfront cost of building a plant Perhaps you should do another video comparing building and running a nuclear plant vs coal vs solar vs wind. I imagine cost must be a factor.

Thorium

2023 and everyone says NuCular now :(

I think we need some more pawwsitive energy. Mmmkay

"But in recent years more and more people are beginning to agree that-" (Yeah it's supposed to loop)

Nuclear energy is something we gotta keep or even expand on aslong as we don't have access to fusion energy. It creates alot of energy with not alot of affort and it doesn't create CO2, while also being pretty safe especially with todays technology. The only problem we have is that we need to find a spot where we can storage the nuclear waste. Something we could do is making underground storages where we isolate the walls so the radiation doesn't hit the surface.

By the time you've built the station , and upgraded the grid , and all up front it's a lot of lot of money,so add the intrest , if you're lucky the plant will run for 40 years .. but that's going to take another few billion in upgrades ... The fuel and running costs while low aren't insignificant , but its intrest rates that kill it

There 2 ssue with nuclear power One is nuclear waste which last over 200 year Nuclear melt down we seen it with Chernobyl and in Japan.

ITS NUCLEAR NOT NUCULAR

As my country have no Natural barriers like mountains or forest from invasion and our neighbours are semi Facist so Many in our country believes that we can put it at our Border it will give energy and a buffer from invasion

"without the harmful biproducts". Yeah, that's why nuclear waste is so easy to handle...

Find someone who can pronounce words correctly.

Why do English speakers pronounce Nuclear "Nu-Cu-Lear"?

Never ask an economist to pronounce words properly. Heh. “Nu-kue-lahr”.

It's pronounced "nuclear" not "nucyuler"

Nu Cle Ar energy is polarizing yoo

Please stop trying to make the script loop. It’s so tacky.

The problem is: the myth that nuclear reactors are a big money making machine and just run without making problems is only true, if they're maintained correctly, which costs a LOT of money, and can lead to funny situations where Germany (no more nuclear power starting sometime this year) exports electricity to France (mostly nuclear power), even though it usually is the other way round. Also there's the problem of relying on other countries to sell the uranium, at least in Europe, which could make the entirety of the EU dependent on other countries like Russia. Then there is the problems that mining, manufacturing and disposing of the radioactive material brings. There is no safe place to store stuff for hundreds of thousands of years, but our reactors still produce waste that will be highly radioactive for that amount of time. And then last comes the risk of Tschernobyl or Fukushima. First, your reactor cannot be in a: flooding zone, earthquake zone, near volcanoes, or Fukushima like accidents can repeat themselves, and then you need to have a government or similar agency that constantly supervises the safe operation of the power plants without hiding any bad practices or similar. Accidents might be getting less likely, but at some point we will forget the lessons we learned from Tschernobyl, and will repeat the mistakes. That's the day when a single nuclear reactor could make entire European countries uninhabitable. Nuclear power is admittedly much better than coal and oil, but when compared to even cheaper green energies that don't pollute the environment nearly as much as nuclear power and that can't suddenly destroy vast landscapes, nuclear power needs to be stopped. I am fully for stopping coal and oil first, if still applicable (looking at you Germany), but then nuclear comes next

Thorium is better

Agred that what?..

Nucular energy might be polarizing but how about nuclear energy?

Please go back and rethink what you're doing to this channel. These shorts are almost all terribly scripted and cutting off mid-sentence. This one is truly awful. I support nuclear energy as a bridge between less reliable renewables and whatever the future holds. However, to say that most opposition to nuclear energy was ever based on its relationship to bombs is disingenuous at best.

Why can't people correctly pronounce "nuclear"?

I'm starting to really hate these videos that end with an incomplete sentence. So while I agree with everything you said but I hate how you said it. Thumbs down.

Shame about the huge amount of carbon emissions involved in the mining and refining of reactor grade uranium eh!?

But it also have it own set of harmful byproducts but we don't let it float away in the wind

And when, pray, does this short get to the economics?

All the concerns about nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation, and upfront investment are nothing compared to the single biggest drawback of nuclear energy. There is not nearly enough fissile material in the world to meet our ongoing energy needs.

And leave the radioactive mess for our descendants to clean up? I see why you think it is so cheap. In fact it is the most expensive way of genereating electricity.

Nucular

Thorium is the power of the future.

It's also one of the most expensive forms of generating energy, a fact which is somehow left out by a RU-vidr which focuses on economics.

Nuclear waste is one of the reason why nuclear is not popular and another reason is an accident or potential terrorism act against it. The fallout of a incident lasts for centuries as well as nuclear waste. The uranium has a life cycle and needs to be discarded and replaced. Therefore, nuclear is not a clean alternative. We need to further develop wind and solar as well as fusion energy. Fusion energy is still in the beginning stages and is the most promising for an alternative to nuclear, gas, coal, and oil.

This doesnt bring up the cost over runs and delays in construction of a facility

NU CU LAR 💀💀💀

Nuclear energy is 3x as expensive as renewables (In Germany at least as we import uranium, what most countries do). So you might want to mention that in the video to not spread misinformatiln as i really like your channel and videos usually

No insurance necessary, no nuclear disposal ready, no fund for decommission, but if it blows, It is the people that suffer, some may even die. Go ask the Japonaise, they believed in their nuclear energy.

The new nuclear energy plant at Hinkley in the uk is charging three times as much as fossil fuels for its energy for the whole of its lifetime. And that’s without clearing up the nuclear muck it creates. The uk government is going to pick that bill up. It’s horrendously expensive, don’t do it.

Nuclear - new-cle-er, not nuke-u-ler

nukular, lisa. it's pronounced, nuke-yoo-lar

"nuCular"🤨

We have a nuclear reactor in the sky and one under our feet. We don't need more.

You are flat out lying about the economics of nuclear power.

I think people are smart enough to know that what is currently happening at Fukushima and Chernobyl have nothing to do with bombs.

It's pronounced "Nu-Clear"

New-klee-er. Nukular.

Four hundredth like 😊

We also have renewables!

I wish there was more discussion of how to pronounce ‘nuclear’ properly. It’s not that complicated. “New-klee-ar” Try it!🙄

if it would be economically advantageous, it would be more widespread. but it‘s not really.

How can I take someone seriously when they can't pronounce the subject

What about nuclear waste

No, Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy in the world. It is not worth it.

It's better, but it's not as profitable. Capitalism is irrational and wasteful

The Waffle House has found it’s new host

Uranium 235 deposits are estimated to last another 100-200 years at current consumption levels. Worldwide, around 5% of electric energy is produced by nuclear power plants. 90% is produced by fossil fuels. If we were to replace half of that with uranium 235, we would have to increase its consumption by a factor of nine, reducing the time horizon to only 11-22 years. That doesn't sound like a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels, does it?

That you make yourself hugely dependent on russian companies? Not a advantage. Also it takes to long to build no matter what..

We’re on our way to fusion! Long live Livermore lab :D proud of where I’m from

Nucelar huh 🤣

How about we just focus on fusion rn guys

This is total nonsense and you haven't provided an economic argument. No mention of the massive problem with what to do with nuclear waste.

So you're basically saying it's more expensive to build and run than renewables ("similar cost of fossil fuels") and ignore the waste problem. Which is not only unsolved but also costly and paid for by tax payers.

Beginning to agree that... wait what?

Odd that an economics channel didn't mention the realities of new conventional nuclear power being more expensive than most other forms of electricity generation in most places, as well as the long time to build new plants, and that those realities combine for a very long and modest return on investment.