Why Nuclear Energy Is On The Verge Of A Renaissance

Подписаться 3,5 млн

Просмотров 1,1 млн

50% 1

For some, nuclear power may conjure images of mushroom clouds or bring back memories of disturbing nuclear disasters like Chernobyle and Fukushima. But despite public fear around nuclear power, the technology has proved to be an emission-free, reliable way to produce large amounts of electricity on a small footprint. As a result, sentiments about the technology are beginning to change.
Both the U.S. government and private companies including X Energy, NuScale and, Bill Gates-backed, TerraPower are pouring money into developing, what they say will be smaller, safer nuclear reactors. CNBC visited Idaho National Laboratory to see the Marvel microreactor firsthand and learn what such developments could mean for the future of nuclear power.
After humankind discovered nuclear fission, the first applied use was the atomic bomb. The study of fission for electricity production came later.
In December 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his fateful Atoms for Peace speech, an impassioned plea to reconstitute the power of the atomic bombs dropped in World War II for a more noble cause.
“Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace,” Eisenhower told the United Nations.
Almost 70 years later, the tension between those end uses still underlies the space today.
From the 1950s through the 1970s, the United States dramatically increased its nuclear energy generation.
But the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and Chornobyl meltdown in 1986 changed the landscape, spurring fear that nuclear energy could not be controlled safely.
Since the 1980s, nuclear energy capacity and generation in the U.S. has largely stayed flat. Today, the country’s fleet of nuclear power reactors produces only 19% of the country’s electricity, according to the government’s Energy Information Administration.
In more recent times, the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan in 2011 - and earlier this year the capture of nuclear power plants in Ukraine by invading Russian forces - have added to public concerns.
But despite its fraught origin story and the psychological effect of high-profile accidents, nuclear energy is getting a second look.
That’s largely because nuclear energy is clean energy, releasing no greenhouse gasses. Meanwhile, the world is seeing more of the effects of climate change, including rising global temperatures, increased pollution, wildfires, and more intense and deadly storms.
“We need to change course - now - and end our senseless and suicidal war against nature,” Antonio Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, said in Stockholm on Thursday.
“There is one thing that threatens all our progress. The climate crisis. Unless we act now, we will not have a livable planet,” Guterres said. “Scientists recently reported that there is a 50-50 chance that we could temporarily breach the Paris Agreement limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next five years.”
Watch this video for a dive into nuclear energy’s potential renaissance as a response to the growing crisis of climate change.
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
Why Nuclear Energy Is On The Verge Of A Renaissance

Опубликовано:

6 июн 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 7 тыс.

@harrisonthorburn7415 2 года назад

I grew up a few miles from a nuclear power plant, and today I’d rather live right next to a nuclear plant than anywhere close to a coal or gas fired plant. You’re way more likely to get sick from that air pollution than a nuclear accident.

@FancyUnicorn 2 года назад

Coal emits more radiation into the environment than nuclear. Nuclear may produce more but the waste is much easier to contain.

@thefogg 2 года назад

And not to mention the shear obvious fact that people will claim. Cheaper electricity bill.

@spikedpsycho2383 2 года назад

the only 2 combustion products of natural gas is CO2 and WATER.....

@brrr8995 2 года назад

Same. I lived 7 miles from one. I want one in my back yard. Very clean; very safe!

@sharathyashshakar3352 2 года назад

No....Any Electric, nuclear, internal combustion, is fucing stupid technology... Solor and wind is Intelligent wise NOT MONKEY Technology!!!

@jamestk656 2 года назад

Germany shutting down their nuclear power plants right after Fukushima made no sense especially when their plants weren't built on top of earthquake prone areas, near tsunami locations, nor were any design flaws found. Either every German citizen instantly got scared of nuclear energy due to Fukushima despite decades of problem-free use (whereas France didn't seem to be fazed by it) or someone got a nice Russian kickback for increased oil imports.

@DOSFS 2 года назад

Of course, those in power when de-nuclearfication was signed also suspiciously has been on board of Russian gas company, hmmm

@KRYMauL 2 года назад

It would’ve made more sense if they modernized their reactors instead of just moving to Russian gas.

@LeeeroyJenkins 2 года назад

The only reason Germany is able to fund the EU and give out a bunch of money is because they get military defense from the US. Cheap power and fuel from Russia. And cheap manufactured items from China. If 2/3 of these country refused to continue relations with Germany. All of a sudden the EU would be in trouble because Germany has to pick up its own tab. You saw what happened when Russia stoped their portion. If the US or China makes Germany cover its expenses on its own it will lead to a massive European and eventually global recession.

@itsssLAOfficial 2 года назад

with all this going on, they wanna protect the assets, enough said

@itsssLAOfficial 2 года назад

money is all that will matter unfortunately

@thekyuwa 2 года назад

I will always remember the words of my university professor: *"Nuclear is the worst way to produce energy, until you compare it with every other ways"*

@andresramos5166 2 года назад

Reminded me of capitalism being the worst way of distributing money until you compare it every other way

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

Apparently he was not aware of the 5 recent nuclear project failures in the U.S.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 But you purposely continually ignore that many countries have been building and using small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.

@hstapes Год назад

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Also, 'why' is an important question here.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

@@hstapes 'Why' is not a question. There has to be much more for there to be an actual question.

@williamgleaves1954 2 года назад

The "concrete covering over the reactor" is NOT the reactor vessel. It is a safety system called the "Containment building". The reactor vessel is a steel pressure vessel holding the fuel. The reactor vessel is located inside the containment building.

@caav56 Год назад

Magnox reactors and AGRs actually have concrete pressure vessels, though. Although it's still in a containment building.

@erikkovacs3097 Год назад

Waaaaaaay inside the containment building. The pressure vessel is tiny in comparison.

@thisisaname5589 Год назад

You can always tell what the Democrat leadership wants to talk about. NBC will take their marching orders and do their duty like good little footsoldiers. Gotta find some way to get peoples' minds off the price of gas right now.

@williamgleaves1954 Год назад

@@erikkovacs3097 Tiny? LOL.

@dojelnotmyrealname4018 Год назад

@@williamgleaves1954 The containment building is about 20 times the size the actual reactor takes up, so yes, tiny in comparison. Some modern nuclear reactors actually are shrunk down to the size of a washing machine. But even the more conventional ones are the size of a room (as opposed to an entire city block)

@nolongeramused8135 2 года назад

When you have people that literally believe that a nuclear reactor can just blow up in a massive mushroom cloud you aren't going to get a lot of rational discussion on the subject.

@TheAlphapuck5280 2 года назад

Those are the same people that wear a mask on a trail when they hike alone

@HKDW-1 2 года назад

Talk THORIUM & move away from uranium! Waste management is way easier (500 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years!) & more difficult to make weapons from the thorium cycle.

@acenull0 2 года назад

😂😂😂 frfr

@cageybee7221 2 года назад

ironically, a fossil fuel plant literally can do that.

@PierreH1968 2 года назад

@@HKDW-1 it is going to be hard because the byproduct of uranium is plutonium the main ingredient in nuclear weapons... The main reason we haven't moved to Thorium

@Jim54_ Год назад

Our rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

Nuclear is NOT cost effective and the gap between the cost of nuclear and every other form of electrical generation increases more and more each year.

@jacktravolta1398 Год назад

It was rejected because of how profitable fossil fuels are for the corporations. Nuclear power is too cheap.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

@@jacktravolta1398 Saying something does not make it true. Here is the reality of new nuclear in the U.S. and the only new nuclear power plant projects in the U.S. in decades. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (now over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Is that too cheap? South Carolinians would definitely disagree and Georgians still don't know if they will ever operate or how much it will cost.

@jackkennedy9475 Год назад

It’s called fear. And possibly mob mentality. Combine the two and yikes, an over reaction.

@jackkennedy9475 Год назад

Your second comment is an opinion not fact. The earth is self regulating system to hot, O2, fires CO2 and cooling periods called ice ages. The end of he last mini ice age was approximately 1715. After that date the earth went into a warming period. Tree rings are the method scientists use to correlate hot ( large tree rings) and cool (small) periods but we’ve only had thermometers for approximately 100 years. The first study, which indicated people were warming plant, never looked at correlating the size of the tree rings to a thermometer. Another study did and the data matched up to 1996 then the correlated tree to thermometer data Deviated and showed temperatures lowering over time. To me it seems the best approach is to conserve. You can’t legislate that, I see many people that are proponents of zero emissions that fly private. Talk about emissions.

@bryan_turner 2 года назад

I remember my parents petitioning for the closure of the nuclear plant in our area when I was a kid in the early 90s. I realize now how ill-informed they were.

@fredericp64 2 года назад

To their defense, the technology is safer today than maybe back then.

@andresramos5166 2 года назад

This but germany today

@jonathantan2469 2 года назад

In the context of the late 1980s and early 1990s that was understandable. The Chernobyl disaster was pretty recent. Climate change from carbon emissions was still being debated in scientific circles. Coal power was viewed as the lesser evil, and natural gas even less so.

@Moshe_Dayan44 Год назад

@@jonathantan2469 Yet the closure of a nuclear plant means perhaps 1000MW of baseload power removed from the grid, and vast amounts of money to restart it, or build a new one. It was STILL stupid to shut it down, even right at the time of Chernobyl. The inherent flaw with the Soviet reactor design used at Chernobyl was using graphite as a moderator, a material that is highly flammable. The light water reactors used in the US are not like the gas/graphite moderated reactors at Chernobyl. As you can imagine, water is not flammable. Only an idiot would think the same accident could occur at a light water reactor. I guess there were just too many idiots in the late 1980s and 1990s.

@ryno4ever433 Год назад

It was honestly pretty safe in the 90s. Most of the high profile incidents before then were at extremely old plants.

@erikkovacs3097 Год назад

19,747 people died in the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. It was the most powerful earthquake every recorded in Japanese history. The 4th most powerful in the world since modern record keeping. 0 people died from the partial meltdown at Fukushima. That proves how safe nuclear power is because you were safer in the control room that anywhere off the Sendai coast.

@andyfreeze4072 Год назад

how ironic one of the main reasons nuclear has always been canned is now used as a defence. And what was used as defence has become a blunt weapon. Follow the money. For nuclear to be safe, it becomes too expensive, pure irony.

@Essob55 Год назад

Jeah, and during World War II, factories were in full swing. Happy times.

@ooooneeee Год назад

I'm pretty sure Tepco worked the nuclear plant workers to the death in containing and cleaning up everything. They didn't die from radiation but the kind of irresponsible actions of this corporation that led to the power plant not being adequately prepared against heavy earthquakes and tsunamis even though those are common in Japan.

@andyfreeze4072 Год назад

@@ooooneeee look, in outright numbers, nuclear has killed far less than coal for sure. But thats not the issue thats killed nuclear. Its the costs. The risks involved means its highly regulated and safety has come with a high price. The only real environmental issue is that it takes a long time to ramp up and no way will nuclear save us from climate change. Too long and not enough. Solar and wind can be rolled out now at lower costs which will only get lower where as nuclear is always going to increase its costs. Then you can add Chernobyl and Fukushima to our collective memory. Thats a real barrier that no amount crying will fix in this lifetime. Saying it was an accident and it wont happen again doesnt wash when primal fears are at play. Underestimate the fears people have at your peril. For example, how do you convince a fervent trump supporter that there was no fraud? Not happening in this life time.

@ooooneeee Год назад

@@andyfreeze4072 agreed. It's a shame many countries have phased out nuclear even though the power plants could have run longer. It's too late to build new ones to fight climate change. The fossile fuel industry played environmentalists like a fiddle. I used to be anti nuclear too.

@KM-00 2 года назад

When I learnt about nuclear physics in middle school, my instant thought was 'why hasn't the world focused on the energy production around this'? The more I learnt (especially after going into nuclear and particle physics at university), the more confident I am that nuclear power is the key solution until we find a better alternative.

@christopherrowley7506 2 года назад

there isn't enough Uranium 235 to power very much for very long, unfortunately. The world's resources are estimated at 8 million tons. After 15-20 years uranium mining would become so expensive for such little gain that it'd be a useless exercise. It would never be able to ramped up enough to cover more than a few percent of the world's energy production before we ran out

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@K M The only reason to run the risks of the extremely expensive and dangerous expansion of nuclear energy is so that the ELITE can maintain their monopoly on our energy supply. They don't want the people getting their own renewable, abundant and clean sources like from the sun, the wind, the water, the earth's internal heat and from hydrogen found in every drop of water. The externalities (hidden costs) of maintaining the expended sites and radioactive wastes will have to be paid for by future generations for MILLENIA! Are you unaware that sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever? Don't you know that Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down?

@Steffystr8mobbin 2 года назад

@@christopherrowley7506 estimated 4 billion tons in seawater. expensive to extract, but still has been done before

@CraftyF0X 2 года назад

@@christopherrowley7506 Reprocessing, breeding, wasteburning, alternate fuel cycles (thorium) retionally the lack of fuel can never be the excuse.

@christopherrowley7506 2 года назад

@@Steffystr8mobbin how long it will take until seawater extraction can be proven at scale and the economic cost brought down enough to be competitive to renewables is unknown. It takes decades for things to be adopted by industry. By that time it's likely that renewables and batteries will have taken over.

@JD-ub5ic 2 года назад

As someone who works in the industry this is some of the best reporting Ive seen on this. Normally on these videos I have a millions asterisks to add about inaccuracies but they really covered all their basis. Good job talking to (and listening to) industry leaders for this report

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

Yeah, makes me suspicious why they may be changing their tune after a 50-year concerted propaganda effort. What are they up to when they finally tell the truth? (except when they called a containment structure a reactor)

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

If you work in the industry, you know taht no U.S. utility is interested in building any new nuclear power plants. Investor owned utilities are shutting the old ones down because running them is not cost effective.

@toddbaker9922 2 года назад

For a 20 minute segment, the actual physics & engineering technical information was lite-weight. Perhaps the producers were trying to cover a breadth of material and didn’t want to focus too much on the specifics.

@fastcars1173 2 года назад

From CNBC no less!

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

@@toddbaker9922 The U.S. has 70 years of building nuclear reactors and that history is our reality if you live in the U.S.. Anyone that doesn't want to discuss the 5 nuclear project failures in the U.S. just over the last decade doesn't want to face the truth or reality

@H3LLS3NT4SS4SS1N Год назад

YES! As an environmentalist, clean energy enthusiast and a californian I am so sad over the misguided past and current fears surrounding nuclear energy in California, the USA and the world, so this news is SO uplifting! That this came out on my birthday is the best gift I could ever have asked for :)

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

I understand your frustration. I used to work at Rancho Seco but the people voted and I accept that. Unfortunately, new nuclear is not cost effective in the U.S. and it has nothing to do with anti-nuclear people. The only new nuclear projects on the table are Terrapower and NuScale and these are small demo test reactors that will not operate before 2030 at the earliest. Happy Birthday but don't plan on new nuclear anytime soon

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 Yet you know full well the US and many other countries have built and used small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.

@hyperreal Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 The government has virtually criminalized nuclear energy by inflating the costs to absurd levels. There is no reason it shouldn't be cost-effective, the regulatory issues are the only thing in the way.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

@@hyperreal well if you really think that, then there is no hope for nuclear in the U.S. because the NRC and the associated regulations that have not changed in decades are certainly not going to change now just because you are looking for a scapegoat for the massive nuclear project failures in this country. ENJOY

@BakuganBrawler211 Год назад

Much of the fear lies in what happens to the waste, well the French have a system in place that maximizes the amount of energy produced and minimizes waste. SMRs are the new frontier we can convert fired plants boilers with an SMR. The soviets had terrestrial RTGs although they’re unsafe now they are an example of our future.

@aussietaipan8700 2 года назад

A perfect video to show the Australian labor party (just elected to power) that Australia should first remove the nuclear moratorium so we can take advantage of the nuclear industry. We have one of the worlds largest deposits of uranium and thorium. We should embrace nuclear if we want to get real about power security and climate change carbon foot print reduction.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

They have already taken the first.step by contracting for a nuclear navy.

@danylo4670 Год назад

You've got it nailed.. Absolutely right

@adamdymke8004 Год назад

Australia is major producer of medical isotopes and neutron imaging. They do take advantage of nuclear industry, but power plants are expensive and slow to build. They also require so little nuclear fuel that your supply of U-235 or Th-233 is kind of irrelevant.

@active285 Год назад

This video is a perfect example on how to omit every criticism about a topic and only interviewing lobbyists and advocates: No word about the amount of uranium needed to make nuclear power a considerable player; no word about the final depot of nuclear waste for roughly 1 million yrs - a question that has not been answered ANYWHERE on the world until today. What we get is fiction: None of the demonstrated reactors are functioning at the moment. All of them a prototypes or prototypes that have to be built in like 10 yrs time. Transmutation is a dream for 40-50 yrs now; fusion reaction is being researched for like 60 yrs by now and there is not the slightest evidence of progress by any kind. Stop investing money in useless and dangerous technologies. We know the solutions: renewable energy. If the same money would be invested in inventing reasonable batteries and storage technologies...

@ShakaZoulou77 Год назад

The most extraordinary is that you have a country built for nuclear, if God wanted to came up with a country for nuclear power would be Australia

@The1MkII 2 года назад

Phenomenal video. Nuclear power is absolutely essential for our transition off of fossil fuels in my eyes. I'm especially excited with the advanced and micro reactors mentioned in this video.

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@Mr Jam The only reason to run the risks of the extremely expensive and dangerous expansion of nuclear energy is so that the ELITE can maintain their monopoly on our energy supply. They don't want the people getting their own renewable, abundant and clean sources like from the sun, the wind, the water, the earth's internal heat and from hydrogen found in every drop of water. The externalities (hidden costs) of maintaining the expended sites and radioactive wastes will have to be paid for by future generations for MILLENIA! Are you unaware that sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever? Don't you know that Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down?

@Chris-ie9os 2 года назад

To each his own. I'm more than happy with my solar + storage. If you want to pay >2x more for fission more power to you. I simply can't afford it.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

@@Chris-ie9os Your solar with storage costs way more than nuclear AND leaves you cold and dark most of the winter.

@Chris-ie9os 2 года назад

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Um... no and no. Nuclear costs >$120/MWh. My solar + storage is ~$60/MWh and still produces more than enough energy in the winter :)

@martinjenkins6467 2 года назад

We need to do this in Australia, But with the election of a labour Government it's going to be hard.

@darer7158 2 года назад

In my mind, the safety-first mindset that the current generation of nuclear management has + the severe urgency of the climate emergency makes the risks worth it. Nuclear needs to be scaled up and it's needs to be scaled up FAST

@Cody_Handsome 2 года назад

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors are the solution

@Expert_Marxman 2 года назад

It needs to be scaled out much more than it needs to be scaled up. Scaling up will take way more time than we have as it already takes way too long to build traditional plants. Parallel mass production of SMRs is what we need for the timeframe we have.

@TheBooban 2 года назад

Actually the mind set that is the problem is things like this, when it comes to re using nuclear waste: 6:49 “it costs alot of money”. Makes me wonder what safety issues they are cheap skating on. Ffs, we don’t give a sht what it costs. It shall be safe, and it shall not leave massive nuclear waste. Thats why don’t trust them.

@Expert_Marxman 2 года назад

@@TheBooban Nuclear waste is not as bad as you think ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4aUODXeAM-k.html

@OK-pi6fq 2 года назад

If we want to make a change for global warming we could. We don’t need nuclear for it. If it’s not happening it’s cuz those in power don’t want it to.

@AsurmenHandOfAsur 2 года назад

Also the Japanese Prime Minister announced that Japan is turning back on ALL of it's nuclear reactors to cut out Russian gas from its energy mix. We will need 2-3 time more electricity than we currently generate and consume if we entirely replace combustion vehicles with Electric ones. Also electric heating is much more efficient than burning stuff so the world will need to build hundreds more nuclear power stations probably with a mix of new designs too to meet the future electric demand!

@jimgraham6722 Год назад

Exactly. Too many however, arent doing the sums.

@artofthereal Год назад

No, we don't need to produce any more nuclear materials. If the cost is numerous more Chernobyls and Fukushimas, then the cost is too high. Maybe reactors to drain and neutralize current nuclear waste would be fine enough. But the production of more nuclear material is just too risky. And we don't NEED electric vehicles. We need people not going to pointless jobs (just getting rid of fast food, junk food, and hollywood alone would eliminate millions of completely frivolous jobs)... and not going to offices pointlessly when they could work from home.

@jimgraham6722 Год назад

@@artofthereal Pipe dreams I am afraid.

@SK-xn1pv Год назад

@@jimgraham6722 The investment firms, "private" corporations and political puppets are the ones pushing the insidious "nuclear" agenda for profit for the elites controlling governments. They have suppressed studies, reports, testimonies, etc., since WWII on radiation, uranium, and the impact on human health and the environment-even studies completed by the military. They did the same after Fukishima, Chernobyl, and other disasters. By controlling funding for research, they deliberately hinder the truth from being exposed--just like they do with vaccines. By controlling ALL media and censoring public opinions and criticism, the public only sees/hears their fake news/propaganda. But, if you investigate the studies which have been completed, view the documentaries exposing the fallout, and listen to valid experts including Helen Caldicott and many more, you will see the nuclear agenda for what it is: another scheme to profit from undermining the health & welfare of citizens while destroying the natural environment.

@jimgraham6722 Год назад

@@SK-xn1pv Not much into conspiracy theories and do not agree with Caldicott's fanatical theories. Much of the opposition to nuclear is funded by the politically very powerful coal industry, they know a viable nuclear energy program would mark the end of their particular gravy train.

@brianbrecknock9625 2 года назад

The most compelling argument for nuclear power is how many people are alive because of it!, two million people would have died, because of air pollution, so lets make that case.

@andyfreeze4072 Год назад

all the compelling arguements in china aint going to overcome the financial hurdles in the real world. Especially when the alternative has many more compelling arguements at a far cheaper cost.

@paullangford8179 Год назад

@@andyfreeze4072 The single greatest cost is the legal harassment from the anti-nuclear religious nutters.

@jonmunch3298 Год назад

The world is overpopulated.

@andyfreeze4072 Год назад

@@jonmunch3298 only if choose it to be so. There is a resource mismatch for sure, population levels are borderline. Its dreaming of a past that probably wasnt so pure as you would imagine. Some would say, the west is over populated with narcisists too. Would i prefer the population to be declining, sure. How to achieve that? Well the obvious statistic is that larger birthrates correlate with poverty. So the solution is hard to implement, but at least we know what works. The western want for rapacious greed aint cutting it. But dont let facts get in the way of another agenda, lol.

@Jack-bx3ow 2 года назад

I was glad Biden’s infrastructure bill included billions for nuclear power plants. We need way more, modern nuclear power in this country.

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

That proved that nuclear is not cost effective. Taxpayer welfare in the form of $14 billion just this year to help INVESTOR owned utilities to keep old plants operating and test new reactors. That isn't even working as 9 U.S. reactors are schedule to shutdown in the next 10 years

@tapiture3720 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 Oil and gas get plenty of subsidies, it’s not unique to nuclear. Plus, your cost model doesn’t include the external costs associated with using fossil fuels. The true cost of using fossil fuels includes hurricanes, floods, extreme droughts and heatwaves which bring its cost to taxpayers far far beyond some nuclear subsidies.

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

@@tapiture3720 I agree. But the U.S. has built and tested every possible reactor known over the last 70 years and given those trillions of dollars of research to private industry free of charge. It would be interesting to compare the various energy types and how much each has gotten from the U.S. government. But if you factor in the cost to build, test, and dispose of the radioactive waste I think you will see that nuclear is the welfare winner. These commenters that say this technology or that is so great that will solve all these issues but I don't see any private investors putting up their money without a government handout. Terrapower CEO Bill Gates one of the world's richest men is getting $2 billion taxpayer money to build his Natrium reactor that he advertised as costing only $1 billion. The total cost of $4 billion for his 345 Mw reactor is already a financial failure and they haven't even broken ground on a project that started 2 years ago. Old Nuclear plants are shutting down every year and these test reactors are 10 years out with at least 5 years to prove the concept then you have to build 4 of them to equal the output of one of the old plants shutting down. Nuclear powers contribution to the U.S. energy grid will decrease for at least the next 20-25 years so something will take up that slack. What ever that something is will then compete with new nuclear.

@protorhinocerator142 2 года назад

If Biden's infrastructure bill was a trillion dollars to invest in modern nuclear power plants, I would have supported it.

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

@@protorhinocerator142 Thank God your not in Congress. Bur why not, a trillion here, a trillion there and before you know it we may be talking about real money. Government is the problem not the solution

@scottfree6479 2 года назад

A nuclear renaissance is our best bet to mitigate global warming in the next 15 years. I'm not saying there aren't other options, but in terms of realistic scaling there is nothing better.

@colindavidson7071 2 года назад

I wish it were so, but the industry that built the first wave of nuclear reactors no longer exists. To build enough modern reactors to make a new wave large enough to play a significant role in decarbonizing energy production, we would first have to rebuild that industry. Then we would have to get the new reactors approved. Then we would have to build the reactors themselves. All that could easily take more than 15 years. Now some of that could be done in parallel, but we are very unlikely to see more than a very few new reactors in the next decade. Meanwhile, we have solar and wind capacity being installed at unparalleled rates, as well as grid storage at an ever increasing rate. It will be decades before nuclear plays a bigger role than these technologies, if it ever does.

@g-lix7702 2 года назад

Consumption

@scottfree6479 2 года назад

@@colindavidson7071 Yeah and 14 of those years would be the approval process because the government can't get out of its own way. 90% of the regulations do not increase safety, only make the process tedious. Repeal them, and watch nuclear energy bloom in a couple years. Meanwhile we don't even have the necessary battery tech to make solar and wind viable. It's nuclear, or it's gas. I pick nuclear. It's time to de-regulate.

@Radarcb329 2 года назад

@@colindavidson7071 You are so stuck in the past of nuclear technology, that you have no clue what can be done now. And this video doesn’t help because it slams a complex set of topics together in a very short period of time. One we set the goal to be small, compact, modular, efficient and manufacturable nuclear reactors that don’t need massive amounts of water for cooling, then we understand that clean energy goals can be met with a much smaller footprint upon the earths surface. Go do your research about the now, at the DOE and others, instead defining the problem so it’s not solvable.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

@@Radarcb329 Odd that CNBC would address commercial nuclear power issues WITHOUT mentioning any of the consequences of nuclear capital costs -- which is what killed the industry in the first place in the United States. Plants coming on line back in the 1950's and 60's all were built with a Government subsidy with up to more than half of the capital expenditures taken up by the then Atomic Energy Commission and reactor vendors as seed investment for future operating plants. This situation evaporated in the 1970's with utility customers for reactors assuming the full weight of capital costs for the plant and this situation caused the cancellation of almost as many plants as are running now due to true capital costs and operation and maintenance costs being truly reflective of what was actually happening at each site; the situation now being over for free money from the AEC, General Electric, Westinghouse and the remainder of the suppliers. This placed the planned and operating plants on a finer economic edge; making expensive things going wrong more of a determining factor for economic operating the plants in future scenarios. A gone-wrong steam generator replacement maintenance effort in two of the West Coast plants caused that utility to close down the eight-billion dollar facility for good; forcing the utility customers and the stockholders to eat the capital costs, and this was not the only utility to shut down a site due to insurmountable repairs and maintenance costs. Reactor suppliers in the United States offered the utilities different 747 airplane designs for each plant and each utility; something that would break a company like Boeing many years ago. A re-started nuclear effort in the United States with the same commercial ground rules of competition and non-standardization of plant equipment will result in the same overruns for the same reasons as encountered before: a lack of scope definition and therefore ultimate responsibilities to be faced. Far more successful in nuclear proliferation scheme was carried out at EDF in France through standardization of design and government financing; although these nuclear plants as well are finding themselves susceptible to unusually high maintenance efforts. CNBC and its producers and management have apparently decided that this important history of nuclear power in the US is ostensibly irrelevant and is to be virtually ignored by the current proponents as though it never happened.

@jamesowens7176 Год назад

Good reporting overall, but one oversight and one nit. Nit: throwing fusion into the mix at the end was a bit confusing, as ITER is only an experimental reactor to see if it's possible to get net energy out of a tokomak at the larger scale. I think it would have been better to mention fusion only in passing, as it's too far in the future to be relevant to the topic. Oversight: The discussion about enrichment levels ("the fuel doesn't exist") leads one to believe that ALL the up-and-coming small-modular and micro-modular reactors rely on higher-enrichment uranium. BUT this leaves out the molten-salt reactors, which would not need such fuel. Some of these can run on thorium and depleted uranium which are not fissile materials. Some molten-salt reactors can use existing radioactive waste AS fuel (Elysium industries molten chloride fast reactor, for example). Also, molten-salt reactors are inherently safe because they operate at high heat instead of high pressure, eliminating the need for the expensive containment vessel (also helps fight cost). Leaving out molten salt reactors from the discussion does a disservice to this very promising tech that will be the true revolution in power production.

@stinkiaapje Год назад

Hey I'm a nuclear physicist and would like to respond to your nit. Fusion is actually very close! ITER is already out of date and will only be used to test different techniques. SPARC is a fusion reactor that will have a net energy of 10, so 10x the energy out as in. It will be done in 2025. And it's not the only project backed by private funding that's getting net positive soon, but SPARC will be the first. There are still questions about stability, so how long can we keep the reaction going, but SPARC and ITER should have hopefully figured that out within the next 10 years. That's why anyone is my field is such a proponent of nuclear right now as it doesn't need a total rebuild of our electrical grid and can easily be replaced by fusion that will be ready soon.

@jamesowens7176 Год назад

@@stinkiaapje I sincerely hope you're right about fusion getting net 10 soon! I believe we can do it eventually one way or the other. However, throwing a segment on fusion in at the end of this report with no real context seemed completely out of place. Either it deserved a much longer discussion, or it should have been mentioned in passing as another item that may come soon.

@ChessMasterNate Год назад

@@stinkiaapje Fusion in the form of a tokamak is a massive waste of money and a guaranteed failure...even if it worked exactly how they envision. The construction costs would be several times the cost of fission. And there is no reason to do it, because new fission tech is everything we were after with fusion. Especially molten salt reactors. They don't blow up. Regular reactors only use 3% of the fuel, while molten salt can use it all. And the waste products are anything but waste. They are isotopes with current applications. Not something you want to bury in a mountain. And it can burn the "waste" we had to take out of all the other reactors. There are some other cheaper ideas that might make fusion practical. Tokamaks would also directly compete for resources with electric cars and windmills, because all these things use rare earth magnets. And rare earth magnets are used in many other things like drones, the most advanced and efficient refrigeration systems, and likely future flying cars (eVTOLs). If rare earths become very expensive, that will dramatically slow the movement away from fossil fuels, especially in transportation. The reason nuclear is expensive in the US is because we canned the AEC and replaced it with the NRC. The NRC was designed to cripple the nuclear industry. This is why we don't build reactors, except experimental ones. The experimental ones are overseen by a different agency. The NRC has no authority to do a thing about experimental reactors. The NRC single-handedly tripled the cost of construction and operation of reactors. They okay no new construction. The few that have been built, were already approved 40 years ago, but just not built. If we want nuclear back, we have to abolish the NRC and bring back the AEC. The NRC has used disproven science for decades to greatly increase costs. They continue to use the "Linear no-threshold" model of radiation exposure, even though we know this is false. It comes from a time where we thought radiation damage to DNA accumulated, no mater how little one was exposed to. But this is well understood to be false. We know exactly how our cells repair DNA. They do it in many ways. The only real radiation hazard is when there are 2 full DNA breaks in close proximity. When that happens the DNA cut lose can flip rung for rung or end for end or the whole chunk can be removed with the top and bottom joining. But this is low probability stuff, at low radiation levels. If there is a double break, it is generally repaired before there is another in the same area, so this flipping or removal does not happen. It is like sunburn. You have to be in the sunlight for some time to burn. If you went outside 1 minute at a time every 10 minutes, it would be very unlikely you would burn. But you might burn if out the same amount of time, but in one sitting. DNA damage is not rare. Each cell has up to 10,000 single strand breaks a day, and 10 to 50 double strand breaks. Double strand repairs are done correctly approximately 95% of the time. Single strand repairs are nearly always repaired correctly. No one wants to be the guy that says it is not as dangerous, and relaxes the rules. There is no upside and massive downside possible. It also would show that there is less reason for their role. 126 years ago, in England if you wanted to drive a car, you had to have someone walk in front with a lantern at night, and waving a red flag in the day and yelling that a car was coming (red flag laws). Imagine if they never changed that law. Yes, no one would be hit by cars, but at what cost? We are pretty much doing the same thing with nuclear.

@Kharnellius Год назад

I’m a little confused on your last few sentences. Are you suggesting fusion will just be a “drop-in” tech into existing fission reactors?

@jamesowens7176 Год назад

@@ChessMasterNate I agree completely with this statement, especially the part about molten salt reactors - they already have everything we were trying to achieve with fusion - low waste, cheap fuel, explosion-proof, non-weaponizable. Molten Chloride Fast Reactor from Terra Power or Elysium Industries are the nearest to completion. Terra Power has a demo reactor coming online soon.

@Dave2170 Год назад

I saw a short article in business week about 18 years ago that proposed putting these smaller reactors 150 to 300 meters underground to add to the safety of them. Can’t bomb or crash an airplane into something that far underground.

@mroberts566 Год назад

Good idea but sounds expensive

@richscott2619 Год назад

@@mroberts566 seismically, it is safer to go underground as well

@michaelc.3812 2 года назад

We have a grossly uneducated group in Hollywood and in the new media that don’t have a clue about fission or fusion, and the many technologies used to drive a nuclear power system (on land, sea, space), thus most people are clueless. As an electrical engineer who spent his career in energy, I can affirm that most decision makers have no clue as well. It’s all terribly sad, and I wish these “leaders” would let the engineers do their job, as well as the linemen, electricians, and trades people.

@calvinmarcusbarron9207 2 года назад

The irony is that the movie they showed clips from, The China Syndrome, isn't all that anti-nuclear. You could find an anti-nuclear message if you tried, but the movie goes out of its way to emphasize how over-engineered the plants are with regards to safety. No Three Mile Island-style disaster actually occurs in the film. It's much more of an anti-corporate greed movie than anything else.

@davidfortier6976 2 года назад

I think the average person is worse than clueless. They aren't uninformed so much as misinformed. They THINK they know, and they're completely wrong.

@ff6605 2 года назад

fusion dosen't currently exist outside of the sun at least not one that creates more power than it takes to start

@oskarskates 2 года назад

if your aim is truly to educate people, maybe calling people clueless isn't a good introduction.

@Jebusmike3 2 года назад

@@ff6605 No one here stated the opposite of that. What exactly is your point?

@StevePhillips76 2 года назад

What about LFTR/ thorium style reactors? It seems like this should be part of the conversation? They look like a safer option than the water cooled plants.

@jonathanodude6660 2 года назад

thorium is a fuel type, not a coolant type. they did actually mention molten salt reactors in the vid.

@985476246845 2 года назад

@@jonathanodude6660 LFTR is though.

@mmoarchives2542 2 года назад

no, no it shouldn't, thorium is dirty nuclear

@mattbrody3565 2 года назад

@@985476246845 Johnathan's right. Thorium is a fuel, not a coolant. The fluoride salt LFTRs would use could be used as a coolant, but it's a bad idea to use thorium in the coolant salt. LFTR is one of many possible molten salt reactors, and molten salt reactors are the best type of reactor to burn thorium with.

@mattbrody3565 2 года назад

@@mmoarchives2542 how so?

@melanie010203 2 года назад

When I was in college in the early’80’s, I took courses in “Future Policy Studies.” Energy was a topic and Nuclear power was promising and nuclear fusion seemed to be the most promising. Here we are 40 years later with climate change a harsh reality. I feel like we demonized nuclear power and it helped accelerate the climate disasters we are experiencing by making it so scary that fossil fuels looked safe. We need to learn from this colossal mistake.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

If we don't change our national energy strategy quickly, we will have massive rolling blackouts and exorbitant electricity rates. China is greatly expanding their nuclear capacity while they sell us inferior solar panels. I can.see who will be the next superpower.

@stephenbrickwood1602 Год назад

No CO2 in the world and all Dictatorships with nuclear industries.?????

@Clark_Kent_ZA Год назад

Big oil jumped at the chance to demonize nuclear by paying off activists. The idea was that, when we moved away from Coal and our cars moved away from gas, then the only way for big oil to remain relevant is to sell the same product but with a different name "Natural Gas" What CNBC left out was that German electricity prices are high compared to France. Even the Netherlands have left the green bandwagon

@ionorreastragicomicchannel Год назад

Everybody is pro-nuclear until someone wants to build a uranium mine or nuclear waste disposal site in your neighborhood, politics of pretending that everybody pointing at safety and environmental issues in the past is a lunatic that did not know what is talking about also did not help to gain confidence in the nuclear industry that made multiple shortcuts on safety and environment in order to obtain higher profits.

@Clark_Kent_ZA Год назад

@@ionorreastragicomicchannel Since Nuclear Reactors generate AC power, they don't need to be in your back yard. They can be built in the middle of nowhere and transformers can step up the voltage for long distance transmission. Nice try Greta

@kurtgellert9166 2 года назад

The energy density for nuclear power is infinitely higher than solar. And it emits no Co2. Now we have better tech than the 1960's designs that encompass most of the US facilities. I can see these smaller units being used as the foundation for municipal power plants. Example: 1 site/city versus large power grids that span states.

@stephenbrickwood1602 Год назад

No CO2 in the world and all Dictatorships with nuclear industries.?????.

@jwstolk Год назад

It is only "infinitely higher" after infringement. If you look at the amount of rock you need to extract a minuscule concentration of Uranium form, and then centrifuge that to get an even smaller fraction with the correct atomic number, you will see that the energy density of the original rock is very low. Both extracting Uranium from rock and centrifuging to separate different atomic numbers using very small changes in density cost a lot of energy. And that does not even include the energy to make the chemicals used in extraction and centrifuging, not the energy needed to produce concrete to make reactors reasonably safe. Most of that used energy is in the form of fossil fuels, so nuclear produces less CO2 than a natural gas powered plant, not zero CO2. (about 30%..40%, so it's a very expensive way to half CO2 emissions.) That energy usage is what makes nuclear electricity more expensive than renewable electricity.

@kazioo2 Год назад

The surface area/generated energy ratio of Nuclear plant and solar plant is not that different in sunny regions. In countries where restrictions for closest nearby buildings are high this ratio can be pretty pretty much the same... And the deployment of solar farm is 100x easier, 20x faster and much cheaper. The problem starts when you want to have enough batteries to achieve same reliability for long term use. Then solar can become 5x-10x more expensive than nuclear, so it's not worth using solar this way.

@PennyAfNorberg 2 года назад

I spent my last high school year about 500m from a nuclear power plant. We felt safe and took 3 baths in the exit-cooling water ( +10c from sea temp)

@missano3856 Год назад

Must be Sweden, I think that's the only place that ever let people do that.

@dickidsrip5262 Год назад

@@missano3856 her name sounds swedish so totally a possibility

@rolandvonmalmborg1905 Год назад

Some of the active Chernobyl staff felt so safe, that they refused to believe that the disaster could happen, even after it had happened. Your "feeling safe" is a result from atomic profiteers hypnotic lies of nuclear energy purporting to be safe, cheap, clean, planable, climate and ecology friendly. None of these are true.

@PennyAfNorberg Год назад

@@rolandvonmalmborg1905 Chernobyl isn't sweden....

@PennyAfNorberg Год назад

@@dickidsrip5262 I'm Male...

@thearisen7301 2 года назад

100% we need to be building new nuclear plants and saving our currently operating plants. Nuclear is not only clean 24/7 power but it also uses very little land with minimal ecological impact.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

Odd that CNBC would address commercial nuclear power issues WITHOUT mentioning any of the consequences of nuclear capital costs -- which is what killed the industry in the first place in the United States. Plants coming on line back in the 1950's and 60's all were built with a Government subsidy with up to more than half of the capital expenditures taken up by the then Atomic Energy Commission and reactor vendors as seed investment for future operating plants. This situation evaporated in the 1970's with utility customers for reactors assuming the full weight of capital costs for the plant and this situation caused the cancellation of almost as many plants as are running now due to true capital costs and operation and maintenance costs being truly reflective of what was actually happening at each site; the situation now being over for free money from the AEC, General Electric, Westinghouse and the remainder of the suppliers. This placed the planned and operating plants on a finer economic edge; making expensive things going wrong more of a determining factor for economic operating the plants in future scenarios. A gone-wrong steam generator replacement maintenance effort in two of the West Coast plants caused that utility to close down the eight-billion dollar facility for good; forcing the utility customers and the stockholders to eat the capital costs, and this was not the only utility to shut down a site due to insurmountable repairs and maintenance costs. Reactor suppliers in the United States offered the utilities different 747 airplane designs for each plant and each utility; something that would break a company like Boeing many years ago. A re-started nuclear effort in the United States with the same commercial ground rules of competition and non-standardization of plant equipment will result in the same overruns for the same reasons as encountered before: a lack of scope definition and therefore ultimate responsibilities to be faced. Far more successful in nuclear proliferation scheme was carried out at EDF in France through standardization of design and government financing; although these nuclear plants as well are finding themselves susceptible to unusually high maintenance efforts. CNBC and its producers and management have apparently decided that this important history of nuclear power in the US is ostensibly irrelevant and is to be virtually ignored by the current proponents as though it never happened.

@sustainablelivingnl773 2 года назад

How can you say nuclear power is safe when Fukushima has been pouring radio active waste into the Pacific Ocean since 2011 and will continue doing so long after we’re all dead.

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@@JAGRAFX Thank you for your excellent post but it is probably beyond the understanding of the majority of nuclear energy enthusiasts.

@bergonius 2 года назад

@@JAGRAFX because those plants were built by government for weapon plutonium production purposes. Energy production was basically a byproduct and a cover-up. Cost effectiveness wasn't a priority.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

@@bergonius --- that is incorrect. We are talking only of nuclear plants involved in energy [electricity] production here such as the No. 1 plant at Shippingport and the other early plants such as Oyster Creek and Main Yankee. Plants for nuclear fuel and nuclear bomb production are in a completely different category from these commercial plants operated by electric utilities. There is NO RELATION between the cost incurred on the early AEC projects at Oak Ridge and Hanford for nuclear weapons material and the commercial nuclear power sector of the economy.

@deerhunterthom5458 Год назад

Prayers for the scientist at 13:54 whose parents chose to name him Yasir Arafat. That dude must have faced a lot of challenges in life.

@joshmcdonald9508 Год назад

We need to inform the public MUCH better on nuclear energy. It is the best thing we have and we'll need them to power all these new electric cars.

@joshmcdonald9508 Год назад

@thelegendguy public transportation needs to be different than a bus. Busses are so unappealing and I've taken one for years. Update public transportation to appeal to the masses and you'll start to see people use it again. Also in the cities .. public transportation is unsafe

@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 4 месяца назад

@@joshmcdonald9508 Maybe public transportation isnt as good, but bikes are, look at the netherlands, fully functional and even GREAT country, and most people go do their things on bikes

@joshmcdonald9508 4 месяца назад

@@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 I’m not going to argue there! with the proliferation of E bikes, and how fast they go, I could see a lot of people moving to E bikes. The problem with doing something like this in America is that it is so spread out. Half of the year is cold as well. If we could get a mix of an E bike with a bonnet and heat, we could get everybody on E bikes.

@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043 4 месяца назад

@joshmcdonald9508 yeah there is a requirement of population density and infrastructure for it to really take off tbf, but it is worth it

@timothydoyle6859 2 года назад

It's a shame that the first sustained chain reaction was realized during WWII and could not be shared with the public such that the public's first awareness of nuclear power was Hiroshima, which has colored the opinion of the public ever since.

@texascottonfarmer Год назад

The first sustained chain reaction was achieved on December 2, 1942 at the University of Chicago by a team of scientists led by Enrico Fermi. It was part of the Manhattan Project, and therefore had to be kept secret.

@krashd Год назад

Hiroshima never harmed nuclear power, a series of accidents did. The largest in the US coming just 12 days after the release of a movie about a nuclear accident.

@rickcaldwell2862 Год назад

@@krashd An "accident" which amounted to nothing!

@nakshtraroshal 2 года назад

Death related to nuclear plant is lowest among other ways of electricity production. The problem is people don't see the hidden deaths associated with coal and gas plants in their mining , emissions etc.

@KielanGaming 2 года назад

Lots of headlines about reactors over budget and massive delays imo make public very weary about reactors, there is just too much corruption attached to their construction, too many delays caused by incompetence, Nuclear deserves better companies making them on time and to cost, but rarely does this occur much to the detriment of Nuclear power.

@GonzoTehGreat 2 года назад

@@KielanGaming These are lame excuses. Where there's a will, there's a way. If there's no national ambition to make Nuclear Power a significant and productive part of the energy mix then inefficiencies and corruption will inevitably creep in. By contrast, France committed to NP back in the 1970s and have reaped the benefits for the last ~40 years, yet even they became complacent and took their energy independence for granted. Consequently, they're now hurrying to build new reactors to replace their aging ones. The Bundeswher is a mess due to decades of neglect and underfunding, yet Germany is now rushing (albeit reluctantly and only after being forced) to provide military aid to Ukraine. Similarly, the EU (and especially Germany) is now trying desperately to become less energy dependent on Russia... The problem in Germany, mostly during Merkel's tenure, has been lazy energy governance due to continued reliance on relatively cheap (Russian) Fossil Fuels and a false assumption that Renewables will provide the remaining electricity needed to meet demand.

@ecoideazventures6417 Год назад

Two scary things for jittery people - the Mother for Nuclear @9.40 has a super scary large lizard in her house! Second, the researcher talking about advanced nuclear reactors is named "Yasir Arafat"!!

@santiagoparadaplata5097 10 месяцев назад

Nuclear power is the way to go, as someone who worries a lot about the environment, this is really the best way to produce energy.

@Liam_Oliver 2 года назад

I've been saying for years that Nuclear power is safer by far than FF energy production. I'd rather have an SMR in my basement than be within 10 miles of a coal or gas plant. Obviously there are places where it's riskier to build them (US west coast has additional risks for one) but nuclear power, when done right, is a better option long-term than anything we have right now. And any excess that is generated can be utilised to manufacture green hydrogen. Hopefully Nuclear Fusion isn't that far away...

@michaelkovalsky4907 2 года назад

Consider how little real damage Fukushima did even though it got hit with an earthquake and a tsnunami. Chernobyl was due to the absolute sheer lack of safety standards the Soviets had. As an analogy, imagine refusing to drive because cars in the 50s had no real safety tech. Obviously modern cars have greatly improved safety where accidents that for all intents and purposes should've clapped you out of existence in the past will result in injury, but certainly not death

@curtisducati 2 года назад

Yes they are a lot safer to use than they say , all a con to get the west to buy Russian gas I bet !

@reahs4815 2 года назад

people are dumb scared lazy sheep

@xenotypos 2 года назад

And don't forget, new reactors wouldn't melt down like fukushima did, even in those extreme conditions. Each generation, the new reactors are more secure. Imagine what will be necessary for the smallest next nuclear incident, only an asteroid or something like that would enough. That being said, I'm not really into those small reactors, I prefer the big, highly guarded/secure ones. There are new models of those too.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

@happyyoggi3894 2 года назад

Fukushima is the boiling water reactor, Chernobyl has the same design. No safety dome. The pressurized water reactor has 3 level of protection. At fuel level, pressured vessel level, and the containment level. At Fukushima after the tsunami then no pumps working which lead to melt down (funny design by GE). The Korean PWR has 4 emergency pumps units which can work under the water each unit has submarine's doors, the California at San Onofre plant only has 2 pumps unit. The Russian PWR has another protection can handle the melt down (I remember they call it the melt down trap)

@akarijiang9191 Год назад

great content thank you

@cg5648 2 года назад

What a change from when I was a kid, they did everything in their power to stop ☢️ energy. Everyone showed up to preform at the no more nukes concert.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

Yeah, I'm suspicious as to what the media is up to after a half century of anti-nuke fear mongering.

@rdknght17 2 года назад

Nuclear power is the best energy we have. Especially if we can ever figure out nuclear fusion. Game over. Every time we find a new form of energy our civilization innovates astronomically.

@Saxxin1 Год назад

Our planet is a power plant. Tesla proved that. The cleanest and safest power can be drawn from the atmosphere. But no profit in that. Once people figure out how they can build their own.

@AmazingJayB51 2 года назад

With the Colorado river drying up, California needs more Nuclear Power plants.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

@HaiLHaiLHaiLo 2 года назад

Precisely.

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@Jay Brown Nuclear Reactors use enormous quantities of water to cool their cores and prevent melt downs. They dump the heated water which damages ecosystems which are evolved to live in cool environments. The only reason to run the risks of the extremely expensive and dangerous expansion of nuclear energy is so that the ELITE can maintain their monopoly on our energy supply. They don't want the people getting their own renewable, abundant and clean sources like from the sun, the wind, the water, the earth's internal heat and from hydrogen found in every drop of water. The externalities (hidden costs) of maintaining the expended sites and radioactive wastes will have to be paid for by future generations for MILLENIA! Are they unaware that sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever? Don't they know that Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down? Nuclear plants are vulnerable to natural catastrophes, power outages that could prevent the pumping of cooling water which keeps the reactor rods from a melt down, and also from terrorist attacks and war.

@CraftyF0X 2 года назад

@@JAGRAFX That is being said, I don't see why a new subsidisation program for next gen reactors would be bad. I mean, if we insist to only concern ourselves with the current economics, we might as well build more coal plants or gas plants, as they cheap and recoup the fat cat's investment fast. In the end those lefty guys will be right again, we have to give up either on capitalism or on a livable enviroment.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

@@CraftyF0X --- Don't give up on capitalism yet, Cathy! That system [capitalism] has produced more wealth for humanity than all of the others combined. Sorry for the over-sell; but I went to Business School at San Diego State. Capitalism without honesty and grace is "cronyism" which is probably worse than the worst of the liberal ideas. End of speech. My State of California has encouraged the development of solar and renewable energy sources way since back in the late 1960's. Right now we are seeing peak energy for solar & renewables topping out at over sixty percent of total system load for the State. In addition; nighttime carryover is showing numbers in the 4,000 to 6,000 megawatt range of what is actually free energy. All of this is being accomplished through investment in solar and renewable sources without any sort of "GREEN NEW DEAL" legislation from Congress. By 2035 California will be energy independent from fossil and nuclear sources for energy and will probably be selling power to neighboring states.

@Simonpt2000 Год назад

Great video very informative

@danielevans8910 Год назад

Anyone know where the power plant in the thumbnail and first image on the video is?

@ShaudaySmith 2 года назад

Contemporary nuclear energy tech is nothing like it was in the 60's. They are so much smaller, cleaner, safer, better. I am 100% pro nuclear energy. It is the way of the future for sustainable lasting energy. For context, 1Megawatt can power hundreds of homes.

@JAGRAFX 2 года назад

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@Shauday Smith The only reason to run the risks of the extremely expensive and dangerous expansion of nuclear energy is so that the ELITE can maintain their monopoly on our energy supply. They don't want the people getting their own renewable, abundant and clean sources like from the sun, the wind, the water, the earth's internal heat and from hydrogen found in every drop of water. The externalities (hidden costs) of maintaining the expended sites and radioactive wastes will have to be paid for by future generations for MILLENIA! Are they unaware that sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever? Don't they know that Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down? Nuclear plants are vulnerable to natural catastrophes, power outages that could prevent the pumping of cooling water which keeps the reactor rods from a melt down, and also from terrorist attacks and war.

@robertmarmaduke9721 2 года назад

For context, every crypto-mining warehouse burns 3MWs. So we can burn bitcoin for energy!!

@romeou4965 2 года назад

The Midwest can only resort to nuclear with numerous upcoming coal plant shutdowns. Difficulty sourcing natural gas, wind and solar power in that region.

@shvrdavid 2 года назад

You act like there are no gas pipelines in the midwest, and there are huge solar and wind farms. No clue where you came up with that.

@rayrussell6258 2 года назад

What an incompetent, false thing to say; I'm living near 2 electric generating plants you say are to shut down, well guess what, they just replaced all their transmission lines outbound. They aren't closing, and they're not going to be torn down and replaced by any nuclear plant. Wind and solar would never touch the existing coal/natural gas electricity generating capacity in place, so you can just forget about those utopia things. And nuclear is still just as unsafe as it was in Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. In other words, DOA in the US.

@shvrdavid 2 года назад

Nuclear in the Midwest is sort of a joke even thou it started there. Where are you going to get the water to cool it? There are only 2 new reactors being built in the US... 2.... And they are right beside each other in Georgia.... No idea where he came up with adding reactors in areas there is no way to cool them. 28 states have reactors, 22 have no way to cool them effectively. Yes some plants are being converted from coal to natural gas, but they are not closing them. We don't mine as much coal now, and natural gas is cheaper than coal and available all over the country. Nuclear is expensive to build, and is a federal subsidy pit.... The waste from every plant in the US is still in those plants and has never been dealt with. Over half of the currently running plants will run out of room to store spent fuel in less than 25 years... Then what? Oh, more gas and coal plants.... 40 reactors in the US have already shut down since built, and the lights are still on..... Guess why RomeoU.... Gas, coal, and hydro electric.

@DrJohnnyJ 2 года назад

Why? Wind is strong and hours of sunlight vary?

@jonathantan2469 2 года назад

It's also geologically stable, plus the Great Lakes & river systems provide plenty of water for cooling. In fact, if you can supply enough cooling water for a coal fossil power station... you already have enough for a nuclear power station.

@FUL0H8 14 дней назад

When you “micro” these things, it’s a lot easier for things to go missing or be stolen. I can see it now in GTA X “let’s steal this micro reactor bro!”

@boboutelama5748 Год назад

I like the fact that the peoples doing new reactors, are taking into consideration, that water will not longer be an easy source to get to cool their reactors. It's a smart move in some ways.

@chromolitho Год назад

I don't think there's anything wrong with light water reactors as long as you don't scale them up a lot. They work fine on submarines as far as I know.

@corporealexistence9467 2 года назад

I remember back around 1996 watching a documentary about a nuclear reactor which could not melt down. The worlds press was invited in to record what happened when the operator turned off the all cooling to the stack. The temperature climbed and climbed but then, started cooling off. Just to prove the point they did it again the next day. I have since been unable to find the video anywhere. Part of the reason existing Nuclear plants are a problem is that they were built as Breeders instead of Feeders to produce plutonium for the Cold War. The other issue was that General Electric deliberately built each plant differently and thus parts and equipment could not be easy exchanged or re-used forcing the operators to have to go back to GE every time. In contrast, France was building all of their reactor's to be identical which allowed for them to have over 170 in their country alone. That is why Germany and other E.U. countries buy their power from France.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

Reporting on the cooling shut-off and not making it public knowledge is a prime example of the anti-nuclear agenda of the press for the last half century.

@kennethferland5579 2 года назад

France sells lots of nuclear power because it would otherwise go to waste at night when demand is low. Frances high nuclear ratio is only possible because of these exports.

@KabelWlan 2 года назад

However half of Frances nuclear reactors are out if service right now.

@TheBooban 2 года назад

@@kennethferland5579 i don’t see how exporting electricity is a problem.

@Piccodon 2 года назад

There is more than one type of nuclear reactor. Not all are BWR like Fukushina or RBMK in Chernobyl, both using water for either moderation or thermal transfer. Water has very limited capacity in comparison to better alternatives and needs to be pressurised to extreme levels leading to extreme construction costs. Originally water as coolant/moderator was co-designed by Alvin Weinberg and was OK for smallish submarines and ships, but scaled up to Megawatts there are better reactor types also invented by Alvin Weinberg in the 1950s and tested in the 60's 70's, that does not use water, cannot explodeor melt down and are walk away safe. Since then more development has been done and are called Gen4 reactors, which use various types of molten salt or lead for heat transfer, some types even re-use common nuclear "waste" as fuel and cost orders of magnitude less to build than water reactors. All objections to nuclear power melts away in light of these types. Fossil fuels are not sustainable for many critically important reasons, including transferring power to bad actors.

@adamsolomon9353 2 года назад

I spent my entire adult life in nuclear power and I've been hearing of the nuclear Renaissance since high school. It's not going to happen. Also, the curved concrete structure is a containment building (PWR) or Drywell (BWR...but you can't see it externally on BWR). Not a Reactor vessel as the dude says.

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@adam solomon I agree. The only reason to run the risks of the extremely expensive and dangerous expansion of nuclear energy is so that the ELITE can maintain their monopoly on our energy supply. They don't want the people getting their own renewable, abundant and clean sources like from the sun, the wind, the water, the earth's internal heat and from hydrogen found in every drop of water. The externalities (hidden costs) of maintaining the expended sites and radioactive wastes will have to be paid for by future generations for MILLENIA! Are they unaware that sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever? Don't they know that Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down? Nuclear plants are vulnerable to natural catastrophes, power outages that could prevent the pumping of cooling water which keeps the reactor rods from a melt down, and also from terrorist attacks and war.

@realfabo 2 года назад

And peak uranium resources it’s goin to happen very soon

@jensageholm8774 2 года назад

@Risto Kempas After what - 18 years of build time and a cost that have doubled (correct me if the statements are off)? And the other plant under construction - is anything constructed yet and is there not some controversy as it is partly based on Russian technology? I have nothing against nuclear electricity generation but calling it a renaissance may be a bit of an overstatement. Not that we are doing everything correct here in Denmark but German RWE is paying us €400 million for "renting" some seafloor for 30 years for a 1000 MW wind farm that will operate on market conditions (no subsidies). Three of these would generate about the same amount of electricity as the EPR at Olkiluoto. Wind power is also being built out in Finland.

@1968Christiaan 2 года назад

@Risto Kempas I think all your economists are.

@jensageholm8774 2 года назад

@Risto Kempas Both Finland and Denmark is part of Nordpool - differences in prices is due to bottlenecks in the grid. As far as I can see DK has from time to time cheaper electricity than FI. Offshore wind in DK is approaching a 60% capacity factor - that is not that bad to integrate. DK availability of electricity is 99,993% - I would think that industry can live with that. But please continue to add more nuclear power in FI. In DK it is both to expensive and to late as we would not see the first nuclear power plant operational until 2040 at the earliest as we do not have the setup to even evaluate a proposal to for a plant. On the other hand we know how to build wind turbines and have a lot suitable offshore locations.

@eminentgold 2 года назад

I think we owe it to ourselves to seriously look into this without the lens of old. Cannot let the lesson we learn from previous mistakes be a waste.

@sakmadik69420 Год назад

a nuclear waste

@josecuevasko4912 Год назад

Is there al lot of recommendable of batery technology in the U.S.A. east coast near the time of U.N. 2018?

@hoshifuyo4494 2 года назад

The wisest thing that should be on everyones' mind currently, should be, To invest in different streams of income that doesn't depend on the government, especially with the current economic crisis around the world.

@hoshifuyo4494 2 года назад

And also, Being of age and how to manage the sequence of returns in those early periods is what seems quite scary in the current market. The market is never a loser in the twenty year cycle, but the 2000s decade scenario scares me and could really disrupt my retirement. When you're no longer accumulating but withdrawing, it's hard to be anything but cautious.

@jachikeonwuka3824 2 года назад

The pandemic really taught people the importance of multiple streams of income. Unfortunately, having a job doesn't guarantee 100% security, rather having different investments is the real deal.

@anouchkabalog6627 2 года назад

@@jachikeonwuka3824 That's true, I believe that the secret to financial stability is having the right investment ideas to enable you earn more money. But for now, investors getting started can feel overwhelming. Risk loom large and complicated, unfamiliar financial jargons can be intimidating.

@alexmontrey5372 2 года назад

Some investors look to their investments as a source of income while others use it as a means to grow or preserve their wealth.

@alexmontrey5372 2 года назад

Also, It is mostly disastrous for newbies or anyone who doesn't adhere to a well thought-out strategy and over all, a professional broker.

@dustinredeagle9465 2 года назад

Every green person should be fighting for Nuclear energy.

@alanhat5252 Год назад

does the video answer the implied question in the title?

@drowe2 Месяц назад

Think about how many small nuclear reactors the US navy has on ships and how few incidents. France is building 5 nuclear power plants and I think we only have 1-2

@edwardk3 2 года назад

"Mothers for nuclear" ? Woman good.

@Runnifier 2 года назад

The 3 nuclear disasters are rare events when you put it into the perspective of how many years of flawless operation we have had from our power plants, ships, and submarines. Plus, as we see in space exploration, failures are vital to the development of better technology. We have learned and grown. Remember that we had many failures in the early days of aviation but now we essentially have none. If we had stopped flying because of a few crashes in the early days the world would not be as advanced as it is today. Nuclear energy is no different. Give it a chance.

@Reotha 2 года назад

i agree but you know how humans are, we have a hard time grappling with failure.

@jeffsteinmetz7188 2 года назад

Nuclear is financially failing and this has always been the case. Nuclear advocates like to claim it is political, but the most successful force at closing nuclear plants and stopping them from getting built are the poor economics. No industry can expect to stay viable if they continually fail to meet start times to provide an ROI for investors.

@PercivalFakeman 2 года назад

These mistakes are costly to mankind. We have hundreds of square miles permanently lost to human habitation. They can’t be merely put in a mistake box and minimized.

@jeffsteinmetz7188 2 года назад

Comparing nuclear power disasters to aviation crashes is a false comparison. A single plane going down has dramatically different ramifications than a nuclear power plant meltdown. The cost for the clean up and the long term nature of a nuclear fallout are vastly different than a plane crash. Trying to equate the two is just ridiculous, but also standard for the nuclear industry propaganda.

@thefogg 2 года назад

Reminds me of a guy who spoke about flying the f22 vs a Cessna 172. He'd was more scare to fly the 172, due to how the electronic controls help during a landing while you fight a stick in a 172. It's an hour long video on RU-vid.

@wayneaustin5533 2 года назад

Germany dropped the ball by closing their nuclclerar plants

@rof8200 2 года назад

Why not go with small reactors? US subs have been using small reactors safely for decades.

@nekoJens Год назад

Short answer: cost. Large reactors have economies of scale, but even at their massive scale their economies are pretty bad. Smaller reactors do not solve the fundamental problem of cost.

@Rocketsong Год назад

The reactors they are talking about in this video are much smaller than Navy Reactors, either the Submarine or Aircraft carrier variety. Honestly though, I think lots of small reactors are going to cost much more than modern larger 1000-1200 MW reactors.

@ianprado1488 2 года назад

I'm a nuclear engineering grad student and I am completely confident this century will be mostly powered by nuclear energy

@bergonius 2 года назад

I'm hopeful

@wearandtear6692 2 года назад

You go! Nuclear is the next step, higher ERoEI, higher energy density, more independence from the forces of nature. It already is the safest, most reliable source of energy, yet we have not even scratched it's true potential. Greetings from beautiful Austria, the heartland of nuclear Angst!

@ashtar929 2 года назад

To think that nuclear power are safe is stupid. The air quality has gone down and cancer rate is up because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear is dangerous and never safe. Geothermal is the future.

@ashtar929 2 года назад

To think that nuclear power are safe is stupid. The air quality has gone down and cancer rate is up because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear is dangerous and never safe. Geothermal is the future.

@froggy0162 2 года назад

Yeah nah. New build nukes are too exxy.

@davidleadford6511 2 года назад

My Dad worked at the Idaho National Lab for years.

@tonebanderas 2 года назад

the funny thing about these incredibly smart and complex technologies is that they are basically a way to eat up water in order to generate steam.

@caav56 2 года назад

Or heat up gas to run it through turbine. Or use thermoelectric power conversion (SNAP reactors).

@kalebbeelen8556 2 года назад

3 words, molten salt coolants.

@jonathantan2469 2 года назад

Steam however, has very efficient and powerful potential energy. Thats why it works very well in industrial turbines like those used for generating electricity.

@caav56 2 года назад

@@jonathantan2469 Steam is very good in many regards, however, supercritical CO2 might achiever better power conversion efficiencies. Not that it doesn't have its own set of difficulties.

@kitemanmusic Год назад

I have never understood the use of 'cooling towers'. All that heat is being wasted into the atmosphere.

@JellyJman 2 года назад

I truly hope Nuclear Power does have a renaissance in the future. It’s currently the most successful carbon free energy source

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

We cannot build new nuclear in the U.S. cost effectively

@JellyJman 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 very true unfortunately, a shame America’s energy system has to be ran for profit rather than efficiency

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

@@JellyJman One political party denies climate change, one political party denies science, one political party wants to ban books, and one political party pushed deregulation that transitioned electrical utilities from reliable service to profit

@JellyJman 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 no lie detected

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

@@JellyJman You shall reap what you sow

@Mental_Egg 2 года назад

Still don't know why a backup generator was at sea level?!?!?

@Anders127 2 года назад

They had flood walls for waves up to 9(?) meters but the waves were higher. There was no plans for such an event as the sea walls were supposed to protect them.

@seriouslyyoujest1771 2 года назад

Insufficient backup energy, and cooling capacity. Like airlines when an accident occurs, first the investigation, then changes. You can’t be serious about reducing a carbon footprint without nuclear energy.

@Cody_Handsome 2 года назад

MSFR (Molten Salt Fast Neutron Reactors) utilizing Thorium is safe and effective. They can’t blow up like a reactor utilizing water and thorium is a by product

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

You cannot be serious about nuclear without addressing the fact that we cannot build them cost effectively.

@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 way more cost effective than other renewables per kilowatt hour

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

@@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345 Tell that to the ratepayers of South Carolina after VC Summer was canceled and they spent $7 billion and have $10 billion more in contract payments to make for NOTHING. OR Vogtle that is 110% over budget and schedule and still not running. Do your homework before making smoke and mirror statements.

@jonathanodude6660 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 high upfront costs =/= low cost effectiveness. the issue isnt that they arent cost effective, the issue is that it takes years to recoup the cost of building and if public sentiment changes and your reactor gets shut down by a populist government funded by fossil fuel companies, then you didnt make anything on your investment.

@chris24j48 Год назад

Very informative

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

They seem to have left out reality. Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

@varyolla435 Год назад

The finite nature of fossil fuels makes nuclear power inevitable - if only as a bridging technology until we can "hopefully" develop a viable alternative and a way to store/transmit the same. Solar power or hydro is fine - but it can not be used everywhere and storage capacity is not yet viable long term.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

How can nuclear be a bridging technology since the U.S. cannot build new nuclear power plants cost effectively. The last 5 nuclear projects in the U.S. are proof. Natural gas turbines will be the bridging technology no matter if we like that or not

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

Solar and wind are probably what you mean about energy storage, hydroelectric is actually the best energy storage we have.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk There are very few hydroelectric storage units. Dams are not hydro storage units since they release water to maintain required down stream flows and only increase releases when the pool lever rises too high. Dams do not let down stream rivers dry up and then release water when there is a power need. Where do you get your information?

@varyolla435 Год назад

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Actually I was referring to storage capacity. Electricity declines the further from the source you go. Also as alluded to we lack the capacity to store for future use what is produced. So solar and wind is only really useful in certain areas and above precludes the energy produced from being stored or transmitted large distances. Nuclear power as noted can bridge the gap until we improve our ability to generate renewable energy everywhere it is needed.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 The Pigeon River is dam-controlled with scheduled water releases along the Tennessee/North Carolina border which whitewater rafters know first hand when the upstream dam releases more water so they can partake in their sport. The businesses are at the complete mercy of the utility.. Every single hydroelectric dam in the country has this ability. Duh.

@PennyAfNorberg 2 года назад

And Sweden built around 45% nuclear between about 1975-1985, i think a higher prodction rate is possible now and if foundend, and with great opions we may build so much nuclear quite fast.

@w-4258 2 года назад

7:11 NO, NO, NO, NO. The absolute physical limit the battery Giga-arrays is to power cities for 20 - 30 minutes at the absolute most. It removes the need to have spinning load, before engaging hydro-power. *THAT IS ALL!!!*

@postandghost9391 2 года назад

Wow, a main stream media channel thats actually speaking in support of nuclear energy? I see the dollar signs in their eyes.

@rabidlenny7221 Год назад

Wow I can't believe mainstream media could be so rational and objective about the facts. If we get more of this, they might actually convince the general public that their 'feelings' about the safety of nuclear power are not exactly hard scientific data to base an entire country's energy policy around, while also claiming they care about climate change. Fingers crossed!! Glad to see people finally coming around.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

If you are really interested in the new nuclear story in the U.S. today realize it is not about safety but about cost effectiveness. Or should I say lack of cost effectiveness. TRUTH- The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Utilities, not the media, decide the most cost effective electrical power source and give the above failures no U.S. utility is even considering new nuclear at this time. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

@rabidlenny7221 Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 Well, it most certainly is about perceived safety. If the public doesn't think its safe their going to opposed plants currently in operation, plants considered for extension, plants under construction and plants being considered for new construction. So the public's opinion on safety is absolutely hugely important, not irrelevant at all. It's also relevant in terms of cost. A lot of nuclear regulations are arcane or unnecessary. There are a lot of members in the nuclear community that claim the lack of understanding on what is critical and what isn't drives up cost considerably. It's why its cost effective in other countries like France, but yet not as much so here. I would debate the cost factor with you though. The states that have the highest percentages of nuclear have relatively cheap electricity. That's all the evidence I need, as that is the figure the general population looks at. What is your proposed alternative? Please don't tell me you think wind, solar & batteries are going to be cheaper. You need to consider subsidies with that, into your total cost. As its picked up by the tax payer anyways. Or maybe just keep burning fossil fuels?

@mattd624 Год назад

We NEED these micro-reactors! This can eliminate our dependence on dirty and foreign energy sources, make energy transport more efficient, AND make us less vulnerable to terrorist or foreign attacks.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

Do you think a nuclear reactor on every street corner will make us more or less vulnerable to terrorist or foreign attacks??? Especially the domestic terrorists that number in he thousands today.

@mattd624 Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 true, Superman. Good point. But if there are 1 or 2 per city, I don’t think it would be that difficult to fortify them and hire trained guards against local terrorists, but it certainly would be better to have it spread out in the case of foreign missile attacks. And even if local terrorists used a rpg or something to knock out a small reactor, it would at least not take out multiple cities or half a state’s power. But what if they did that to a large reactor?

@Thebreakdownshow1 2 года назад

I think the NUclear energy was just blamed too many times in movies and left it with a really negative Connotation.

@ascra1693 2 года назад

Definitely

@blackbriarmead1966 2 года назад

Connotation

@kennethferland5579 2 года назад

Oh I had been under the mistaken impression the Chernobyl, 3 mile Island and Fukushima were REAL EVENTS, had no idea they were just Hollywood movies, that really changes everything.

@Thebreakdownshow1 2 года назад

@@kennethferland5579 I am glad now you know lol

@Thebreakdownshow1 2 года назад

@@blackbriarmead1966 Thanks a lot sir my apologies auto correct.

@Loopyengineeringco Год назад

Great film. To add one thing: ITER is not destined to be a power plant itself. It's an R&D and testing facility (a very expensive one!) that hopes to be a proof of concept and provide a working design that 'real' plants can be built from. So real usable fusion is still a very long way away, provided a number of factors can be overcome such as the scarcity of it's fuel, etc

@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Год назад

Fusion really no longer has a future anymore as an energy source for general use. It simply can never be economicly competitive because of it's centralised nature and the ongoing overhead and infrastructure it would need. Fusion, if they ever get it working reliably, could be the future of space exploration next century. And it can teach a lot more about physics probably. But it is just not suited to become an energy source to power society.

@waynet8953 Год назад

That's only temporary until something better (and unexpected, but hopefully soon) comes along.

@quinto190 2 года назад

No mentioning of Thorium molten-salt reactors? Much safer operation than all the pressurized -water reactors and can use the waste from the uranium fuel rods... China has built one, and Indonesia is about to with the help of a US corp.

@fiddiehacked 2 года назад

Come for the Thorium, stay for the reactors. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tyqYP6f66Mw.html

@robsmith9596 2 года назад

Build thorium molten salt reactors they can't meltdown because there is no water under pressure.

@Cody_Handsome 2 года назад

Exactly! I have been posting this too

@michaeldeierhoi4096 2 года назад

As it turns out those thorium reactors would still need uranium as part of the process to produce heat.

@Z80Fan 2 года назад

Just build Molten Salt Reactors without complicating them with the Thorium fuel cycle; they work perfectly well with ordinary LEU fuel.

@Cody_Handsome 2 года назад

@@Z80Fan the thorium would be efficient as it is a by product of typical uranium and as a waste product it would be very cheap to use

@Z80Fan 2 года назад

@@Cody_Handsome Thorium-232 (the natural occuring isotope) is not fissile. You need to convert it into U-233 through a decay chain that takes several days to complete. This complicates reactor design if you try to do it online, like in a dual fluid design. The other strategy is to breed it with specially designed plants, but that has "proliferation concerns". Moreover this type of fuel is not currently accepted by regulator agencies across the world. If we want to have an MSR running as soon as possible the best strategy is to build a single fluid, LEU fuelled reactor (like Thorcon and IMSR).

@mrburns2101 Год назад

Excellent.

@Autonova Месяц назад

Nuclear is statistically safer than Wind energy. Let that sink in

@smokymacpot1733 2 года назад

Thank you cnn it about time a major network talked about this

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

CNBC and other media networks are finally back peddling away from their half-century anti-nuke propaganda campaign.

@Aardvark-1801 2 года назад

Why Nuclear Energy Is On The Verge Of A Renaissance? Proponents want taxpayers to pay more of the costs of producing electricity in nuclear plants, such as the long-term storage and security of radioactive wastes and clean-up of radioactive decommissioned units, making more of the life-cycle costs of producing electricity external to vendors. If those very long-term costs are internalized into the electricity market, the cost of producing electricity via nuclear plants would be uneconomical, not to mention environmentally very UN-friendly. Moreover, the movement of nuclear/radioactive material is required to generate electricity in nuclear plants and after. Proponents also want those costs and the costs of security for those movements to also be paid for by taxpayers. If we cut all subsidies to oil, nuclear, wind, and solar, we likely would find that what truly is economical may also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

@liammitchell2225 11 дней назад

A few things, 1. The metals used in windmills (aka the 1 ton of Neodymium that goes into every windmill) are also mined with radioactive "waste" (thorium), which could be used in reactors. Instead, these deposits are often ignored because of fear over "radioactivity", so fewer renewable options across the board. 2. Coal plants actually produce more radioactivity than a reactor. 3. Can you name any other nuclear power accident other than Fukashima and Chernobyl? No one was hurt in 3 mile island. The fact is that there have been 3 accidents worldwide, with over 400 reactors around the world. It's a drop in the water compared to the 328 gas pipeline explosions in the United States between 2010 and 2021, which killed 122 people and injured 603.

@TheSkubna 2 года назад

I have believed in these safe nuclear power plants, there's so many running globally with no problem. And newer designs will keep coming out. America should use more of it

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

sorry no new nuclear commercial plants are being considered by anyone in the U.S. today

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

@@clarkkent9080 Yet they are not only being planned, they are also being built.

@banafys 2 года назад

The is we need the new reactor technology to be in production now. Otherwise, nuclear will not have a resurgence. We'll just fight to hold onto the aging ones.

@levinavio2297 2 года назад

To the anti-nuclear people out there, empower yourselves with knowledge, not fear.

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

LIE #1-“ A nuclear resurgence in the U.S. is being prevented by anti-nukes, the media, leftists, greenies, etc”.. TRUTH- This lie is told by people who ignore the recent new U.S. nuclear build failures and only want to talk about what is happening in other countries. They have no good facts relating to U.S. nuclear builds so they lay blame on these mysterious boogie men. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. Anti-nuclear sentiment was never identified by the utility as causing any of the many delays. Utilities, not the media, decide the most cost effective electrical power source and give the above failures no U.S. utility is even considering new nuclear at this time. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it? In both cases, the ratepayer is stuck with paying the bill.

@bergonius Год назад

Sadly, the majority of people clicking the video are probably pronuclear already.

@tuesdayjam5905 Год назад

Listen to your arrogance. First up, most of what you refer to as anti nuclear people, aren't actually anti nuclear - they are anti nuclear WASTE - there's a big difference. Science still has no permanent safe solution for nuclear waste that's going to deal with the current waste that exists, anytime soon......And burying down a deep hole and forgetting about it, is not a moral, ethical or ecologically acceptable solution.....yet we continue to produce more waste the responsibility for which simply gets passed onto future generations. So temper your presumptive arrogance there buddy.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

@@bergonius I am pronuclear. But I am also a ratepayer and until the U.S. construction industry and project management can build new nuclear cost effectively nuclear is not the answer

@nekoJens Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 Which will probably be never. The complexity is just too much to handle cost effectively, making nuclear a terrible investment due to the high upfront cost. Which gets even worse with current increases in interest rates. It is just economically unfeasible, and we do not have 10 years (or longer) to wait for massive constructions of nuclear power plants, while we could achieve much faster and cheaper decarbonization with solar, wind, large scale storage facilities... Nuclear is too expensive to save us. Same thing for fusion.

@jonathanlanglois2742 Год назад

In Québec, Gentilly II was shut down a decade ago. In our case, we can supply ourselves fully with clean energy without that reactor. The cost of refurbishing that reactor were just so high that it did not make sense.

@oakbellUK Год назад

Note the image used at 4:35. It looks like that's the result of the nuclear accident. Presumably it the result of the tsunami?

@joelborden3242 2 года назад

It’s about 25 years to get a nuclear power plant built in the USA.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

The US has regularly built small modular reactors every year for many decades in two years or less for millions, not billions.

@pattybaselines Год назад

Doesn't have to be this way.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

@@kevinkarlwurzelgaruti458 Yeah, China doesn't have the regulatory overreach problems the US has. The US military also doesn't have the worry of the griping public and build them on ships every year.

@iranexplained1828 2 года назад

Nuclear is the safest energy source statistically. By far!

@jbvalentin854 2 года назад

Well yes and no if you look at deaths per terawatt hour it is less than wind and solar however on cost of accidents per terawatt hour it is a lot more expensive since u need to evacuate entire cities

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@@jbvalentin854 And you cannot go back to those abandoned areas for millennia.

@vernonfrance2974 2 года назад

@Iran Explained Sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever. Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down? Nuclear plants are vulnerable to natural catastrophes, power outages that could prevent the pumping of cooling water which keeps the reactor rods from a melt down, and also from terrorist attacks and war. Nuclear Reactors use enormous quantities of water to cool their cores and prevent melt downs. They dump the heated water which damages ecosystems which are evolved to live in cool environments. The only reason to run the risks of the extremely expensive and dangerous expansion of nuclear energy is so that the ELITE can maintain their monopoly on our energy supply. They don't want the people getting their own renewable, abundant and clean sources like from the sun, the wind, the water, the earth's internal heat and from hydrogen found in every drop of water. The externalities (hidden costs) of maintaining the expended sites and radioactive wastes will have to be paid for by future generations for MILLENIA! Are they unaware that sites like Chernobyl and Fukushima have to be abandoned for virtually forever? Don't they know that Fukushima is dumping enormous quantities of radioactive sea water into our oceans because they need sea water to keep the reactor cores from a melt down?

@iranexplained1828 2 года назад

@@vernonfrance2974 Chernobyl has gone down to virtually no radioactivity in most areas by now, there is tours to go see the damn place. There is simply no future where we are industrial and don't use nuclear en mass to replace hydrocarbons.

@Andysaid420 2 года назад

*9:21* The Geico guy in the back like "ehh idk if we can insure that..."

@dinosaurdude5668 2 года назад

Everyone pushing “green energy” needs to watch this and understand this information is all very true.

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

Of course its true its on the internet

@dinosaurdude5668 2 года назад

The fact that there is no massive battery storage for solar and wind, is a major problem. alternative energy needs base load power, Germany voluntarily shut down 20 nuclear reactors to buy more fissile fuel from Russia… Those who work in the energy sectors have known this for years. Not because the internet says it, because a decade of poor decisions are now tangible.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

@@dinosaurdude5668 And until we have a quantum leap in energy storage technology, that will.always be true. That's the biggest failing of renewables.

@nicholasgrubb151 2 года назад

One of the biggest users of electricity into the future is data processing and storage. Where I live in Ireland projected to be soon 30%. This needs 24/7/365 supply. Thus you have SMR station. Then the data centres. Then down stream from both, using the waste heat, massive complexes of hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic growing, all totally PESTICIDE free. This being the next big health issue in its relationship to the likes of Parkinsons disease. Then the Black Solider fly units, their larvae eating our outrageous quantities of food waste, here again in Ireland, over a million tonnes a year, before being fed the fish and the fowl, the present feeding of which constitutes two of the greatest environmental scandals of the last fifty years. The food is grown ready for nearly consumption, not weeks of transport from some water deprived, semi slave plantation in God knows where. Point being - to get new nuclear going, needs a whole lot more interests on board. All of course should be put in the very capable hands of the world Military Industrial complex. This is the Warming World War we supposed to be fighting.

@nicktecky55 2 года назад

The slogan is "Reduce, Repurpose, Recycle", I believe. Abolishing cryptocurrency would be a start in reducing demand for data centres. Establish government monopolies over home deliveries, maximum 3 per day per neighbourhood, using EVs instead of diesel. We used to survive that way, it was called the Post Office. That reduces the FC effect of internet shopping, or of course we could just stop doing it. BTW, they are called greenhouses, and biological pest control is commonplace everywhere. So your big idea is to turn food waste into more food? Turning vegetable matter into animal protein? Why did nobody think of doing that before? Of course you could just incinerate it, and turn it into electricity, given its ultimate source, it would count towards FC targets. And it could be used to power those data centres of course. Or just buy what you need instead.

@bernardfinucane2061 2 года назад

The chances of a nuclear build-out in the US is very dim indeed. It would be amazing if output were as high as it is now in 10 years. The fleet is aging fast, and there are no concrete plans for new plants. Meanwhile the price of solar continues to collapse. The claim that Germany decided to get out of nuclear because of Fukushima is a flat out lie. The decision was made in 2001.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

China is building nuke plats at breakneck speed, while selling the rest of the world solar panels. Guess who will be the new world superpower.

@maxheadrom3088 2 года назад

Fusion is a promising technology but for now we really need fission. There's the ITER project plus two developments at MIT on the alloys for the superconductive coils needed to keep the plasma away from the walls of the fusion reactor. One is a film with the 1980s IBM superconductive ceramic deposited on top of it and the other is an alloy that supports 10 times higher magnetic fields. (the superconductive coils are usually made of Niobium-Titanium wires but the magnetic fields are so high that it causes iron atoms, for instance, to move inside the coil and group - the phenomenon can cause the coils to break apart. The new alloy developed by the MIT team uses three metals and manages to hold the ferromagnetic impurities fixed avoiding the dangerous grouping. Thanks to @Tech Ingredients for the information about the alloys, btw!)

@szajbathecat8897 2 года назад

I just wanna say "a few" things about fusion... Argument 1 (for nuclear): Even including Chernobyl in the statistics (although nobody advocates building graphite-moderated reactors of the type without containment domes and strong negative void coefficients), current fission nuclear is the safest energy source we have. Waste is not a scientific nor technical problem. It is primarily a public relations problem. 99.5% of waste is unused fuel if the fuel cycle were to be completed; the rest (actual fission products) is highly radioactive due in part to its short half-life - meaning it decays away quickly. Its radiation levels are below that of regular uranium (the natural ore it came from) in less than 300 years. Argument 2 (against fusion): Fusion as an energy source DOESN'T EXIST. Therefore it cannot be "cleaner" than an actual energy source. Also, I suppose these pro-fusion/anti-fission types haven't thought much about how tritium will inevitably escape into the atmosphere due to it being nearly impossible to contain 100% in metal vessels. And I don't think we will be replacing multi billion dollar plants after a few years due to hydrogen embrittlement. Argument 3 (against fusion) (sarcastic): Yes, it's so simple! Let's pick a project that's from the fundamental beginning impossible to make practical and economical, and let's bet the farm on it! Perfectly responsible policy! I mean money (and inflation) are infinite after all! Argument 4 (straight up spitting facts against fusion): if the same money had been put in thorium rather than this, we might have something closer to a roadmap to ubiquitous clean energy. instead, we have a politicized nightmare of something that is much more inaccessible than fission. we could build reactors with current tech that are almost impossible to melt down, literally eat nuclear waste (even tho its not a problem as i explained in another one of my massive files like this), and are much cheaper to build and operate. instead we funnel money into extravaganzas like this that have extremely high energy input needs which drastically cut down on output, if there’s an overall net difference in the future it won’t be much going forward. and it will be EXPENSIVE. not only that, but it still actually makes nuclear waste (if it’s neutronic), which is what many people dont know and think fusion energy makes no waste at all and think thats one of its many positives, which is straight up wrong. if you thought fission energy was pricy this will be a whole new level. Argument 5 (for nuclear): Just better uranium-based reactor can solve the energy carbon footprint instantly. (Oh yeah and dont even worry about the waste i already covered this elsewhere as i said in argument 4) But at least with next-gen reactors, which are being researched as we speak, it can be recycled. Thorium is still better in my opinion though. Argument 6 (a short one, against fusion): Even net energy gain isn't good enough. Even having a practical reactor in engineering terms isn't good enough. The real problem is cost. Will it compete with cheap renewable energy sources plus cheap grid scale energy storage? The answer is almost certainly, no.

@The-Real-Kevin Год назад

I love technology. It moves forward in amazing ways.

@mjohn5921 2 года назад

Vowing to stop nuclear powered electricity generation because of the few disasters is like a kid wanting to change his mom after she got angry at him

@clarkkent9080 2 года назад

No U.S. utility is even considering the building of new nuclear plants and investor owned utilities are shutting old ones down because they are not cost effective. Stop blaming anti-nuclear or the past accidents for the failures, the failures of the industry in building new nuclear in the U.S. is the one to blame

@ricecakeboii94 2 года назад

I would argue that the past 50 years have been a new era dark age with nuclear technology. Imagine if we weren’t scared about nuclear & are 50 years ahead. We probably would’ve been on Mars by now.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk 2 года назад

A half century of anti-nuke propaganda from the media.

@ViIgax 2 года назад

Yeah thanks a lot, tree huggers.

@NavarroRefugee 2 года назад

I mean I dunno about Mars but our global warming situation would certainly be way less dangerous than it is.

@thecrazyinsanity 2 года назад

@@NavarroRefugee i mean, space travel probably has had the most major hit from this, with examples like nuclear thermal rockets, nuclear electric rockets, (not really caused by this but still) and the orion drive

@ricecakeboii94 2 года назад

@@NavarroRefugee nuclear submarines today can outlast food supplies. Imagine nuclear fission rockets & life support systems leveraging mini reactors. There’s so much untapped potential that we’ve lost in the past 50 years. Kinda like in the dark ages no one in the dark knew they were moving backwards until 100 years in the future.

@infinateU Год назад

The Safire Sun basically rearranges electrons in their orbitals , resulting in the remediation of radioactive waste/materials.

@benhoughton00 Год назад

can we use old gas pipelines to pipe desalinated water? to give the network a future to work for? maybe straight to industry maybe even to pipe brine to extract rare Metals from the left over Brian straight to industrys for processing. just a thought

@briank351 2 года назад

We need to reform our regulations to allow quicker development and implementation of SMRs (small modular reactors). We should be mass producing these reactors instead of each one being unique. This drives down cost and provides redundancy.

@pierregravel-primeau702 2 года назад

All that is based on nothing. I wonder how in every industry in the world, people want to scale up and in Nuclear energy you want to scale down. My guess it's start up economy where you can claim anything and get billions in capital without producing anything usefull!

@cyrilsuperkonar3422 2 года назад

SMR’s are not safe enough especially if there is plenty of them

@Cody_Handsome 2 года назад

MSFR (Molten Salt Fast Neutron Reactors) utilizing Thorium is safe and effective. They can’t blow up like a reactor utilizing water and thorium is a by product

@briank351 2 года назад

@@cyrilsuperkonar3422 why?

@cyrilsuperkonar3422 2 года назад

@@Cody_Handsome maybe but for that you need to have a really advanced nuclear technology to develop it which is not the case when greens sabotage all of the effort

@frequentlycynical642 2 года назад

Saw a TED talk awhile back. The man laid out facts, like, you know, actual numbers, how solar and wind cannot meet the needs of our increasingly electrified economy.

@1968Christiaan 2 года назад

There is an even better you tube "economics of nuclear energy" by a Professor who calmly pulls apart the economics of nuclear power. Basically no-one sensible is going to invest in this. Nuclear power was only half-way economical because it was supported by nuclear weapons programmes. Have a look at that video.....

@frequentlycynical642 2 года назад

@@1968Christiaan And, of course, you provide a link...........

@frequentlycynical642 2 года назад

@@1968Christiaan I'd love to look at that video but you don't provide a link. Yes, I've heard that it may or may not be a net positive, but, bottom line, I find it hard to believe that it is net negative. And, don't forget the many on the cusp advanced nuclear technologies. Not the old ones.

@afterthesmash Год назад

Ken Luongo is a big deal in this space. I'm always happy after watching a clip if it delivers one good name.

@gospideygo8781 Год назад

Thank you for the positive and hopeful message. I believe we’ll get there. We have to let the old ways go even though they will be economically painful.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

We have had been extremely fortunate with low prices from easily accessible fuel. With wind and solar the price will be astronomical and enduring massive rolling blackouts to boot.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

You are correct it will be painful. Just ask the people of South Carolina and Georgia. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently $30.2 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 Yet you continue to ignore that the US and many other countries have built and operated small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.

@clarkkent9080 Год назад

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk LIE #3 - “We have been building Small Modular Reactors (SMR) for years around the world for millions not billions.” TRUTH- People who cannot find new nuclear successes in the U.S. cite this about Navy nuclear propulsion SMRs as a distraction. Navy reactors only produce 70 Mw (most of that for propulsion not electrical) compared to a typical PWR (7% U235 enrichment) producing 1,200 Mw and can only produce that small amount using 95% enriched U235 costing $1 billion just for the fuel. The military is not required to meet the safety standards of the commercial industry and Navy reactors do not have the same safety features of commercial plants since they use the ocean as the ultimate melt-down safety system. Nuclear powered ships shutdown their reactors while in port to minimize the possibility of an accident near populated areas. No Navy reactor has ever been converted or used to provide commercial electrical power. Tif these people want to use Navy reactors as examples, they also must admit that millions of tons of highly radioactive waste from these reactors have been dumped into the sea and hundreds of sailors have died in reactor accidents.

@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Год назад

@@clarkkent9080 So you think nuclear powered Navel vessels do not exist? Wow, now you are sounding like a flat earther. This is very easily searched and confirmed. And if you put a leash on your NRC dog, those same companies could be building them for the US commercial market.