Can Nuclear Power SAVE The Car Industry? 4K

[@barryemery16]

As a former submariner that served onboard nuclear powered boats, I am somewhat dismayed that once the boats are taken out of the fleet, their reactors are not used to add power to the national grid whilst the various authorities and scientists come up with a way to safely dispose of them, which, I am sure, they will do in the future. Now, when I was serving, I was told that the reactor on just one boat could provide enough power to service a city the size of Portsmouth. I know that we have an area in Devonport dockyard where the boats that are now decommissioned and out of service are sitting. Now, these boats, when alongside, used to switch to shore power, surely some boffins could come up with a way of using that connection to have the boat put power into the grid. Just a thought. (It would also provide jobs for the submarine nuclear trained engineers that have done their time in the navy and are looking for a job in “civvy” street).

[@malph9216]

Great comment!

[@philtucker1224]

Great idea but as usual politics would be bound to get in the way! ☹️

[@Carlos_Teixeira_Drums]

Great ideia , thanks for the input mate

[@johndoh5182]

I'm wondering, did you do a full feasibility study on this topic, like what would it take to remove a reactor from a submarine, where the reactor is already dangerous due to the fact that it created nuclear reactions for many years, then create a facility that would be acceptable to put these reactor(s) in an area where you could kill citizens? Just a WAG, but I'm guessing that once you did that, even if you built a facility that could house a few of these, that it's not worth the cost of doing it. In the US in particular the cost of nuclear power is obscene compared to natural gas, wind and solar, and with advances in grid storage, which has already happened, and no not Tesla Li-Ion based grid storage or any other companies' grid storage based on Li-Ion, the price of grid storage is going to drop. Company, ESS and the product is Iron redux flow batteries. Even with adding in the cost of grid storage and installing enough solar panels to not only power homes but also grid storage during the day, this would be far less costly than anything that has to do with nuclear power, until two things happen. One, a state will actually agree to take nuclear waste and become the place where nuclear waste can be stored, since right now nuclear waste has to be stored on site, and anyone with a brain can figure out what that means, which is a cost, REAL monetary costs for thousands of years with each site becoming a superfund site AND having to provide security. You factor that into the cost of nuclear power and I'm thinking that probably gets you up to $2 - $5 USD KWh, as opposed to solar, natural gas and wind which all can be generated for $.02 - $.03 USD KWh and ends up costing the consumer, after these companies make profit, between 10 - 12 cents USD/KWh. Two, you need fusion for nuclear to really be worth it unless a country has a lack of options. But you're talking about the US I assume since that's the country, along with Russia that has the most nuclear power subs that have been decomm'd. Hard cold fact for the US is that solar and wind along with grid storage along with natural gas being mixed in can power about 75% of the US population. Once the grid has improved long range power transmission, which is going to be part of the upgrade to the grid, you have about 1/4 the country that has almost non-stop sun during the day time. On top of that you have a pretty large wind corridor that flows through Texas and goes up through OK and through the midwest. Consequently even with all the conservative politicians in Texas, wind production in Texas is the largest in the US. It's 5th largest in the world. It would be larger but we have stupid politicians and there's too much competition right now between different forms of energy, instead of there being a plan on cycling through natural gas, wind and solar in the state so these companies don't have to worry about the competition. Or, a single company owns all three types of power generation and they run each in a way to maximize wind and solar while ensuring natural gas plants function more as a backup but run enough to make sure they run the way they are supposed to. Texas functions on a low bid system and it's privatized. You couldn't build a nuclear plant in Texas now without there being a BUTT TON of subsidies. Trump slowed the installation of solar by slapping a 25% tariff on panels coming from pretty much anywhere other than the US, and the US can't make panels economically. On top of that panels coming out of China are not only more cost effective, they're better than panels coming out of anywhere else in the world. Chinese business/scientists had been putting in more research into wind and solar than anywhere else in the world, and they've contributed to better manufacturing techniques, longer lasting panels (40 - 50 years), and more efficient to where cost/KWh is so small that installing large solar farms makes a lot of economic sense. That tariff was removed by the courts a couple weeks ago so expect that next year solar installation is going to start rapid growth again. Better panels can now give around 500W cont. during peak sun and I don't think they have the same issue with heat as older panels. Retired, USN.

[@jonasweber9408]

Great idea but usually it's because it's military... So things don't get mixed...

[@markiliff]

I love the way Rory keeps widening the discussion, and doing it in such a balanced & clear way. A treasure.

[@Hello_there_obi]

Although his views on nuclear are outdated and spread the myth that its still as dangerous as it was even at the time of fukushima

[@GranSkyline]

Nuclear in regards to power grid generation is actually a lot safer these days, and public opinion (which is not based on fact) is the main reason new plants don't get made. SMRs have been in development for years now, and likely to be used in the near future.

[@Cal-Mac]

They still generate dangerous waste. Renewable is the only way to go.

[@christhompson4630]

Renewables (wind and solar) can't provide the base load required in most nations, even with Battery Storage Hydro and other water based generation are location dependent. Dams are also damaging to ecosystems and in the, unlikely, event of a catastrophic dam failure (eg: Banqian Dam and Machhu Dam-II, for example. Each of which alone has killed more people than nuclear) the number of casualties can be phenomenal. Even in non-catastrophic failures result in large power losses and/or large costs. The North of the UK and Texas know what it's like to go with a lengthy power outage. Waste from fission is small in volume, can be reprocessed and "burnt" in reactors. Newer generation reactors produce significantly less waste. And when fusion finally it arrives it will produce no waste, generate significantly more power and can not be used to proliferate nuclear weapons

[@Cal-Mac]

@@christhompson4630 Almost all my country’s electricity was provided by renewables last year (Scotland). The previous year wind turbines could have powered the entire country twice over. As you mentioned a big hurdle is storage for on peak demand. The Scottish government will run Torness (the only active nuclear station in Scotland) for as long as possible with Hunterston being decommissioned early next year. I reckon we have until 2030 to figure out a storage solution for peak demand and then we will be nuclear free.

[@ghoulbuster1]

@@Cal-Mac Lies

[@Cal-Mac]

@@ghoulbuster1 Troll

[@LazarkGaming]

I thought this would be a great idea as a child. My parents told me I was both insane and it wouldn't work. Well now I'll tell them that Ford has already thought about it.

[@killman369547]

You can stuff a nuclear reactor into almost anything if you try hard enough.

[@santtumakinen7244]

Nuclear power for hydrogen production is more efficient than when using renewables because the extra heat from the plant can be used to heat the water used for electrolysis making the hydrodgen production more efficient

[@AlexPeka]

For the record, Rolls-Royce engines is entirely disconnected from Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, the car industry RR has nothing to to with modular reactors.

[@magnustan841]

That’s the ship 🚢 division right?

[@ianc7866]

@@magnustan841 NNPPI Naval Nuclear propulsion. Raynesway, Derby.

[@LOTUSELISE340R]

YES! In 1931 Rolls-Royce bought Bentley. In 1971 Rolls-Royce Limited was split into Rolls-Royce Motors Holdings (autos) and Rolls Royce Limited (aerospace). Vickers bought the auto division in 1980 and sold it (along w/Bentley) to VW in 1999. The sale included the factory in Crewe, England, the Spirit of Ecstasy, and the shape of the grill. But...Rolls-Royce Limited still owned the Rolls-Royce name and logo, which it then sold to BMW instead (as it had existing agreement to supply Rolls-Royce engines)! So, BMW owned the name and logo and had suitable engines, while VW had the famous insignia and grill. An agreement is made: BMW would supply engines and use of the name from '98-'02. Starting in 2003, VW would produce only Bentley vehicles, and BMW would produce only Rolls-Royce vehicles. Consequently, BMW forms a new company called Rolls-Royce Motor Cars and VW uses the Crewe factory to produce Bentley vehicles (instead of Rolls-Royce). The last vehicle produced by the original Rolls-Royce Motors was the Corniche, which ceased production in Crewe, England in 2002. BMW then released the Phantom, produced in its new factory in Goodwood, England, in 2003.

[@Neojhun]

But the Rolls-Royce jet engines parent company is very much the one working on Small Modular Reactors. Not even going in cars anyways. It's meant for Grid Electric Generation which might contribute to powering BEVs.

[@freddaniali]

As a nuclear physicist, I am hoping that the industry could one day get serious and put me to work! lol

[@killman369547]

Space is where nuclear power is going to thrive most. In space an extremely long lasting and stable source of electricity is going to be as essential to life as air water and food, especially if we ever hope of leaving our star one day.

[@dominicrusho]

5:08 You need to correct this Rory - Rolls-Royce PLC has nothing to do with the car industry. It is a completely separate entity to the BMW owned Rolls-Royce Motor Cars.

[@nonyanks2510]

The PLC is just the Rolls Royce Holding company but in the end Rolls Royce will manufacture them, either way it's still a Rolls Royce project.

[@raytrevor1]

@@nonyanks2510 Rolls Royce Motor Cars (owned by BMW) is nothing whatsoever to do with British company Rolls Royce PLC, which makes jet engines and nuclear power plants. They are completely separate companies.

[@ramdas363]

This is better than a lot of "science" channels. I'm not really into cars but it's nice to see there are still youtubers putting in the work to research things and present them in a factual way. Keep up the good work!

[@SolutionsNotPrayers]

Learn the difference between the two types of nuclear power: fission & fusion.

[@syndicate7934]

No dawg. This was like not even surface level knowledge. I'd say its propaganda level knowledge. Coal/fossil fuel industries pay to keep good press in their favor which is something all of us know already, but they also spend money to keep negative press about nuclear energy. The waste product is so minimal in comparison to every other form of energy production, the amount of energy compared to the amount of waste product is multitudes better than every other method (except hydroelectric, but that's been proven to be minimally effective), plus we dont have to use hazardous and dirty uranium anymore. We can simply use thorium with a plutonium activator. Also, he mentioned that 10 mile island was a bad nuclear incident when in reality, it was poor communication between federal agencies, the plant operator, and the media. So no, this was ass. It was lazy.

[@TheG60528XiJinPing]

1:20 that st badge edit is so good

[@jemand8462]

Nuclear power isn't in a decline. It's just that the third world (incl. India, China, Russia etc) are building cheaper and easier to build gas and oil power plants weekly. At the same time, in China alone there are more nuclear reactors in construction than Japan HAS.

[@kings_chronicle592]

We are not at that level of tech yet.but we will find a sustainable power source in time that wont require any maintenance

[@mrsoisauce9017]

I’m pretty sure that, while Nuclear power does have some very bad consequences if a reactor does blow, those were either ancient or the reactors were terribly out of date. Besides, the casualty levels were much lower than u might expect. Nearly everyone within the vicinity of every nuclear power plant explosion ever was safely evacuated b4 the explosion. And on modern power plants, there r safeguards in place 2 defend against nuclear meltdown. In the case of a nuclear meltdown, there’s a rod that melts that drops the rest of the nuclear material under the facility and into storage (it something like that), effectively preventing an explosion. On the nuclear waste problem, 2 solutions have been identified. One of them is an alternative fuel (I’m pretty sure it’s an isotope of Thallium) that produces substantially less waste than Uranium-235 (the current fuel we use for nuclear fission). The other solution is 2 recycle the nuclear waste into nuclear fuel that can b burned again

[@alsmith358]

4:05 Even if you make synthetic fuels with clean renewable energy, using it in an ICE still produces the same air pollutants and smog as normal fuel. It might be used in race series, but it'll never catch on for daily drivers.

[@bastiaan19948]

what about hydrogen, it combines with oxygen to make H2O, water. that would be the best thing i think. batteries require a lot of exotic materials and degrade over time. then you have the charging problem, what happens when millions of cars a charging at the same time, how is this practically possible. when you make hydrogen, you effectively create a buffer between creating the energy and using the energy without the use of a ''traditional'' battery.

[@sams2er]

@@bastiaan19948 all of this charging is merely a load balancing problem, easily solved while upgrading local grids. The main problem with hydrogen as a storage medium is efficiency. It has a low energy density, is hard to store and contain, and you lose a ton of energy converting hydrogen to power. A fuel cell is only about 60% efficient, which is a lot better than an ICE vehicle but a lot worse than a battery electric vehicle. We would also have to build out brand new infrastructure to replace the gas infrastructure we already have, whereas with an electric fleet, we already have the infrastructure in place and it's only a matter of balancing loads and upgrading transmission lines where needed.

[@jonasweber9408]

@@bastiaan19948 1) you still need batteries on Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars. 2) it’s an highly inefficient production process you would have to multiply by 3 the amount of energy needed compared to only BEV cars 3) We already use a lot of energy at the same time like cooking for exemple we can manage

[@bastiaan19948]

@@jonasweber9408 you can burn hydrogen, this fixes the battery problem also refilling Will be a lot faster than recharging. I am aware of the massieve energy losses in these steps, this would only be feasible in a situation where energy has become much cheaper, which it will. The charging part is quite a big issue though, i live in the Netherlands where we have the most reliable electricity net of the world and here we are already seeing a lot more infrastructure Being built for the electrification of our houses (cooking/heating) The massive amount of extra energy needed when everybody is driving battery powered cars and then charge them at the same time is not as small an issue as you might think. I Saw that in the us the electric vehicle chargers already have systems built in to not charge the car when the net cant provide enough. This when not a lot of people are driving these cars yet.

[@jonasweber9408]

@@bastiaan19948 So energy demand is an issue for EVs but not for Hydrogen XD Burning hydrogen is not green at all, it's not just green hydrogene you can put in a car it's more complicated than that (just check out Toyota latest prototype), and we would still have the massive problem of smogs in cities... You emit to produce hydrogen and then emit with the car. It's not at all worth it for keeping this "precious" 5 minutes refueling you can't do at home... And sorry but France has the best Grid in the world... Netherlands are 6th

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

Fission idk, fusion however, fusion is the future of power I believe. However we're still not quite there yet but we're getting closer on large scale. However for automobile transportation.. I feel like we're still a long while off, but I'd definitely say it's the future in the longer term.

[@Neojhun]

Exactly, Solid Fuel Fission is monumentally stupid to continue using.

[@TheCJUN]

Fusion is 15 years away, since the 1950s.

[@moonsapling]

Just have a fusion plant producing tons of electricity, then you can make all the hydrogen/synthetic fuel you need or just straight up use it in an electric car :)

[@OnTheRailwayOfficial]

Yes I totally agree with this comment. The future is nuclear fusion technology. However cars should be powered by hydrogen, not synthetic fuels as they still create harmful gasses.

[@waynelewis9110]

@@OnTheRailwayOfficial Cars shouldn’t be powered by hydrogen. Maybe container and cruise ships, but they’re nonsensical in passenger cars. Extremely inefficient and outright undesirable, as seen with the Toyota Mirai which continues to have terrible sales numbers. That won’t change.

[@griffogriff9532]

Interesting stuff, maybe nuclear in a car sounds terrible but so does an explosive charge in your steering wheel… the levels are everything I suppose, but from what you found, the levels would need to be high so will probably never happen, well explained 👍

[@johndoh5182]

That, and the fact that vehicles crash, like he also said. You couldn't make a vehicle strong enough to put a nuclear reactor in it. You run into the issue of a negative feedback loop. The more power you need from the reactor, the more material you'll need protecting it, which adds weight, and then you need to add more power to compensate for the added weight, and then you need more material to protect that larger reactor. You'd basically need to be driving around in tanks. Talk about an infrastructure nightmare, having to repave all your roads.

[@bobdouglass8010]

You ask a guy off the street and he'll say no way is nuclear power safe. If he knows his stuff, he'll mention the three major accidents - Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and Fukushima. What he won't know is the cumulative death toll was 31 people, all at Chernobyl. And that far more people die drilling for oil every year in the US alone. But you can't change people's minds with statistics, you have deal with them at an emotional level. That's hard to do.

[@Hoffer09man]

The Commonwealth cirka 2050 was successful in this, the Corvega plants produced tens of thousands of nukelear powered cars. Diamond City was littered with them

[@zacharyoswald4264]

your passing reference to nuclear disasters is prolonging fears and hampering our ability to progress. new processes and methods have made nuclear power many times safer to include protecting the human lives that are ended regularly in coal powered plants. if you're going to cover nuclear progress then do some more research instead of repeating antiquated references.

[@spclifford74]

Surprised you didn't mention probably the most famous nuclear powered car in modern history - the Delorean from Back to the Future!

[@DarkDutch007]

Isn't anything to do with nuclear consideredto be in modern history? Also, it has been a while for me to have seen the movies, but didn't that Delorean had terrible milage? 1 tank per trip?

[@RWoody1995]

@@DarkDutch007 1 tank per trip but that tank only had room for a banana and some coke cans, not bad really xD

[@cuywareinc7865]

Ahh but Stephen did you forget what Doc Brown said in BTTF 3? Mr Fusion provided only the electricity to power the flux capacitor. The car itself ran on it's internal combustion engine, always has :) Ironically enough a person genius enough to invent a time machine and switch from a fission reactor (im assuming here since he had to steal the plutonium in the first film) to a fusion reactor (which in another twist of irony he had to have "borrowed" a working model from the future which he specifically told Marty not to mess with), didn't actually think to make the car itself run off the reactor. To be fair though, in the early 80s climate change movement hadn't really ramped up so no one was really thinking about that sort of thing.

[@Aditzu21]

Also, you can't turn a nuclear reactor on and off with a switch. It takes ages and the output power is fairly constant. So the only application for it that makes some sense is for huge cargo ships

[@pteronoid]

Not entirely true. The control rods in a reactor are there for controlling the intensity of the reaction, thus this is one way to control the production of electric energy. If you insert all control rods in the reactor, they will absorb all the radiation so that the water is not heated at all. Another way to control the output is to release the water pressure through a bypass around the generators. In conclusion, you cannot stop the fuel from decaying, but you can control what is gonna be heated by the radiation, the reactor water or the control rods and you can control the amount of water that goes into the generators. PS: this is all grossly simplified, if you are interested, I would suggest you to watch some videos about how nuclear reactors work. There are many concepts that work in different ways with different safety mechanisms.

[@mrwhips3623]

Just leave it on 24/7

[@Gnerko123]

@@pteronoid even when the control rods are fully inserted, heat is produced due to decay reactions. This means that a shut down reactor still needs cooling. The control rods only stop the fission chain reaction.

[@pteronoid]

@@Gnerko123 my point was that the power output of the reactor can be controled.

[@Gnerko123]

@@pteronoid fair enough, but the statement that the water isn’t heated at all if the control rods are inserted is just incorrect.

[@neohimself]

I think it was very telling when the usecase for nuclear power to help cars was the creation of synthetic fuels. Why is the conversion of electricity to create synthetic fuels at very low efficiency the first point that is talked about? The electricity could just be used to charge batteries.

[@smilepermile8165]

As a person who visited Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Memorial Museum (and got slight PTSD as a kid) and lived in Japan during the Fukushima Nuclear Power Accident in March 2011, I think my stance is very clear on whether Nuclear Power is applicable for the vehicles.

[@smilepermile8165]

@Nickey Smickey Why are you comparing apples and oranges 🤷

[@pointatoa7685]

​@Nickey Smickey How does that make any sense? Did your mom give you a molotov cocktail to drink when you were a newborn baby?

[@joetaka7620]

@Nickey Smickey Lets see you get radiation from nuclear plants and weapons then. Because you seem to be fine with it.

[@pointatoa7685]

@Nickey Smickey Thats not my point. Even Rory says that you need to add many layers over the reactor incase an accident occurs and the nuclear reactor explodes - which means adding weight. Also, why are you dodging my question - did you mom give you a molotov cocktail to drink when you were a newborn baby?

[@iantaylor4294]

@Nickey Smickey You're making such deluded comments, its laughable. Do you have any idea of what happens to Nuclear waste and its half-life? You clearly haven't been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki to even care about the consequences of Nuclear power

[@anonymous-mj8wb]

the same issue applies to batteries, gasoline, and hydrogen when in a crash. 1. batteries use lithium which burns hotter then the sun and is impossible to be put out. also creates a chain reaction which can set other batteries on fire as well as everything else in the area. 2. hydrogen.... BOOOOOOM. 3. gasoline just works as a leaking napalm. since it doesnt really explode. just burn unless its contained tightly with no exit.

[@sdry]

"nucler waste" is pretty much harmless.

[@alexoliver9201]

This guy is so much better and humble on this Chanel. I really like him

[@anhondacivic6541]

given the progress made on nuclear fusion, that could have a key role in the coming future given how the waste product is helium and even if it is a radioisotope, the longest halflife possible with helium is in the milliseconds

[@KL_Stereo]

Fusion seems to always be just around the corner - not unlike like brain transplants

[@ghoulbuster1]

Fusion *will* be the ticket of space travel, most people can't comprehend the huge power a fusion reactor is capable of producing.

[@TheConjurersTower]

Slapping that 'ST' on the reactor core killed me bro...

[@xenomorphelv4265]

Imagine you open your car hood and you see a miniaturized nuclear fusion tokamak engine running, giving you unlimited range.

[@cegicreator2476]

I do have several problems with how this video is presented. overall it's okay but it's ever so slightly misleading at times and I don't like that you 'mixed up' nuclear power and nuclear weapons(yeah you ain't fooling anyone even if you were joking, don't) also rolls royce is not just a car company dude, they make stuff for the RAF too. you also should've mentioned radioisotope thermaleletric generators sure they have a low power output but they super tiny, super light, and somewhat easy to stack up. not saying you can just stack them like tin cans though, thats a bad idea. also dude we should be trying to get AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUEL! THEY ARE TERRIBLE IN ALMOST EVERY WAY. I AM NOT SCREAMING I AM JUST TRYING TO SAY THAT BECAUSE ITS TRUE. and why are trying to make synthetic fuels? that will only have the same effect if not worse that what we already have!(depending on you use for energy storage within the molecular compounds ofc) also a 500 ton submarine is not comparable to a 5 ton four wheeled four door tank. edit: okay i wrote this comment about 5 minutes in in this 7 minute video and it got worse immediately. you can't claim something is slow when you don't even have a completed time! it's like starting a stop watch and commenting before they even finished a lap! not to mention, POLITICS! if your gonna use time for an argument, then use a time from an already completed subject! EXTREMELY MISLEADING!

[@Rockport1911]

Nuclear is the way to go, almost no CO2 :) But crash- scenarios are a whole different game even compared to lithium- battery- packs... I live in germany and we managed to shut down nuclear power ( was seen as unsafe after Fukushima even but we had the safest plants ever...) Now we are stuck with coal- power and need to buy power from other countries because our industry needs lots of energy. Solar and wind power cant provide that power 24/7. I cant believe we switched off perfectly working nuclear powerplants...

[@killman369547]

Yeah, that decisions was totally asinine in every regard. Germany's situation could not have been more different to Japan's situation if you guys tried. Germany has pretty stable geology and isn't tiny so actually has space to put nuclear plants other than directly on the coast. Its fair to say Germany would never face the same scenario that ravaged Fukushima.

[@antoniohagopian213]

Gimme that atomic nismo

[@PaulieMD5]

Definitely we need nuclear power in the future, as renewable energy is not enough to stop the rise in carbon emisions. See France for that matter, they relly mostly on nuclear power for decades without problems.

[@bobmester3475]

Good video but Rory needs to get the latest info on the safer nuclear openings available now.

[@aseelhaque]

Hey Rory, congratulations on the contract with Fifth Gear!

[@kieran8921]

Nobody going to mention fallout?

[@777VIV]

Rory educating me whilst i switch off from work. Thank you sir!

[@JohnSmith-zv8km]

Every car crash results in a nuclear incident.

[@heesingsia4634]

You've already said it. The electricity generated from nuclear will power the EVs. You don't have to have the nuclear reactor on the car.

[@rexyoda]

The amount of waste is actually a positive for nuclear because its multiple orders of magnitude smaller than coal

[@cnoros]

Great series of videos, thanks, please keep them up. Really interesting/innovative take on car news.

[@brianfernandez4111]

Maybe should have looked into the cleaner safer form of nuclear reactors such as thorium reactors

[@TK-_-421]

You could technically use RTGs to trickle charge EVs but that's only a few hunderd watts even if it is for decades. The best use for nuclear is baseload for night charging. The main obstacles for nuclear is massive amounts of safety bureaucracy and I hope we someday can have local mini reactors. No, they don't irradiate your balls, they don't blow up even if you tried and you can't make bombs out of them.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

I was thinking nuclear battery that generates heat, and thermophotovoltaics to capture that heat to turn into energy. No idea if anyone has tried it. There have been some break throughs though with them capturing as much energy as a steam turbine though in high heat applications! No idea what TPVs aren't talked about more. Generating electricity through heat with no moving parts seems like a dream.

[@bnadem.panormal]

That ST touch at 1:20 👌

[@Joel_stbd]

Great informational video. Definitely learned a few new things.

[@RWoody1995]

Nuclear isn't actually expensive, it very quickly pays itself off once running and then you have by far the cheapest energy source available! it's just that the upfront cost of building it is high and that coupled with the time it takes before investors start seeing returns on their investment is what keeps them away, noone wants to put £1b into a project, even if they will get £10b back if they have to wait 20 years to see it :/ Those modular reactors really could help with this, 1/10th the size may not mean 10x faster return on investment but if it's 5x faster then more people will put money into it to make it happen :D

[@syndicate7934]

This a poorly researched project I assume. Anyone who's done even 10 minutes of reading on 10 mile island will tell you that the only thing that went wrong there was a massive demonstration of poor communication across federal agencies, the plant operator, and the media. A pressure valve wasnt working and the backup was having issues, so to release some pressure, they let some radioactive steam out of the plant. People saw the steam and started panicking. That's it. That's all that happened at 10 mile island and it proved that humanity's stupidity is capable of devolving our progress. We went from the atomic age to whatever the fuck this is now. Imagine if we'd never left the atomic age and kept progressing in that direction all these years. Our technology would be, at the very least, 100 years ahead of where we are now. Stop spreading propaganda about nuclear energy being unsafe because all you're doing is setting us back even further from progress.

[@tomoneal5627]

Building a buckear repository consumes more energy than can be gained from nuclear power

[@arthursansam622]

Perfect explanation from the best presenter on KZbin - or any media channel.

[@danpatrick745]

Another super video Rory, keep them coming!

[@senera2000]

A Mini nuclear reactor? Sign me up.

[@MegaWilderness]

Nuclear is not renewable, it requires fuel we don't mine. Let's stop making the same mistakes.

[@DoubleUProds]

Youre thinking of fission, which can be done way better by using other fissile materials like certain Thorium isotopes by the way, but we should invest way way way more in fusion.

[@allanmurphy8183]

wind, solar and any other from of energy production requires mining to produce the very item providing the power its the effect it has over its lifetime that you should look at and nuclear is as clean as any other form of energy

[@xIcarus227]

This is absolutely false. Modern nuclear reactors ARE renewable, some breeder reactors can produce up to 30% more fuel than they use. Just because the reactors used in the the majority of the world aren't renewable, doesn't mean nuclear isn't renewable. Most of them are based on old tech inherited from the dawn of nuclear technology. Even more interestingly, modern nuclear reactors barely even produce waste. Some of them are even designed to use the waste of other, older, reactors as fuel.

[@allanmurphy8183]

@@xIcarus227 totally agree, the big problem nuclear faces is PR many people believe it is dangerous when if truth be told its safer than almost any other energy production system. people remember the big accidents but forget that coal, oil and gas kill on average more people every year via pollution than nuclear has combined since the 1950's and most of those deaths occurred due to old design or human error which the newer safer designs can deal with.

[@xIcarus227]

@@allanmurphy8183 completely true. As a term of comparison, coal alone has killed 350x as many as nuclear has, and the coal number is constantly increasing where as nuclear isn't, not really. That's due to the safer designs you mentioned, it's virtually impossible to have a repeat of chernobyl today.

[@Mzwandile_Makhowane]

First, no...actually yet another one of the times I fully agree with this expansively thought out and diligently delivered presentation. Cool content, cool presenter! 👍👍👍

[@alwynwatson6119]

You need a ton of zero emissions energy in the production process and we don't have enough of that right now. Germany: generating to much power solar and wind at times because the politicians don't want to balance the grid with fuel production and other methods.

[@santtumakinen7244]

There is a benefit for nuclear power plants because the power production can centralised to a single area which helps keep the nature as is in most places. This is a big issue with wind, solar and hydro power production.

[@stevencarter7031]

Great concept...they already have nuclear fuel cells the size of a car battery...seen then at the uranium mine at Beverly in SA..30 year life but not comercially available.....

[@filippobonetto5757]

Nuclear will be needed to generate electricity for all the electric vehicles that will be circulating

[@cheif10thumbs]

Thorium SMR's would be the safest alternative

[@dunkk2438]

Short answer: No.

[@SolutionsNotPrayers]

Fusion also creates force fields, so the need for traditional shielding is not necessary.

[@davidmizak4642]

This information is super interesting. I want to express my personal appreciation for the time and work you invested in producing it. Thanks so much!

[@winsucker7755]

You make a small nuk reactor, that charges batteries. And because it works constantly, it would charge them all the time. So in that way, you don't need that big of a nuk reactor. It's just a question of how much you want to drive per week.

[@bobo11112222]

no more charging station. like the Voyger probes built, launched decades ago FANTASTIC

[@9nineofdiamonds]

This is such a Fallout and Ridge Racer question, and I'm all in to hear this out

[@GuyMahoney]

Remember that rolls royce is a jet company, the car side is irrelevant to its nuclear goals.

[@dominicrusho]

It’s a completely separate business entirely. The SMR work is derived from over 50 years of building power systems for nuclear submarines

[@magnustan841]

I think we should stick to what we have now, given that EVs are still young and the tech has great potential to be pushed on the sustainability front. I’m more interested in finding new, green ways to generate that electricity.

[@michiel2047]

Yeah, like nuclear: Arguably the greenest energy source we have atm.

[@magnustan841]

@@michiel2047 If you can have the rivers for it, I reckon hydroelectric is king.

[@michiel2047]

@@magnustan841 Hydroelectric is very green regarding CO2 output but it requires giving up large areas of land to create the reservoir. This usually means significant ecological impact or even population displacement.

[@ThePlayerOfGames]

@@michiel2047 which is also an effect of nuclear, everything has a drawback as well as a benefit but nuclear's drawback is about 10-100,000 years long

[@michiel2047]

​@@ThePlayerOfGames Now just to be clear, I'm a big fan of hydro power but it can't solve fully the green energy demands of the future. Some more food for thought on the hydro vs nuclear debate: Most underestimate the downstream impact of damming rivers + the sheer amount of land that is flooded to create the upstream reservoir. Great for CO2, not so great for the watershed and local wildlife. Nuclear in comparison has a tiny impact. One known impact is warmer water from the cooling towers creating micro-climates in which fish can survive which would otherwise stay in warmer climates but this is not exclusive to nuclear, as other forms of generation also require cooling. When it comes to long-term storage: Nuclear waste is a much smaller problem than what the modern zeitgeist makes it out to be. High-halflife nuclear waste is by definition not very radio-active. The volumes of waste are also comparatively tiny compared to all other electrical production methods. Also consider that dams are huge concrete structures. Concrete production accounts for ~8% of human CO2 production globally. Luckily over their lifespan dams more than make up for this though.

[@roho3000]

What happens in a crash?

[@jessecuster5877]

I keep seeing comments about Nuclear can't be shut down, what if those same engines could be plugged into the energy grid? Almost like how you plug in diesel in the winter but backward.

[@thabangmagana869]

Loved the ‘ST’ part😂😂

[@steeldevil98]

I didn't quite understand the sanitary towel part?

[@annegajerski-cauley7624]

This subject comes up now and again. The main killer for any such idea is, as you say, the huge amount of shielding that would be required to knock down the prompt radiation of any reactor functioning with any interesting power level ( say at the 100 kw level). Even in the gigantic NB-36 variant of the Peacekeeper bomber (midfuselage, extremely complex kit, about mid-1950s vintage) could not be run with what folks considered a sufficient margin of safety. Sorry, but nice and honest reporting. BUT, I must add that SMRs are an emergent technology that may become very interesting up here in cold Canada! Our regulatory agency, the CNSC is in fact putting together a framework for regulating what might prove to be a very useful emergent technology here. thanks again D. Barillari, nuclear engineer

[@uni4rm]

Relatively tiny nuclear power already exists. The NASA Mars rover Perseverance has a 110 watt 99lb (45 kilo) nuclear battery that charges two lithium ion batteries for additional power and operation when it cannot get sunlight, and it will last 14 years with fuel half-life of about 90 years. The Rover is the size of a compact car.

[@RohanRevankar.]

Reminiscing old times I would have loved to hear “how hard can it be?” in this episode 😅😅🙃

[@tenkasen]

Can you imagine 87 year old Doris with her 6ft of effective vision cutting a swathe through traffic on her way to the post office in her Ford Fiesta "N"? Honestly as someone who commutes by motorbike, the idea of outfitting the general population with 2 tonnes of centrally heated steel cage, dashboard access to twitter, and a low yield nuclear device terrifies me, my morning commute would sound lilke the Somme.

[@Shawn_the_Protogen]

Unless they come out with Fusion Cores and Power Armor, I'm not interested in a rolling Chernobyl waiting to happen. Nuclear power plants should stay rooted to the ground. Should more be constructed? Yes, absolutely. Nuclear power plants could easily produce enough electricity to replace coal power plants.

[@SolutionsNotPrayers]

With Fission you have that problem, not with Fusion.

[@errolmacdonald3256]

3:38. Umm, that's Saint Catherine Street in Montreal. I know because I live there. Looks better on a Friday night.

[@dann756]

I hope the thumbnail was in reference to Godzilla with the GTR

[@grayknight836]

On Discovery Channel’s old TV show called Beyond 2000, there was a guy in France 🇫🇷 that had a car 🚗 run on Compressed Air, from scuba 🤿 tanks. What happened to that technology???

[@MervynPartin]

Rolls Royce already make the Nuclear Sub reactors so no real problem with the SMRs. There is one possible way ahead with cars if the plutonium decay heat systems, as used on deep space probes were used to charge the battery on an electric car. I think that it would probably take all week for a charge though, so just one day out each week.

[@hermanstokbrood]

Yeah Rory I enjoyed this very much.

[@djentlemanb]

If you were to use FUSION & not FISSION, you could switch the reaction off & reactivate it like a combustion engine. Also if anything were to go awry, like hitting another fusion reactor on wheels, the reaction simply halts. Not to mention unlimited range and zero fuel.

[@rahulbaishya8498]

Cant we have small fans that move when we drive that powers a generator like the ice cars and gives us some extra miles not much just a bit , is it possible by any sense?????

[@MrEnjaycee]

All very nice, but what about the adverse effects of an EMP?

[@mdmusic5537]

The Mars Rover already uses a Nuclear Battery that lasts 14 years using Plutonium Fuel. Also, love your video's. AutoTrader is my fav. Automobile Review Channel.

[@killman369547]

True. But it only generates a little over 100 watts. That's not enough to do anything really productive or useful with outside of space applications.

[@brandywell44]

I thought for a long time that nuclear fusion to produce hydrogen would be the way forwards. But first we need a fusion success story.

[@christhompson4630]

The National Ignition Facility have recently broke the net energy barrier and have produced more energy from Inertial Confinement Fusion than they put in, generating 1.3MJ. Magnetised Target Fusion has also been making some headway. I'm not sure if there have been any improvements in Magnetic Confinement Fusion but that area of research is also still active. There is still a long way to go but fusion is coming and, hopefully, with that milestone broken progress speeds up

[@ThePlayerOfGames]

That's a pretty cool idea, but the issue is the clean water for the hydrogen puts it in competition for human, agriculture, and industrial use

[@brandywell44]

@@ThePlayerOfGames what happens to hydrogen when it is burnt in oxygen?

[@killman369547]

@@ThePlayerOfGames Who said they needed to use drinking water? Just electrolyze seawater for the hydrogen.

[@fourlimbedmartian5262]

You totally forgot the Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future movie. Who knows it might become a reality.

[@tiagozadra4307]

If we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the goals that governments have set, nuclear energy is a must

[@xIcarus227]

Yeah except if you ask the average Joe, nuclear's dirty and bad and kills a lot of people. Which is outright bullshit. I think the world's stance on nuclear power generation is one of our biggest failures as a society. The failure being that we didn't keep the media from spreading outright lies and disinformation around nuclear power. I guess that's what happens when fear sells and the only thing media companies are interested in is money.

[@Rorschach.]

Is it April already?

[@crisojohnson]

but would one accident kill a city?

[@lordrefrigeratorintercoole288]

The reactor creates steam... in a car... how exactly did they thought of an infinite resource of water in a moving land vehicle??

[@thedark333side4]

Maybe a recirculation system? Make steam-> produce power->use said power to power condensers that turn the steam back to water-> repeat?

[@lordrefrigeratorintercoole288]

@@thedark333side4 impossible, the insulation needed for the steam to turn to water again would need tu be heavy...and big. If they go with air cooling it means the car needs to be on the move constantly. If it is some sort of mechanical cooling the possibilities for a defect and potential melt down are huge.

[@thedark333side4]

@Lord Refrigerator Intercooler Thanks for the response. I was speaking hypothetically. The amount of shielding needed to make the reactor safe for operation is extremely heavy in and of itself, so the cooling system being too heavy is not going to change much, mainly because the concept is flawed from the start.

[@lordrefrigeratorintercoole288]

@@thedark333side4 exactly. the radiation would be strong enough to make it impractical to add any type of cooling for the liquid. If you make the radiation less strong than there wont be enough power... well, if only there was a way to convert radiation directly into energy with out the fluid agregate change to power a generator... oh wait we do! ITS SOLAR POWER!

[@thedark333side4]

@@lordrefrigeratorintercoole288 Until fusion is achieved, I believe solar is the best option for now.

[@yvs6663]

electric cars charging at night could increase the baseload power of the grid and therefore more of it could come from nuclear. but we need nuclear for that to happen and that takes time. basically, renewables r a better answer since they can theorethically be installed in a month(if we r talking solar).

[@raytrevor1]

Solar isn't so good for charging cars at night - sorry! I have solar panels, and they are crap in the winter too.

[@yvs6663]

@@raytrevor1 i was talking about solar/renewables as a general source of power. obviously solar isn't gonna be good at charging things at night. in the winter i guess the only solution is to set up more of it and hope it does the trick well enough.

[@killman369547]

@@yvs6663 That's why solar power hasn't taken off in cold countries like mine. Winter here is no joke. Solar and wind cannot be relied on up here. Which is why my country (Canada) is one of the pioneering countries of small modular reactors. Because nuclear power will not fail after a week of blizzard and -40C. Nuclear power is also throttleable so it can match the needs of the grid better.

[@Vassilika1]

2:56 Montreal baby!

[@MrGMawson2438]

Very interesting 👍

[@andrewmutavi590]

Fussion is the best bet for both today n the future if am being honest

[@rakibhassan4419]

Seriously dude 😱 it's awesome

[@randomdamian]

THIS WAS MY THOUGHT ALWAYS! And I was wondering how much uranium a car like a Chevy Volt would need to drive

[@StephenLoweFinland]

Interesting. Rory you do a good job. 16Jan2022 Finland

[@SINISTERthe1]

With some refining and more research it could absolutely work

[@wallacegrommet5817]

The reason there are less nuclear power plants is because people are afraid of them. Many of them have been taken down since 1996. Nuclear is very safe compared to fossil fuels, yet it gets a bad rap from the past disasters like Chernobyl.

[@vc2616]

Thought provoking ideas from Rory 👌

[@florimondkrins9980]

Well France already has electric cars working on 70% nuclear power, just saying...

[@shashank5175]

What if we use nuclear power in trucks instead of cars cause you will have a bit more space and we can use a lots and lots of dampers and carbon fibre casing with lead alloy shielding to make it work