What Is the Role of Nuclear Power in a Net Zero System?

Подписаться 288 тыс.

Просмотров 4,6 тыс.

50% 1

Check out Dame Sue Ion discussing this lecture and your unanswered questions on our brand new podcast "Any Further Questions?' available on Apple and Spotify
******
The UK’s nuclear power reactors have provided a significant proportion of the UK’s low carbon electricity over their lifetimes. Most will retire in this decade. Advances in technology mean that modern systems can compete with other forms of low carbon energy.
The lecture will discuss the progress made in development of Small Modular Reactors which make these systems promising for future deployment and the additional functionality offered by next generation systems for hydrogen production and heat as well as electricity.
A lecture by Dame Sue Ion recorded on 19 April 2023 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/...
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege

Опубликовано:

26 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 44

@jimgraham6722 Год назад

Excellent summary. Energy is absolutely essential for national survival. Nuclear will be a large part of that.

@buildmotosykletist1987 4 месяца назад

Of the nuclear power plants shut down in the UK; which ones were shut down for political reasons and which ones were at the end of their lifespan?

@antmancan6408 2 месяца назад

The answer is 2. Any further questions let me know. :)

@buildmotosykletist1987 4 месяца назад

What is a "nuclear battery"? And where does it fit in, in the grid ?

@antmancan6408 2 месяца назад

A nuclear battery is a battery powered by nuclear energy, it fits in the grid near the top. If you have any further questions let me know :)

@buildmotosykletist1987 2 месяца назад

@@antmancan6408 : So you think a Nuclear power plant is a battery, OKaayyy.

@buildmotosykletist1987 2 месяца назад

@@antmancan6408 : BTW, that means a Coal Power Plant is a coal battery. Wow, you are really clever.

@antmancan6408 2 месяца назад

@@buildmotosykletist1987 Aww bless. A coal power plant is not a battery, silly billy. A block of coal is a battery. I have a big sack of coal batteries, which I use to run an internal combustion heating engine. It is behind the grid but not connected to it.

@buildmotosykletist1987 2 месяца назад

@@antmancan6408 : So you don't know and are wasting my time. Bye." ???

@johnpowell9174 Год назад

Agreed, 'top shelf'!

@davidwilkie9551 Год назад

Yes please.

@robertwrites925 Год назад

Oh! I know the answer to solar being a high output carbon emitter. Solar cells can only be manufactured at extremely high temperatures. These conditions can only be achieved by burning coal, which is a high carbon emitter. Source - Economist

@haydock18 Год назад

Wow an entire talk on nuclear power without one mention of safety problems (not even mentioning pros and cons or possible solutions to safety problems). Is safety unmentionable?

@peter_smyth Год назад

Nuclear power incidents are large and newsworthy, but rare. Coal (and similar) power is no more safe, but causes harm in many smaller incidents which don't make the news, such as toxic sludge leaks. Plus nuclear isn't going to lead to the earth being uninhabitably warm.

@beback_ Год назад

What safety problem?

@mosslomas591 9 месяцев назад

Nuclear power is the safest form energy we have ever had (deaths per unit) and lowest life cycle carbon emissions (grams of CO2 per unit), so arguments against it are generaly based on a lack of understanding and irrational fear. Advanced molten salt reactors running on a thorium fuel cycle, such as technology being developed by Copenhagen atomics will be nice but well developed technology with recent build experience such Westinghouse's AP1000 will be the fastest and cheapest solution in the short turm.

@christianfournier6862 Год назад

@haydock18= I too have been suprised that, in this otherwise excellent talk, safety issues have not been covered in depth. But it works both ways: Dame Sue Ion has mentioned that the EPR reactors are difficult to build, but she has not said why: three Safety Authorities (Chinese, Finnish, and French) have competed in zeal to incorporate in the EPR design the most advanced safety features allowed by existing technology! As a matter of fact, the authorities have now recognized that they have gone too far: a new design (the EPR2) has been simplified to eliminate the “overly redundant” (& ‘near-unbuildable’) safety features of the EPR while maintaining an excellent safety assurance. An interesting question is “What about the safety of the new small modular reactors designs ?“ The aim of these reactors being to achieve a more acceptable kind of plant (not so frightening power-wise) for the inhabitants nearby, as well as limiting the investment costs, I wonder how these two antagonistic aims will be treated safety-wise in the new designs…

@mi4johns Год назад

1% of global emissions but 0.1% of the global population

@buildmotosykletist1987 4 месяца назад

What is 1% ???

@wolvolad25 Год назад

The costs though, Hinckley is a rip off

@GavinM161 Год назад

Think how much cheaper it would have been if we didn't have to rely on France to build it.

@davidwilkie9551 11 месяцев назад

Excellent review of a terrible mess made by fossil fuel ignorance of consequences and the failure to invest the profits made from supplying essential services back into ongoing nuclear research. Who should pay.

@wolvolad25 Год назад

UK back of the queue theres a surprise

@simonleonard5431 Год назад

Why is the total cost so high?

@buildmotosykletist1987 4 месяца назад

It is NOT "so high". "Nuclear power brings down electricity prices by 75% in Finland."

@danwylie-sears1134 Год назад

There is going to be very large growth in nuclear power over the coming years, even though it will be substantially more expensive than wind and solar plus storage. The disgracefully inadequate response by the West has proven that having nuclear weapons allows a would-be aggressor to attack with impunity, and that any country with aggressive neighbors needs nuclear weapons, not "security assurances". Nuclear power will be used almost exclusively in forms that can provide nuclear weapons material.

@jimgraham6722 Год назад

You are very correct. Nuclear power is absolutely essential to future of mankind, initially fission but hopefully fusion as that tech matures. It is clear that short of a miracle fusion won't be widely available for at least five decades. Initial versions of fusion plants will likely be very expensive. Fission therefore must be the focus over the next five decades. Sadly you are correct wrt to nuclear weapons. Particularly for states facing the autocracies, nuclear weapons (declared or undeclared) will be essential to maintenance of their sovereignty). Non proliferation states will need to have a credible fast path to nuclear weapons should things deteriorate.

@GavinM161 Год назад

I agree in general but I disagree with your last sentence.

@donalddouglas5988 Год назад

In the US the cost of wind solar coal and gas is public knowledge. The total cost of the uranium fuel cycle is a closely guarded secret.

@GavinM161 Год назад

Is it really? A quick Google search seems to throw up multiple documents from the likes of MIT.

@mawkernewek Год назад

41:20 It's not rocket science? Rocket science is for billionaires who want some new toys, nuclear power is for serious thinkers.

@robertocalibancove8245 Год назад

Nuclear energy has been a disaster

@GavinM161 Год назад

I strongly disagree. It currently provides a large proportion of the energy for the developed world. If it was a much larger proprtion of our energy generation capacity from much earlier on, we would not be staring at the climate change issue we have now.

@robertocalibancove8245 Год назад

@@GavinM161 nuclear provides a MINOR proportion of the energy, it is highly toxic and doesn't help at all for climate change and pollution. It is exacly the opposite of what the eu says.

@stl1321 3 месяца назад

@GavinM161 you can volunteer to get the 880 tons of highly radioactive waste out of the broken Fukushima reactors. 7 billion USD a year to boil and contaminate salt water with no end in sight. Nuclear will be a very costly disaster compounder in climate collapse.

@bennichols1113 Год назад

Net zero what? If you want zero carbon you are insane.

@stevekristoff4365 Год назад

Completely agree, anyone who advocates this is insane as it's a FACT that life itself is not net zero carbon. Or are people suggesting that we destroy all life in the universe?

@juvenalsdad4175 Год назад

You could google 'what does net zero carbon emissions mean?' Just a suggestion.

@stevekristoff4365 Год назад

@@juvenalsdad4175 LOL, thanks and yes I know the intent and disagree completely. Though I find it very funny that your comment is coming from an account called 'Juvenal's Dad' , i.e. the father of the Satirist. :) Cheers.

@stevekristoff4365 Год назад

@@fullmontyuk that's not proof that's correlation but not causation. IF that's a true fact which I haven't seen the data on, all that would imply is that there was an equilibrium. life (biological life that is) burns fuel for it's energy. That is and never will be a net zero. If you think otherwise you probably need to read up some more on basic life sciences and processes. Cheers.