Billionaires say nuclear will save us; They also happen to own nuclear companies

[@electricviking]

Click here to get a free charger and installation when pre-ordering the G6 xpeng.com.au/?qr=726XPO The best solar company in Australia just installed my new solar system. Check them out here: www.resinc.com.au/electricviking

[@lalsingh7340]

Hit 220k today. Appreciate you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 34k in November 2024,

[@WTsolley]

I would really love to know how much work you did put in to get to this stage

[@lalsingh7340]

I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver

[@devpaul80]

As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.

[@EricLurie-n7]

Jihan Wu Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love him here in Canada 🇨🇦 as he has been really helpful and changed lots of life's

[@RichardArthurBaker]

His guidance allowed me to restructure my retirement plan, resulting in an estimated $700,000 more by the time I retire.

[@marccourtney5565]

Also there's nuclear reactor in the sky that can supply all our energy needs...It's called the sun.

[@jjamespacbell]

Real Fusion and available anywhere in the world, I have a fusion collector on my home like so many others and a couple of batteries to power my home in the evening. "Clean Sun" to paraphrase Don the Con

[@martina5328]

The only problem is that conditions makes it non accessible from time to time. And it would take about 10 000 years at current production rate to produce enough batteries to support us for 2 weeks.

[@knowthetruthhere]

Misleading comment means you don't understand the logistics. It's up to production capabilities of the latest technology​@@martina5328

[@Dungshoveleux]

Fusion reactor.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

There is not enough copper for solar and wind deployments to meet demand. It is not the amount of copper in the crust of the earth. It is the amount that can be mined and processed. Look it up ...

[@EdAsher]

The advantage of renewables is it can enable ‘energy sovereignty ‘- nations can produce their own energy without being influenced by foreigners states. The other advantage is it enables ‘democratisation of energy’- individuals and communities can produce their own power. Both are dangerous concepts to established dangerous foreign states, financial institutions and big money.

[@andrewjoy7044]

This, I feel, is being led by China who are providing the world with cheap solar panels. Many African and Asian countries are importing these panels at a huge rate and individual citizens are buying them to provide power to their homes because grid electricity is either no-existant or far too unreliable or far too expensive. The world, including Australia, has the Chinese to thank for this revolution in the "democratisation of electricity".

[@peteinwisconsin2496]

Renewable energy is absolutely giving the middle finger to energy colonialism. It really galls me that the Hawaiian island of Molokai is awash in sunshine + has the geography for pumped hydro storage, yet we send them barge-loads of diesel fuel for which they send us money they don't have. They get the little money they have by taking in tourists who are wrecking their paradise. This is all so stupid but it makes money for the capitalists.

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

In a country like Australia a family owning their own detached home can be energy independent for under $30K an investment which will serve for at least 25yrs with present technology. With a typical Ozz house costing $600K that is 5% of the initial cost Miss two overseas family holidays and its free power for more than two decades. All down to priorities, "i want it now" or long term benefit.

[@martina5328]

We need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years at current production rate to cover 2 weeks of our power demand. And demand is scheduled to increase a lot. Get it?

[@robertwhite3503]

​@martina5328 Where did the 10,000 years figure come from?

[@rassabossa4554]

Don't you just love how China keeps ruining US oligarch's plans? "We need to give half a trillion to the oligarchs so they can build out AI !!" Meanwhile, China says "ummm guys? Solar and battery is already cheaper than nuclear will ever be and uh, that AI thing? We just released, for free, a model that takes a fraction of the cost to run and build". The US response: (sticks fingers in ears) "La-la-la-la...I can't hear you".

[@tompava3923]

“If you can’t centralize the energy grid, people can just decide to go “off grid“ and then none of us makes any more money!” (Anonymous Energy Magnate)

[@martina5328]

Just that the grid supplies more than your house - everything you consume. And at current battery production rate we need to produce for about 10 000 years to cover 2 weeks of our current power demand.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

Few people can actually go offgrid entirely. Many enterprises, large and small ones, will seek to generate a part of their own energy. But hardly any enterprise will generate all of its energy. Virtually everyone will have to rely on the grid as a supplier or as a system to feed surplus energy into. In Germany we have the example of RWE and BASF who joined their efforts to erect a huge offshore windpark in the North Sea. RWE is one of the "Big Four" in the energy business, and BASF is one of the biggest chemistry Enterprises in Germany. BASF wants to produce energy by themselves, so they invested. In the future, the energy companies will run the grid, plus the big things like offshore wind parks, and gas power stations. They won't go out of business.

[@dan8375]

I wanted to mention that Google is planning to use geothermal power for its data center in Nevada so geothermal is already happening. Geothermal loop system is being built in Germany. Quaise Energy it's beginning it's pilot plant facility for millimeter wave drilling, there are others that are beginning to happen all of this is better and cheaper than nuclear. Geothermal can also be used as peaker plants. Geothermal is more expensive than wind and solar but it has a place for use in the infrastructure left behind by coal plants. Thank you for this episode 🙂

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

Australia had an experimental geothermal plant supplying a small local community, Geodynamic, but it was plagued by metalergical problems in the piping. Had the government invested in the project along with ligh voltage transmission lines it could have provided a reliable backup supply. Submarines gets more political funding.

[@RussellFineArt]

I'm fine with a few smaller nuclear reactors, to prove how insanely expensive they are and how extremely uncompetitive the power they produce is. Solar + BESS is, by far, the cheapest form of power on the planet and will continue to grow until nearly 70+ of global power is generated from it. The remainder will be wind and hydro.

[@grantbuttenshaw]

You have NFI

[@RCdiy]

They refuse to explain how they will pay for thousands of years of safety so someone in the future doesn’t try and break into stored nuclear waste.

[@grantbuttenshaw]

@RCdiy we bury it ...this has already been discussed...

[@ajemohaltom3560]

Agreed on the reality here. Nuclear is not the path forward. Improved battery tech is.

[@ABa-os6wm]

Yep. Price per each and every kWh is 3-5x more than any other electricity source. There are only 2 reasons to build new nuclear plants: 1) getting Plutonium (ex: China) 2) getting tax funded subventions ( ex: USA) Electricity output is just a small bonus.

[@larryc1616]

It's a bridge to full renewables by taking away fossil fuel pollution and global warming. They're very safe today

[@martina5328]

At current production rate we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years to cover about 2 weeks of our current power demand. And we are looking at a big increase in demand due to electrification. Maybe you should think a bit more.

[@mankitwong4165]

​@@ABa-os6wmall these figures are only based on annual output without considering lifespan of the facilities and amount of curtailment loss due to wind and solar intermittency. try stretch the economics model to 70 years for nuclear which most operating reactors (built more than half a century ago) are expected to last. and you will see there difference. doubt any wind and solar can last half that long, let alone the batteries.

[@ajemohaltom3560]

@@martina5328 It appears you're thinking of this from the grid scale. And that's certainly the context of this video. But consider a household consuming 30 kWh/day and charging EVs perhaps 20 kWh/day. A closet could hold the Tesla Powerwalls to do this and the roof of the house would be well over enough to charge the Powerwalls (~10 kWs of panels).

[@mikeshafer]

I’m a fan of nuclear for 24/7 power. Small modular reactors are super cool. It’s not a zero sum game though - solar on the roof and nuclear for base power. I am also a heavy investor in OKLO and I’m happy with the stock so far. Their tech is super cool.

[@johnd01]

Could you look at Germinie's attempt to go green? Reliable electricity costs have escalated, and coal plants are being reopened. Home electricity costs as much as twice as much as it does in California, USA. France's nuclear electricity costs much less than half what it does in Germany.

[@faqeersein2777]

Solar is great, but there is a caveat... As long as 1816 does not happen... One volcanic eruption in Indonesia created a year of winter... Nuclear as a minimum backup is a valid idea...

[@exhippie503ommp2]

The guy that recked the future crushing all start-ups. Now, he puts on a sweater & is in charge of human health care & future energy, all so he can get to the children chained on a friend's island. Sad world!

[@Raoul_Volfoni]

Anti-nuclear lobbies are the same guys that sale diesel and gaz. This is why I take 78% of my VE electricity comes from nuclear plants at night @ 12 to 22g / kwh CO2 max

[@jeffbangkok]

I lived beside the Ohio river when they shipped the Three Mile island core to Idaho by barge. Interesting thing my cousin worked in Idaho for Bechtel. Never knew what his job was, however we buried him in 1999 due to cancer. Some of my classmates worked at the Piketon uranium enrichment plant near us. They didn't have long lives either.

[@martina5328]

Try living next to a wind turbine. Nuclear kills the least amount of humans (and birds and insects) per KWh produced.

[@ThomasDoragh]

nuclear fission just to boil water to make sream to turn a turbine. like a steam locomotivie.

[@frankcoffey]

Yep, that's not solid state and when it breaks you lose the entire output, not just some of it. Single point of failure power plants are not the best way to manage energy.

[@Buran01]

Nuclear is toasted. Went from 20% of commercially available electricity in 2001 to less than 9% in 2021,a nd will be much less in the next 20 years. It already bankrupt EDF, the largest nuclear operator in the world. Totally unprofitable industry, if you want to burn your money invest in nuclear. Also: if you really want to burn your money invest in AI, specially in ChatGPT...

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

Nuclear power is great in theory until you factor in itsrisks and initial costs. A nuclear accident cannot be ruled out despite precautions against known risks. The consequences are catastrophic for any population living down wind of another Fuloshima-like unexpected even.

[@martina5328]

You have no clue. Fix Germany ! They shut down nuclear and now burn coal, oil, gas, and import nuclear. They have a crisis. When it is windy and sunny power price even turns negative. That is the producers are going bankrupt. More windturbines or solar does not help. To cover our demand (power) for 2 weeks we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years at our current production rate.

[@Rainbowhawk1993]

I have a feeling 2-3 years down the line, the Nuclear plants they plan to build will be abandoned when the surge of renewable energy makes it more economically viable than the nuclear plants ever could.

[@jjamespacbell]

No nuclear plant in the USA has ever been abandoned, long after they are shut down and no longer making any electricity they are forced to keep them open to maintain the spent nuclear fuel storage facilities for decades or centuries.

[@martina5328]

When it is windy /sunny the price of power even turns negative here in northern Europe - as a result those producers are not making money - they go bankrupt. To cover our power demand for about 2 weeks we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years at our current production rate. Good luck with that.

[@martina5328]

Feel less, think more...

[@ElwoodEBlues]

​@@martina5328yes it would be utter nonsense to rely on batteries alone, but they will be very good for short term backup for some hours and to store excess energy from solar and wind, stabilising the grid. Gas powered plants, together with imports from neighbouring countries, are the way to stabilise the grid.

[@martina5328]

@ElwoodEBlues But weather (no wind or sun) is not local to a country. All of Europe experience winter at the same time. So you think burning fossil fuels and killing millions of birds and thousands of tons of insects is better than Nuclear? Germany is now burning coal, oil, and gas (plus importing nuclear) as they shut down their reactors.

[@vijjreddy]

Solar and winds will get higher priority but German experience showed wind stops, and sun doesn't come out.. hence those supplies are not reliable...

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

The Germans had a reliable cheap energy supply till the US destroyed the NS pipeline so they could take over the supply at several times the previous cost.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

Yes, but this topic gets overexaggerated by certain media and political parties from the right that try to win the current election in Germany. Of course you need backup power stations if you mainly rely on wind and solar, but nuclear power stations are not suitable as backup - they should operate at most of their capacity through the year. The same applies to coal power stations. Germany has phased out nuclear for good but still has over 30 gigawatts of coal and another 35 of gas power plants in operation, together with biomass with another 10 GW and a few GW of hydropower. There are enough power plants available to supply the needed energy at any time. On workdays, usual demand is around 65 GW in Germany. Suitable backups are pumped storage, batteries, and gas fired power plants. Germany has some pumped storage and can supply about 10 gigawatts of power from them, but only for limited time, and the German geography does not provide many opportunities to build new pumped storage plants. But battery prices have have dropped a lot, and currently there are 160 large battery projects in Germany waiting for approval. New gas power plants of about 10 GW are planned in Germany, and more are needed as we plan to phase out the remaining coal power plants within the next 10 to 15 years. Gas power plants are the cheapest to build but expensive to operate. There are plans to finance them as backup systems instead of paying by the kilowatt hour. Offshore wind production in the North Sea will increase from currently 9 to about 30 GW within 5 years, and there are plans to increase that up to 70 GW until 2045. That will suffice for about 250 TWh per year - half of Germanys annual consumption. By the way, Germany imports 3% of its energy from France - that comes from nuclear power stations - but another 2% from Denmark, which is all wind power, and some more percents from Norway and Sweden, which is mostly hydropower. On the other hand, Germany is exporting excess energy to France despite the many French nuclear power stations, namely in winter when French homes are heated with electric heaters. In winter the French nuclear power stations provide just enough energy, and sometimes they need backup ...

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@ElwoodEBlues > Of course you need backup power stations if you mainly rely on wind and solar, but Now, count the cost of those extra assets as part of the cost of wind/solar, and we can discuss. But you can't have 'cheap' wind/solar and also think these extra assets aren't a part of the total cost. > Germany is exporting excess energy to France despite the many French nuclear power stations, Sure. The data is clear. The French export to Germany when electricity prices are high. Buy low, sell high. Germany exports to France when electricity prices are low. Buy high, sell low. Genius!

[@ElwoodEBlues]

@@factnotfiction5915 not quite correct. Germany exports when we have lots of excess energy. Why not, if we have market prices around zero. We import when renewable production is low, excess energy is available from neighboring countries, and import is cheaper than starting up spare power stations.

[@joergmaass]

The Oklo site sustained a natural nuclear chain reaction for tens of thousands of years because of the accumulation of uranium salts in a hydrothermal system, according to scientific studies. So yes, it was a natural nuclear reactor and you can prove it because of the ratio of fission products in relation to uranium salts at the site.

[@andreboerema1340]

The widespread praise for DeepSeek over the last few days represents a few more nails in the coffins of the US tech bros and their nuclear ambitions...

[@markumbers5362]

Microsoft bought a nuclear power plant to service its data centre.

[@marccourtney5565]

Can you discuss 'Deep Seek' Sam in relation to AI obviously and how that translates into the technological race in which China is at the forefront and how this is finger lifting moment toward the US?.

[@SunshineShane]

Small nuclear reactors at $500 million each and that are baseload capable and work 24/7 with a reliable, constant output - that sounds really cheap to me compared to wind power with battery backup (for some hours).

[@ElwoodEBlues]

They are probably not that cheap. At least Nuscale has tried - and failed because the construction cost went up so high that the price per kilowatt hour was no longer competitive. Maybe, Terrapower is a better success - we'll see. BTW, wind and solar pretty cheap to build, and battery prices have fallen a lot in the last few years.

[@mankitwong4165]

lots of costs are just compliance and red tapes, the old reactors build over half a century ago are still running and expected to keep going for another 30 years. Think of whats not expensive in the western world these days. People hate China for different reasons but they are really demonsting how to make things at reasonable costs. the world needs some real competitions ​@ElwoodEBlues

[@gobot109]

If they need a power plant then they should build it themselves.

[@ABa-os6wm]

The "externalities" are still shared by everyone. (Read state will be in charge of extremely costly cleanups)

[@EVCurveFuturist]

Deepseek has just demonstrated it can match, and even outperform, GPT-4-level large-scale AI models while using 13x less energy. Calling this a game-changer is an understatement. What’s more, it’s open-source, meaning anyone with the resources can adopt and build on it. The implications for AI development and accessibility are massive.

[@jaymon9049]

Do your solar panel costs include the cost of the land?

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

Have you crossed the Nullabor Plain? The native animals would then have a little shade.

[@craighill6034]

Really important technology, as wind and solar are vulnerable - susceptible to not work in catastrophic extinction events, where large amounts of ash go into the atmosphere.

[@holycreation]

And here in australia we got peter Dutton pushing for nuclear powerplants.

[@StephenJohnson-jr5hp]

Nuclear to power AI, wait, maybe in China.

[@ABa-os6wm]

China is not that dumb. They know that's B.S. AI is fast developing stuff, weeks, months, nuclear plants need decades to build, and half centuries to operate pseudo economically. The reactors they built target plutonium production. Electri city output is just a small non-vital bonus.

[@danielmorris3415]

True. No oil giants or corporations are interested in profit.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

The big IT tech companies need gigawatts of reliable energy sources. Running your own power station provides independence from energy supply companies which to my knowledge have a monopoly in some US states. If these power stations are close enough to data centres the danger of disruption is much lower as the American grid does not provide the stability that we used to have in, for instance, Europe. All three new reactors in Europe and also Vogtle in the United States exceeded both their construction schedules and construction prices and will never produce energy at a competitive price. NuScale has failed as well with their SMR design - too costly, not competitive. But for a tech company supplying itself first of all with stable and reliable energy source the advantages may outweigh the cost. Btw, the German professor Quaschning, a physicist specialized in renewable energies, speculated that one reason for Britain and France to build new nuclear power stations at any cost maybe the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons which both countries have.

[@JoshDTech]

It's always the bomb side hustle.

[@RossBurrell-w8g]

It's a coal keeper strategy. Pure and simple 😢

[@ElwoodEBlues]

Not in Europe. European industry is required to buy CO2 certificates. Initially, they got them for free, but currently, corporations that need more certificates have to buy them at a specialist stock exchange. Current price is around 65 Euros per ton. Europe has a plan to become CO2 neutral by 2045. That's why energy suppliers that still run coal power plants want to get rid of them.

[@russnotdisclosed7249]

Having nuclear baseload is a wise idea along with wind, solar and batteries. Also why send all our dollars to China for green energy equipment when nuke keeps all the dollars here.

[@peteinwisconsin2496]

Any dispatchable electricity source can keep the lights on. The advantage of base supply electricity is that it is CHEAP, and the more expensive supplies make up the difference when needed. Using the most expensive source of electricity available for base supply is really stupid because the cheap CCNG plants are then shut off so the most expensive (and non-dispatchable) nukes can continue to run.

[@simonmiller5118]

You are clearly clueless. Nothing at all "wise" about you or what you suggest. Educate yourself.

[@martina5328]

​@@simonmiller5118When it is windy or sunny price of power approaches zero in northern Europe, it even turns negative. This means that the companies running wind and solar is doing very bad. When it is not windy / sunny in Europe there is not enough power without nuclear or fossil fuels. Make your choice. At current production rate we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years to cover 2 weeks of current demand. More wind / solar in Europe will not help us when it is not windy or sunny. One more wind turbine when there is no wind does not help. Do you understand that?

[@russnotdisclosed7249]

@@simonmiller5118 Stop your nonsense.

[@LTRand]

Billionaires also own solar and wind companies. The thing is we learned from the last 15 years watching Germany struggle. They couldn't outdo what France did in the 80's with nuclear. A single additonal nuke plant could make my state of Maryland 100% CO2 free for electric generation. We knew tech was going to drive more energy usage. We knew 15 years ago electric cars would need the grid to double their power generation. Solar and batteries can't get there fast enough.

[@gzcwnk]

As an ex-design engineer is this is indeed odd. A datacentre load is very stable and predictable annually so pretty trivial to size the 24/7/365 demand curve. hence you can "easily' work out how many solar panels are needed and how much battery is needed. The next significant point is as your demand grows adding incremental solar and battery is quick, easy and cheap. Going for nuclear then makes no engineering nor economic sense, it has to be an external factor.

[@factnotfiction5915]

> it has to be an external factor. Ok. I'll agree. But, so what? Given they are interested in profit, did they deploy solar+batteries? No, they are going with nuclear - for their own self-interest. (Except Facebook, which is going with natural gas!) Form a company with the Electric Viking and sell them a better solar+battery solution! Make it happen!

[@martina5328]

More wind or solar power does not help ! The price of power approaches zero and even turns negative in northern Europe - when it is windy / sunny. The wind / sun power producers are going bankrupt. Power is needed when it is not windy or sunny ! Choose from nuclear or fossil fuels ! Germany did chose fossil fuels (gas) and importing nuclear power. It did not work. Fix Germany ! When it is not sunny or windy in Europe it is not sunny or windy in Europe. Transfer power from other continents is not feasable. Batteries is not feasable - we need a thousand times all the batteries we have produced so far - to cover 2 weeks of power. At current production rate it would take about 10 000 years to produce enough batteries for 2 weeks of power.

[@vijjreddy]

whatever Bill Gates say about Nuclear, retail buyer will choose his supplier based on prices only...anyway, if these small modular units become successful and price competitive, mostly those will pre-sell their entire production to bulk consumers, and are not likely to be in public markets

[@isaquejr]

Pushing hard for another awesome Metaverse

[@rfengr00]

A lot of these companies are working on fusion, not fission, so it’s disingenuous to lump them all into “nuclear”.

[@MagnumiPad]

It may be too early to take nuclear of the table, but I take your point, I like Thorium.

[@martina5328]

At current rate of production we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years to cover 2 weeks of our current power demand.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

There are 4 times more of Thorium than Uranium, but some Uranium is needed to initiate the breeder process which converts Thorium to Uranium. Thorium reactors do not exist yet but are under development. Both China and India have plans to build them. I hope they succeed, but on the other hand, both elements are limited resources.

[@martina5328]

@ElwoodEBlues We will not run out.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

@ not necessarily, but we need to keep enough U-235 to initiate the breeding process. If that runs out, the breeding option is gone - and it's rare: just 0.7% of all Uranium is U-235.

[@FCisThePunisher]

Actually no one is building Nuclear stations. They are so expensive build and maintain that most private energy providers gradually switch to renewables (especially Solar). The only large Nuclear projects in Europe are funded by Governments (France, UK) and only to maintain current capacity.

[@jackwebb437]

I have lots of rooftop solar panels. I am heavily invested in TESLA stock. But nuclear IS the future. Sam, you aren’t always correct.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

Nuclear should be part of the future, but as nuclear fuel resources are limited I expect that the nuclear era will not last longer than a few decades. Currently, nuclear supplies just 10% of the world's energy demand. At the current of consumption uranium will run out in about 130 years. China is building new nuclear power stations in bigger numbers. If other countries follow, the end of Uranium resources will be reached much earlier. Even breeder reactors need some uranium, so that plan won't work either if the uranium resources are spent.

[@jackwebb437]

@ Honestly I have no clue as to how much uranium we have. BTW, I love your KZbin name. Ever ordered dry white toast? Your buddy ever order four fried chickens and a Coke? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ElwoodEBlues]

@jackwebb437 I have plenty of white toast in my cupboard, but prefer it with cheese, not dry. My friend calls himself "Jake", and it was him who crashed the bluesmobil. It was a red Toyota, not a black and white Dodge of '74😁, and it was on a trip to Sweden not in Chicago. It was in '86, not long after the Challenger and Tschernobyl disasters☢ But for many years I happened to live in an old railway building, very close to the tracks of a major railway line. And yes, the trains went by so often that I didn't even notice🤣 (250 per day - regional express and intercity at daytime, cargo trains in the night). The month ago I went to Spain to pick up another friend's car. It was out of gas, had a flat tyre, and the cigarette lighter was broken - no kidding 😅 What concerns the uranium resources, Wikipedia states that there are 7.8 million tons of uranium that can be mined. Of these, less than 2 million can be mined easily, the rest only with increased efforts as the uranium content of the ore decreases. There may be much more, but how much is unknown, and research must be done to check whether the alleged resources exist or not. Currently, the 400 nuclear power stations worldwide consume about 60.000t of uranium per year. Mining provides only 50.000 tons, the rest is gathered by processing spent fuel rods and material from decommissioned nuclear weapons. That would mean that the resources provide 130 years of energy production. Thorium resources are much more abundant and about 4 times as frequent as uranium. But Thorium requires breeder reactor and some uranium as neutron source. If breeding technology succeeds (China is trying it currently and India will follow) then we had nuclear power for hundreds of years. If breeder reactors would be used to process spent uranium fuel, we might gain thousands of years of energy production. Natural uranium only contains 0.7% of U-235, which is fissible, with all the rest being U-238 which is not. Thorium-232 isn't either, but irradiation with neutrons can turn U-238 into Pu-239 (Plutonium, which is fissible) and Th-232 into U-233 (fissible as well). So the point is, only fissible atoms can be split by hitting them with neutrons, and only that process provides those enormous amounts of energy. U-235 and U-233 atom cores can break up spontaneously (spontaneous fission), and release energy and free neutrons. If breeder reactors become reality, we will have hundreds or even thousands of years of energy production. If they don't, then we stick with uranium only, and the aera of nuclear power will probably end before the Year 2100. China is actively building a lot of nuclear power stations, and that is good news as they will reduce the vast amounts of coal China burns every year. I also hope that India succeeds with its intentions to build Thorium breeder reactors. But for the Western world, namely the United States and Europe, I don't see that we really build new nuclear power stations at a larger scale. Those few ones completed in the past decades became way too expensive and took too long to build. The price of the energy provided by them can in no way compete with energy from renewable sources - that on top can be implemented quickly and at a very moderate price ....

[@basil8940]

@@ElwoodEBlues This not a question of physical scarcity. It's a question of economics. In terms of physical scarcity, if we wanted to mine the Earth for Thorium alone, to a depth of 1km, there is 30 billion years of Thorium to power the planet with. The Sun will be a red giant in 5 billion years, but we could power the Earth for another 25 billion years off Thorium alone. Then we have the option to exploit the Moon and Mars, because we know both have lots of Thorium. Uranium is dissolved in seawater. Every year, more Uranium comes out from the mantle at oceanic tectonic plate boundaries and dissolves in seawater. Uranium is every bit a renewable resource as wind and solar. But long after the Sun dies and becomes a white dwarf, the solar panels stop working, and the wind dies off, the tectonic plate boundaries will continue to bring more uranium to the surface. We were hearing about 'peak oil' during the 80s and 90s. The world was going to run out of oil. Jimmy Carter said we were going to run out by the end of the decade, in the 70s, over 50 years ago. It never happened, instead 'somehow' the Saudi Arabia increased their output and then got relegated from first to third largest oil reserves. What happened? Prices increased, technology improved and previously unaccounted reserves such as Canadian oil sands could become economically exploitable. The same thing will happen to nuclear, technology will improve, prices will change and the economic accessibility of Uranium and Thorium will change. We'll never run out, only the cost of extraction can price it out of the market.

[@PercivalFakeman]

Spent a lot of economic analysis time on nuclear power in college. Nuclear has very long lead times, extreme liability that has already occurred in several places around the world. It is just way too expensive compared to batteries and solar. Plus solar can be very incremental. Compare 50 cents a kWh for nuclear and 8 to 15 cents for solar PV. All the while PV has much lower liabilities. If we want small nuclear plants for cloud farms, then these companies can pay for them and keep them close to the farms. This is just unlikely to happen. It simply can not compete. It is dead.

[@martina5328]

College... At current production rate we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years to meet 2 weeks of our current power need.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

​@@martina5328you keep stating this over and over, but it is pointless to build so many batteries. Natural gas is the current solution, and hydrogen may become the future way of storing energy. And nuclear won't solve the equation any time soon.

[@martina5328]

@ElwoodEBlues So you want to burn a lot more fossil fuel...... Great for the environment !...... Start with solving Germanys crisis. Build these Hydro batteries there ! What are you waiting for ? Germany is now planning to restart nuclear reactors and build new ones. I wonder why...

[@andyfreeze4072]

@@martina5328 your full of your own brown stuff

[@koenraad4618]

Who wants to depend on the shrinking uranium stockpile (not to mention blue screens in the nuclear power plant control center, or the full-circle costs of dismantling outdated nuclear power plants and storing nuclear waste)? Who wants to depend on cheap sodium batteries in the near future?

[@lightbringer2938]

Batteries make wind and solar the thing to depend on.

[@michaelmoore6708]

Small modular reactors produce MORE nuclear waste than the large ones per unit of energy .

[@andrewkenner4472]

Some discussion of the electric power situation in South Australia through solar and wind might provide a very concrete example of what is possible and happening. It also might be useful to counter the extraordinary lies told to the population by the Liberal party and others.

[@alexco5881]

Just look at the economics of Hinckley C in the UK. EdF contracted a strike price of 190GBP per MWh. That is 19p per KWh or 37 cents Australian per KWh. I see youtubers talking about charging their UK based EVs using 7p per KWh night rate. Spot the nuclear subsidy funneled through UK's national grid

[@asajelfs8170]

In reality, setting up a nuclear reactor is really hard. Installing solar cells and batteries, on the other hand, is really easy.

[@martina5328]

In reality, when it is not windy or sunny there is no power.

[@asajelfs8170]

@@martina5328 No uranium. No power.

[@martina5328]

@asajelfs8170 There is more than 90% left for future reactors to burn in the "waste" to also make the waste safe. Thus with uranium we have 230 or 2300 years of use at current estimations (not counting stored "waste") at current consumption. We have Thorium enough for 40 000 years of current power production. (At Thorium production cost of about $3000 per kilo - we mine the easy deposits first) And before then we are likely to have mastered fusion.

[@asajelfs8170]

@ Where does all that waste go ? Has to be stored for thousands of years. Who is going to pay for that ?

[@martina5328]

@@asajelfs8170 The "waste" will be used as fuel in new reactors, rendering it not dangerous.

[@Lost_Johnny]

DeepSeek seems have made the idea that you need massive numbers of GPUs for AI not so plausible.

[@ronin4580]

We also need to work the other end of the problem, the most polluting power plants in the world produce an out-sized amount of the air pollution. The 100 most polluting power plants produce ~40% of air pollutants.

[@RockenRod]

The Electric Viking is very biased on this subject...I have listened to many of your videos for a few months now. Now I finally see how severely biased you are towards renewables - Why is Nuclear so much of a problem for you? While there is some justification for this one-eyed view when you live in Saudi Arabia or Australia, where the sun and otherwise unused land are so abundant, the battery or other (hydro, mechanical) storage's ability to last more than 4 hours (e.g. coping with more than the Duck Curve) will be excessively expensive compared to future Nuclear reactors. You must consider what happens when a volcanic or nuclear winter stops solar power from working efficiently due to years of solar filtering. These events have historically occurred in similar intervals to viral pandemics and are a serious issue for heavy solar (e.g., PV) grids. Consider that before COVID-19 occurred, people in the know would have been fairly silent about pandemic preparedness, fearing overly critical disdain for the rare probability of such an event occurring in the near future. Perhaps people in the know are also quiet about volcanic winters, fearing ridicule from the likes of yourself. Further, there is nothing wrong with nuclear power if you understand the historical biases, Cold War-driven economic motivations, and the overly emotive responses from people who grew up in an era of fossil fuel backdoor-funded astroturfing propaganda on how bad nuclear is/was. The reality is very different from the common person's understanding. Your research appears pretty good, but your emotive inflections on presenting this are so dismissive that it is very off-putting (particularly to well-informed people). There are so many new Nuclear startups in the recent decade that you cannot possibly dismiss them all as crazy, greedy people. Undeniably, a more balanced approach to energy production is a better long-term gamble than a mono-cultural solution with solar. Or duo-cultural solar/wind, both severely impeded by any significant form of extended solar winter. Would you drive across the country (Australia) if you thought there was a possibility of no fuel being available at the refuelling points? No, you wouldn't. Going solar renewables alone is much more risky than you had possibly considered. Surely, a mixed source of energy approach is a better and far safer gamble, even if it may not be the cheapest. You might think of it as an insurance policy on what we don't yet have recent direct experience with. On the subject of millionaires investing in nuclear. Despite the rumours/memes that Bill Gates was involved in vaccine conspiracies, he should be congratulated for his pre-emptive work on pandemic preparedness. All because he and his wife realise they got supper lucky with being in the right place at the right time to maintain an almost monopoly in their Windows OSes. Now, later in life, their focus has transformed from young entrepreneurs, and now they want to make as much of a difference through their good fortune as possible through their foundation (this is pretty normal for people who are not narcissists and have access to the resources to do so). Now, with that in mind, he and his foundation are taking a financial risk with Terra Power, and it is for good reason. He is trying to extract the additional 97% free energy that has not been extracted from the light-water reactor "spent" fuel. The waste that many against nuclear power fear will be an enduring problem is instead reprocessed in the Terra Power reactor and used as a fuel source that generates 60 years of power and "processes" the otherwise waste that is then less of a problem after it has been consumed. Perhaps you should be more balanced and stop carrying the solar parrot on your shoulder! Yah pirate!

[@RockenRod]

The TMI incident was not a partial meltdown as the eViking suggests but an overheating event that, in terms of danger to people's lives, was a relatively minor incident that released a reasonably small amount of vented radiation. www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html Do some research on the things you abuse. …. In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various government agencies monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well respected organizations, such as Columbia University and the University of Pittsburgh, have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment. Impact of the Accident A combination of personnel error, design deficiencies, and component failures caused the TMI accident, which permanently changed both the nuclear industry and the NRC. Public fear and distrust increased, NRC’s regulations and oversight became broader and more robust, and management of the plants was scrutinized more carefully. Careful analysis of the accident’s events identified problems and led to permanent and sweeping changes in how NRC regulates its licensees - which, in turn, has reduced the risk to public health and safety. …. This is what you would expect from the hyped-up public awareness caused by the coincidental release of the controversial drama film "The China Syndrome". Similarly, while Fukashima was more disastrous, not one death has been directly linked to the event, and perhaps one is distantly linked to radiation exposure. While the direct source of the event, the 7.9 Earthquake killed >25000 people directly. It did pretty good, really, but alas, cleanup may cost a lot. Contrast that with the millions of people who have died as a result of fossil fuel use, and you can see that the nuclear power industry has already saved millions of lives. Indeed, more deaths can already be attributed to renewables than nuclear. Now, with Chornobyl, you can blame that one primarily on the cheapening of individual life and safety concerns on a communist regime. Those Russian reactors had many flaws, including no containment dome, as you can see in all Western reactors. This was primarily the result of Cold War politics driving the USSR to cut corners in an attempt to win the economic race between the two east and west blocks. This probably ultimately contributed to its loss of the Cold War (and for that, we can thank them). Refer: www.keele.ac.uk/extinction/controversy/chernobylandussr/#:~:text=Chernobyl%20shattered%20the%20foundation%20upon,was%20expected%20to%20save%20it..

[@martina5328]

He has no clue of what he is talking about. Clownery.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

A nuclear winter should be no concern at all, should it ever happen. It will be the end of humanity - at least I hope so for the planet's sake. And in a volcanic winter at least the wind should be available. Solar wont go away but of course deliver less. But the real big problem will be the loss of agricultural production, and that's one nuclear can't help against.

[@RockenRod]

@@ElwoodEBlues@ElwoodEBlues, I somewhat agree with the nuclear perspective, but I happen to live in an area of the planet where we might have a chance of surviving. Ultimately, the wind is also driven by solar heating, which is also impacted by some reduction, just like PV solar energy. But both might drop off significantly in a large event such that even significant and expensive batteries cannot do anything to mitigate. To prepare for this prospect, we would need to overbuild the solar-based renewables network by 4x to 10x (400% to 1000%) to deal with a significant solar winter. BTW: only a state-owned government and not a market-driven approach can do that. Considering this makes new tech nuclear a more cost-effective approach. With a war/disaster footing on food production, we could survive many billions on much less food than we currently consume. Also, ethics aside, the West can afford to outbuy the smaller, poorer countries. Although currently small scale we are increasingly moving toward LED-lit food production, which can work off nuclear power to supply food in such an event.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

@ So you might be living on the southern hemisphere, probably in Australia or New Zealand. For the northern hemisphere it's over if a full-blown nuclear conflict happens. I live in Germany, in the middle of Europe, which would be one big nuclear target in that case. I read an article that states that a nuclear winter would let the temperatures on the northern hemisphere drop to -70°C in winter and around 0°C in summer. Even without radiation - which will be strong in that case - survival chances are mimimal, even with sufficient solar panels, even with access to coal. Another problem is that solar panels and connected electonics wouldn't survive the electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), rendering many of these installations useless ...

[@thyristo]

I am glad that the USA has so many permanent nuclear waste disposal sites...

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

Reseach the Dome waste dump in Micronesia, radioactive polution on a large scale but thousands of miles from our coast so the government doesn't give a ....

[@martina5328]

That "waste" will be used as fuel in new reactors.

[@NackDSP]

Bill is also super excited about hydrogen powered vehicles.

[@malcolmgreen8759]

This is a great presentation from the Electric Viking. As an Australian electrical engineer working in this field, and pricing products and designing solar and battery systems, I agree with everything he says 👍🦘🌟

[@factnotfiction5915]

So you're also whining that Microsoft, Google, Amazon are acting in their own best interests and investing in nuclear, not solar+batteries? And that Facebook is investing in natural gas, not solar+batteries? And that the New York electricity utility didn't replace Indian Point nuclear with solar+batteries, but with natural gas? Form a company with the Electric Viking, take your solar+battery solution on the road, and sell it to those companies as being in their own best interest. Stop whining and make it happen! SHOCKING that intelligent people, looking after their own best interests would NOT adopt solar+batteries - maybe you should be reconsidering?

[@mirvine1]

It would be interesting to know if these nuclear plants intended solely for data centers are going to be required to carry third party liability insurance, which many of them have been given an exemption from having to pay for, by corrupt governments, from carrying when supplying the public grid with nuclear power. Let's see if these Billionaire AI data centers will be able to acquire liability insurance in the event of a meltdown. Most probably they'll fill Trump's pockets with cash to get him to give these nuclear power plants exemptions from having to pay for third party liability insurance to cover damages to the public in the event of a nuclear accident.

[@freeheeler09]

Oxford PVs silicon/perovskite solar panel are now a reality, with an efficiency of 28%. Within a few years, buying battery storage for our homes will be similar to buying a new refrigerator, and similarly priced. The brilliance of solar and batteries is that, as Sam often reminds us, 90% of humanity lives in the sun belt. The other advantage of solar and batteries is that as it drops in price, individual home and business owners will be able to produce and store all of the electricity that we use to power our buildings and vehicles. Even if fusion ever becomes reliable, it will still have a huge disadvantage. Once we have the independence of producing and storing our own energy, we have no need for paying others for our power!

[@martina5328]

The disadvantage is that with current production rate we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years to meet 2 weeks of our current power demand.

[@houseofancients]

And the ai guys just got a very serious knock on the head from the chinese with deepseek.. Uses less cpu, thus less power, and completely opensource The us ai boys are screwed

[@andyfreeze4072]

and you believe everything you read? Just like Nissan will triple its profits and Toyota will have amazing batteries last year. Its all in house hype , not seen anything useful with AI so far.

[@Buran01]

@@andyfreeze4072 I believe that Chat GPT invested billions in facilities, research and energy with an utterly unprofitable business model, and now another companies can run their own unprofitable business but at 1/20 of the cost, so they are toasted...

[@haklin5650]

The foundation of all oligarchs is monopoly.

[@YordanGeorgiev]

Duh, Viking please educate yourself a bit more on nuclear fission vs. Nuclear fusion and yes there natural nuclear reactor on earth , in fact multiple ...

[@aspiringm]

Nuclear fission doesn’t make sense. Recent projects usually costed and took twice as much as estimated. No insurance company will cover running a plant , so you always need a state to insurance anything above a cap or all. While it’s running the profits go to private companies and when the question of permanent storage for the waste comes up dirty deals like in Germany are made where after Merkel ended nuclear fission after Fukushima the companies suit for compensation for forced business closure and eventually they made a deal that they only pay 5 billion € once and the state takes care of all their nuclear waste for eternity. (or like 120,000 years. You can imagine how happy utility companies were with that deal) plus why use an energy form with around 100 years or even 300 years of fuel left when there’s another source running for the next 5 billion years. It’s just delaying what needs to be done anyway.

[@dale7385]

All eggs in one basket never work.. Diverse energy is key! Nuclear,wind, solar and combustion. Hydro where possible thermal so on

[@at3941]

I think the tech people want uniform energy output. I don’t think we really have that in the US. I’m not against some even if it costs more. Diverse energy sources aren’t bad. And rich people just keep getting rich making billions and billions and billions of dollars - that isn’t changing.

[@gzcwnk]

Hinkley-C over time @ 16years, actually it isnt finished yet, not til 2031 or so the timeframe and cost could be worse still.

[@akangro]

Solar makes sense in Australia and probably elsewhere, but once you get close to regions where there is polar day and polar night, then you are out of options. There is no sun during considerable part of the year and if there is really cold, then there is no wind also (while energy consumption is highest). Also, wind turbine blades have icing problem just like aircraft have. This is why people want nuclear power. Look at Finland for example. Here in Estonia, there is practically no sun for 3 months a year and reality is, that companies will not build big wind farms without government price guarantees and subsidies. Once you sum up these subsidies you find out that you can get nuclear power plant for them and we did not even start to talk about batteries yet. So, I hear you, but please acknowledge your bias also.

[@januszpedzinski7651]

Dear Electric Viking! I have been watching your KZbin videos ever since.However by now you definitely sound like broken record on nuclear energy generation topic. Please stop,sharpen your focus on fossil fuel industry demise Cost is irrelevant as long as security and reliability of electric grids are at stake Do you remember explosion of volcano in Indonesia called Pinatubo and consequently severally diminished solar electricity generation for many months?

[@lumtavon1952]

As long as governments & grid providers don't subsidise nuclear or grant minimum prices let them go. Open competition with solar/wind+battery is Okey . The moment governments are involved the original contract price goes up enormously & then tax payers have to pay which is fatally wrong. In the end cheap solar will win but only with the mindset that you have to install 3 times the capacity you need to cover for clouds/winter to be truly off grid which is a huge benefit as grids charge soon more for grid availability than the energy!!!

[@ElwoodEBlues]

That's why you need to have some form of storage - pumped, battery, or hydrogen. What concerns the grid fees: that's what we have in Germany anyway. 8.5 cents per kwh is the current rate here, probably going up now. Renewable power generation is cheaper than that, and coal used to be cheaper as well. But now there is a CO2 tax driving up the coal power price. Gas has once been cheap, but is not any longer and is currently driving up energy prices when gas is needed. On the other hand, our grid us pretty good and very stable. Power outages are as unknown as overhead wiring here. New investments into the grid have to be made to convey energy from the north sea wind parks to the industry in the south and to accommodate for heat pumps, electric cars, and all those renewable power sources. On top of production and grid cost, there are several other fees and taxes, plus 19% VAT on top. That's why the current energy prices around 30 cents per kilowatt hour in Germany.

[@eymaslacker]

Western nuclear tech is old and lagging so not that will not save anything. CHINESE nuclear tech is the way forward given they already have thorium molten salt small modular reactors. That means they have auto meltdown fail safes and use the much much cheaper thorium and are reactors that are extremely small, small enough to be transported. (Renewables + battery storage) + (nuclear baseline power supply) is the most stable method given that climate change will affect weather patterns which affects both wind and solar. Tidal is great but difficult to maintain while geothermal depends on the heat pocket (which can be exhausted) and large enough pockets of heat for large scale generation are limited to some location

[@ElwoodEBlues]

China ist *developing* a molten salt reactor. If they succeed, a demonstration or test reactor will follow. If that one succeeds as well they will consider whether to build such reactors for real -probably not before 2035.

[@eymaslacker]

@@ElwoodEBlues China has a TMSR test reactor that has been confirmed to be working since late 2023 called TMSR-LF1. The pilot commercial reactor is targeted for 2029 but if we remember the speeds at which China does things, we might be looking at early or mid 2028.

[@VillageIdiot-u2b]

Let the technologies compete in a free market, no public money. If a project fails investors are on the hook to clean it up. Which technologies survive big weather? The state of New York enjoys 69 sunny days annually, not to mention 3 days of hail, not ideal for panels. Maybe the region determines the technology, what do I know?

[@dogsbodyish8403]

Sam, your view is slightly skewed by the fact that solar+battery is a very good solution for Australia, with its land mass and high levels of sunlight. Other parts of the world may need different solutions - for instance those with a much smaller land mass, far fewer sunlit hours, and maybe more wind (which is arguably less predictable than solar). Nuclear, in its various forms may present a better solution in these cases.

[@mickzed6393]

Horses for courses. Sam has blinkers on at times.

[@factnotfiction5915]

Even Australia will figure out that solar+batteries isn't an economically viable solution.

[@geoffmoody766]

Very strange isn't it. In the last 30 years virtually no new nuclear reactor power plants have been built in the USA. Now all of a sudden, they're the answer to the problem! Of course, the claim would be that technological improvements now make it an imperative to move ahead with said. Yes of course! Could it be that they would be a way avoiding the Chinese dominance in battery storage facilities, or PV panel supriority? Well, however you generate electricity, it's still a great idea to have battery storage, to even out generation with consumption. This smacks of US paranoia in the face of China's growing economic power. I agree it's misdirection by the rich and powerful, to remain the rich and powerful. The great George Carlin stated many times, "America has been bought and payed for" many times over.

[@grantbuttenshaw]

You sound nuts... Tech companies did the math...Nuclear is the only reliable base load power they can use. Only the truly stupid think batteries will work.

[@martina5328]

To cover our power need for 2 weeks we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years at our current rate. Nuclear is being planned and built b/c it is clear that it is needed.

[@ElwoodEBlues]

Europe has been asleep at the wheel, and the United States are hijacked by the oil and gas Industries. That's why they both do not have sufficient industries to build solar panels and batteries of their own. On the solar field China is the flooding the market with subsidised solar panels, but also has been doing battery research and development for 20 years, while Europe and the United States didn't. Production and raw materials and not the problem. It's just that China wants to own the market and is using its financial power to subsidise so hard that Europe and the US cannot compete. But I don't see why the western world shouldn't start over producing solar panels and batteries of it's own should China suddenly raise the prices. as long as their stuff is cheap, let's use it.

[@riderpaul]

When they talk about recycling nuclear fuel what they're talking about is plutonium. If you want nuclear power plants to work economically you have to build breeder reactors. Problem is is then you're giving everybody nuclear bombs. Sure you can do thorium and thorium needs neutron source to get going and it produces uranium 233 which can also be used for bombs.

[@grahamkearnon6682]

The UKs never ending build of their nuke power station is already at triple cost (new cost projection of £40B/$48B) & yrs bhind schedule. Imagine that money in renewables ? In my local region, a new dam opened, it cost $20 of pure debt this is a region with the full might of the Pacific ocean crashing in on its coast & all that energy ignored. 60 miles of arable land flooded/destroyed, madness!

[@madtubedog]

Bill Gates is also heavily invested in Heineken, which is the prime sponsor for LIV (Saudi Arabian) Golf Tour via the Amstel Beer brand. Conflict? Not for billionaires!

[@JSM-bb80u]

Sam, We should stop attacking nuclear. Instead we should attack fossil fuels. Both nuclear and renewables have great potential. We need both of them. It's nuclear+renewables vs fossil fuels.

[@stanmitchell3375]

Agora flow redox battery will be cheap,storage in a few years

[@peteinwisconsin2496]

Yet another case of "Only I can solve this", meanwhile the costs are predicted (meaning best case) to be 1.6 Billion USD $ to revive a 835MW plant, at a projected cost per Watt that is almost twice as much as a brand new combined cycle natural gas plant. CCNG can be switched on and off quickly as needed to back up renewables. BTW if the data center handled useful information, they could predict when the winds would stop blowing or when clouds would obscure the sun. Even if they have no ability to predict the weather, they could install weather monitoring stations within a 50 mile radius which would let the onsite observers predict the renewable resources.

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

Why no consideration of Thorium reactors? Far safer, China is going that route while still working on fusion reactors. They will succeed while the west has another committee.

[@martina5328]

We need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years at our current production rate to meet 2 weeks of our current power demand. Start with implementing your fix in Germany. They are now looking to restart and build new nuclear reactors. Because it is needed.

[@christopherj2231]

Solar and batteries are just such a huge footprint...in Australia there are thousands of acres of strong roofs in industrial zones around the nation, why are these not utilised. Thank you.

[@martina5328]

We would need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years at our current rate to meet about 2 weeks of our current power demand.

[@christopherj2231]

@@martina5328 Making things up are you.

[@patrickpirzer4080]

Bill Gates wants the best for us? That's a joke? Isn't it?

[@neildolan7177]

The climate is changing, and therefore, to rely on the climate for energy is a risk.i agree that solar & batteries are cheaper, but they need the sun. Nuclear can be switched on. It can also be retrofitted to a coal fired power station.

[@pauldingwall9600]

Very hypocritical considering you invest in EV shares and run a EV YT channel.

[@icls9129]

Cancel AI, and cancel new nuke plants.

[@williamlewandowski129]

Now if/when nuclear fusion becomes available, perhaps the need for solar/wind/hydro/carbon/nuclear fission becomes obsolete? No need to necessarily dismantle the other green energy sources, but also no need to build any more of those energy technologies. Oh, to be able to die and return to life in 100 years. Has the price of cryonics come down yet?

[@ElwoodEBlues]

Do you know the Fusion constant? it's 30 years. "We will have nuclear fusion power in 30 years." That's what they keep saying for 50 years now😁 Recently, a German physicist published a video on KZbin discussing all the progress that has been made on the nuclear fusion field. He thinks that he won't see nuclear fusion power stations become a reality within his lifetime. The video is on KZbin, on the channel "Urknall Weltall und das Leben".

[@glike2]

SPACs i.e scams

[@JoshDTech]

As long as China controls the lithium battery supply our governments will always look for alternatives.

[@peteinwisconsin2496]

Sodium-ion and sodium-sulfur batteries. No one controls either of these abundant materials.

[@ralphzoombeenie2330]

Only reason China controls the lithium refining is because wester governments are short sighted and dont back anything which wont result in extra votes in the next few years.

[@handlaidtracksand3dprinted922]

Force them to cost in and pay for the disposal and storage of the nuclear waste up front. 250,000 years of storage of toxic deadly waste... What's that gonna cost you?

[@martina5328]

The "waste" is fuel in future reactors. "They" include YOU who have enjoyed the benefits of cheap reliable power.

[@factnotfiction5915]

> Force them to cost in and pay for the disposal and storage of the nuclear waste up front In the US, and most other countries with NPPs, nuclear power plants DO * set aside a company escrow fund to decommission the NPP; audited every year by the NRC. * pay into a government escros fund to dispose and store the nuclear waste. This is already in place. You can look up the company and government escrow funds, and their audits, on the NRC website.

[@martina5328]

@@handlaidtracksand3dprinted922 The wind turbine companies, in contrast, set aside nothing for the disaster that the used turbine blades represent.

[@martina5328]

@@handlaidtracksand3dprinted922 The nuclear "waste" you talk about is actually fuel for future reactors.

[@marlan5470]

Oh, you noticed.

[@Peoples_Republic_of_Cotati]

I see a need for fission/Fusion to extract CO2 from the ambient air...so I welcome that

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

247 Fossil fueled 25gW, 600gWh Nuclear 14gW, 336gWh. Grid capacity 25gW, $TRILLIONS. Battery Vehicle 20million, 2,000gWh FREE storage, Customers. Rooftop PV 660gWh. Customers. Customers save $10,000 tax-free I bet the customers choose $10,000 benefit. Tax-free savings benefit.

[@billrobinson3508]

No, we don't want nuclear. These will be expensive stranded assets in the near future. Renewables and battery energy storage are the cheapest and quickest to deploy (nuclear takes years and huge taxpayer funds to develop). Only in the most extreme situations should nuclear be considered using existing nuclear fuel sources i.e. dismantled nuclear arms, etc.

[@martina5328]

At current production rate we need to produce batteries for about 10 000 years - to cover 2 weeks of our demand. How will we get power when it is not windy or sunny? Magic?

[@russellmcdonald1964]

Here in Australia, Peter Dutton the conservative Liberal leader has been hot to trot about building 5 small capacity nuclear reactors around the country, He also asked Gina Rinehart if he could borrow her jet to fly to a bombing commemoration ceremony in Bali suggesting that he is in her good books for favors promised. It looks like Gina along with her Billionaire buddies will be a major source of funds for Peters pet projects????

[@basil8940]

Collusion with billionaires? That is just the worst. Except for all the good billionaire like Simon Holmes a Court. No conflict of interest there.

[@mikewallace8087]

What is a Nuclear Company?

[@randyhess260]

Not everyone lives in a desert where is sunny or windy.

[@rossmackawgy8017]

Sam, look up SMRs - small modular reactors. I enjoy your vids!

[@electricviking]

Cool, thanks!

[@geirvinje2556]

I also wonder why Elon Musk made a S car..... I think the next will be a SS car a Super model S? Extra high speed between Germany and Poland.

[@mickzed6393]

Doesn't GM have the SS naming rights?

[@geirvinje2556]

@mickzed6393 He can probably buy that right, now that he gets the tax breaks generated by the canceling of the child cancer research program. And, the price cap canceling on insulin.

[@tylersen3318]

11:04 I am not sure I totally agree with this analysis. China has recently built a new, safer version of Nuclear power yhat uses Thorium instead of Uranium... Its TMSR-LF1 prototype is a 2 MWt molten salt reactor (MSR) pilot plant located in northwest China. Construction of the reactor started in 2018 and was completed in 2021. I think they are just pivoting to better technology.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Electricity generation is dirt cheap Grid RENTAL is expensive. Nuclear electricity and rooftop PV feed-in electricity, and coal-fired electricity are all 2cents to 5cents kWh electricity. My grid electricity is 50cents kWh with all the fees and different rates and ..... just divide the $ by kWh for the year. Rooftop PV HAS NO GRID RENTAL COSTS. Grid bills are seeing increasing daily fees with low amounts of grid supplied electricity kWh. Nuclear nuts are scared to push full nuclear replacement for fossil energy they know that they are .....d.😮😮😮😮 by grid costs. They see the " dead cat in the middle of the road " curve of daily demand for grid electricity. They know their wet dream will only work if the government pays for it. They want taxpayers money. Tax-free savings with BEVs and rooftop PV can easily be $10,000 annually. No grid electricity No gas heating and cooking and hotwater No imported petroleum. No new nuclear electricity plants at $billions and $billions. No new grid construction $TRILLIONS. Trust me I know the promoters problems and I have worked in the coal and gas fired plant construction and transmission construction for decades and general large construction. And .....

[@martina5328]

You enjoy the benefits of things not powered by your roof. To cover our demand for 2 weeks we need to produce batteries at current production rate for about 10 000 years. The alternative to nuclear is fossil fuels. Make a choice.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@martina5328 you do know that 10 times more electricity is needed if nuclear grid electricity is to replace fossil fuels????

[@martina5328]

@stephenbrickwood1602 Yes we need more nuclear to replace fossil fuel ! You know that more than 90% of the energy still remains in nuclear "waste". We will burn that too - making the "waste" safe. Then we have Thorium etc.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Upgrading the Australian grid exploded electricity bills. GOLD PLATING was the Royal commission conclusion into that episode. Why do you think the government has gone hard on the rooftop PV?? Rooftop PV UNLOADS the existing fragile national grid.

[@joergmaass]

Because Australia lives off fossile fuels. And because conservative morons who want to preserve the profits of energy companies.

[@gansmaier3994]

If they don't take any tax money and take care about all risk and waste than they are free to go imo. But no insurance will insure them without tax-money backup, for reasons 😂