Why Nuclear Energy Is On The Verge Of A Renaissance

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

[@jamestk656]

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

[@DOSFS]

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

[@KRYMauL]

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

[@LeeeroyJenkins]

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

[@itsssLAOfficial]

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

[@itsssLAOfficial]

money is all that will matter unfortunately

[@harrisonthorburn7415]

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

[@FancyUnicorn]

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

[@thefogg]

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

[@spikedpsycho2383]

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

[@brrr8995]

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

[@sharathyashshakar3352]

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

[@Jim54_]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@jacktravolta1398]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@jackkennedy9475]

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

[@jackkennedy9475]

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

[@williamgleaves1954]

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

[@caav56]

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

[@erikkovacs3097]

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

[@thisisaname5589]

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

[@williamgleaves1954]

@@erikkovacs3097 Tiny? LOL.

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

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

[@nolongeramused8135]

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

[@TheAlphapuck5280]

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

[@HKDW-1]

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

[@acenull0]

😂😂😂 frfr

[@cageybee7221]

ironically, a fossil fuel plant literally can do that.

[@PierreH1968]

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

[@thekyuwa]

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

[@andresramos5166]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@hstapes]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@KM-00]

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

[@christopherrowley7506]

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

[@vernonfrance2974]

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

[@Steffystr8mobbin]

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

[@CraftyF0X]

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

[@christopherrowley7506]

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

[@erikkovacs3097]

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

[@andyfreeze4072]

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

[@Essob55]

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

[@ooooneeee]

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

[@andyfreeze4072]

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

[@ooooneeee]

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

[@JD-ub5ic]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@toddbaker9922]

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

[@fastcars1173]

From CNBC no less!

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@bryan_turner]

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

[@fredericp64]

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

[@andresramos5166]

This but germany today

[@jonathantan2469]

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

[@Moshe_Dayan44]

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

[@ryno4ever433]

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

[@H3LLS3NT4SS4SS1N]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@hyperreal]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@BakuganBrawler211]

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

[@aussietaipan8700]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@danylo4670]

You've got it nailed.. Absolutely right

[@adamdymke8004]

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

[@active285]

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

[@ShakaZoulou77]

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

[@Jack-bx3ow]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@tapiture3720]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@protorhinocerator142]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@scottfree6479]

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

[@colindavidson7071]

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

[@g-lix7702]

Consumption

[@scottfree6479]

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

[@Radarcb329]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@santiagoparadaplata5097]

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

[@AsurmenHandOfAsur]

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

[@jimgraham6722]

Exactly. Too many however, arent doing the sums.

[@artofthereal]

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

[@jimgraham6722]

@@artofthereal Pipe dreams I am afraid.

[@SK-xn1pv]

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

[@jimgraham6722]

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

[@michaelc.3812]

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

[@calvinmarcusbarron9207]

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

[@davidfortier6976]

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

[@ff6605]

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

[@oskarskates]

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

[@Jebusmike3]

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

[@The1MkII]

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

[@vernonfrance2974]

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

[@Chris-ie9os]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@Chris-ie9os]

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

[@martinjenkins6467]

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

[@brianbrecknock9625]

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

[@andyfreeze4072]

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

[@paullangford8179]

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

[@jonmunch3298]

The world is overpopulated.

[@andyfreeze4072]

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

[@melanie010203]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

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

[@Clark_Kent_ZA]

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

[@ionorreastragicomicchannel]

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

[@Clark_Kent_ZA]

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

[@kurtgellert9166]

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

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

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

[@jwstolk]

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

[@kazioo2]

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

[@thearisen7301]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@sustainablelivingnl773]

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

[@vernonfrance2974]

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

[@bergonius]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@Dave2170]

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

[@mroberts566]

Good idea but sounds expensive

[@richscott2619]

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

[@kev3d]

Anyone who gripes, fears, or says they want to tackle the issues associated with climate change but *also* ignores, dismisses, or besmirches Nuclear power doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

[@clarkkent9080]

Can you take reality seriously? How about the REALITY for the last 4 advanced new nuclear projects in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Please don't base your knowledge on social media and YT videos when the truth is just a few clicks of the mouse and some reading. People today want to be spoon fed information instead of researching facts. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% political support. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@Klerk Kant Yet you continue to ignore the fact that many countries have been building and using small modular reactors for many decades built in two years or less for millions not billions.

[@timothydoyle6859]

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

[@texascottonfarmer]

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

[@krashd]

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

[@rickcaldwell2862]

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

[@Liam_Oliver]

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

[@ShaudaySmith]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@vernonfrance2974]

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

[@robertmarmaduke9721]

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

[@deerhunterthom5458]

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

[@jamesowens7176]

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

[@stinkiaapje]

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

[@jamesowens7176]

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

[@ChessMasterNate]

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

[@Kharnellius]

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

[@jamesowens7176]

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

[@PennyAfNorberg]

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

[@missano3856]

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

[@dickidsrip5262]

@@missano3856 her name sounds swedish so totally a possibility

[@rolandvonmalmborg1905]

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

[@PennyAfNorberg]

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

[@PennyAfNorberg]

@@dickidsrip5262 I'm Male...

[@michaelkovalsky4907]

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

[@curtisducati]

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

[@reahs4815]

people are dumb scared lazy sheep

[@xenotypos]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@happyyoggi3894]

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

[@joshmcdonald9508]

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

[@joshmcdonald9508]

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

[@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043]

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

[@joshmcdonald9508]

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

[@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043]

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

[@StevePhillips76]

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

[@jonathanodude6660]

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

[@user-by7hj4dj9s]

@@jonathanodude6660 LFTR is though.

[@mmoarchives2542]

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

[@mattbrody3565]

@@user-by7hj4dj9s Johnathan's right. Thorium is a fuel, not a coolant. The fluoride salt LFTRs would use could be used as a coolant, but it's a bad idea to use thorium in the coolant salt. LFTR is one of many possible molten salt reactors, and molten salt reactors are the best type of reactor to burn thorium with.

[@mattbrody3565]

@@mmoarchives2542 how so?

[@rdknght17]

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

[@Saxxin1]

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

[@romeou4965]

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

[@shvrdavid]

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

[@rayrussell6258]

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

[@shvrdavid]

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

[@DrJohnnyJ]

Why? Wind is strong and hours of sunlight vary?

[@jonathantan2469]

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

[@ecoideazventures6417]

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

[@cg5648]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@AmazingJayB51]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@HaiLHaiLHaiLo]

Precisely.

[@vernonfrance2974]

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

[@CraftyF0X]

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

[@JAGRAFX]

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

[@boboutelama5748]

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

[@chromolitho]

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

[@drowe2]

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

[@adamsolomon9353]

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

[@vernonfrance2974]

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

[@realfabo]

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

[@jensageholm8774]

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

[@1968Christiaan]

@Risto Kempas I think all your economists are.

[@jensageholm8774]

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

[@rabidlenny7221]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@rabidlenny7221]

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

[@edwardk3]

"Mothers for nuclear" ? Woman good.

[@FUL0H8]

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

[@eminentgold]

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

[@sakmadik69420]

a nuclear waste

[@rof8200]

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

[@nekoJens]

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

[@Rocketsong]

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

[@mattd624]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@mattd624]

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

[@BrandonHunt-zo1mg]

I went on marches and "no nukes" rallies in college in the late 1970s. I wanted a cause partly because I envied those who were in college in the late 1960s. People told me that that was counterproductive. They were right! Looking back, I should have worn buttons that said "no fossil fuels" instead of "no nukes".

[@Mental_Egg]

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

[@Anders127]

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

[@Aardvark-1801]

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

[@tonebanderas]

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

[@caav56]

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

[@kalebbeelen8556]

3 words, molten salt coolants.

[@jonathantan2469]

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

[@caav56]

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

[@kitemanmusic]

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

[@justinscott4503]

As a former US Navy submariner who slept 30 yards from a nuclear reactor this news is exciting. When we peel back the onion layers of irrational fear regarding the utility of nuclear power, the more free we can become from the yoke of carbon based fuels.

[@clarkkent9080]

I spent 40+ years in commercial nuclear but facts are facts and sometimes reality sucks. Please don’t assume that YT videos are factual. If you live in the U.S. here is the reality for the last 4 state of the art Westinghouse AP1000 ADVANCED passive safety features new nuclear power projects and spent fuel reprocessing and in the U.S. over the last 20 years. You decide if this YT video was presenting the truth. The Southeastern U.S. is super pro-nuclear MAGA, has zero anti-nukes, and 100% media and political support. The MOX facility (South Carolina) was a U.S. government nuclear reprocessing facility that was supposed to mix pure weapon grade Pu239 with U238 to make reactor fuel assemblies. It was canceled (2017) in the U.S. After spending $10 billion for a plant that was originally estimated to cost $1 billion and an independent report that estimated it would cost $100 billion to complete the plant and process all the Pu239, Trump canceled the project in 2017. VC Summer (South Carolina) new nuclear units 2&3 were canceled in 2017 after spending $17 billion on the project (original estimate of $14 billion and 2016 completion date) with no clear end in sight for costs or schedule. Vogtle (Georgia) new nuclear units 3 &4 currently 110% over budget and schedule (currently over $30 billion) and still not operating. Mid way into the build, the utility stated that had they known about the many costly delays they would never have chosen nuclear. They are now delayed another year because according to the project management, thousands of build documents are missing. Please google any of this to confirm. If you can’t build new nuclear in the MAGA super pro-nuclear southeast U.S. then where can you build it?

[@justinscott4503]

@@clarkkent9080 Nice handle. I too like Superman. You lost me at Super MAGA. Fun ramble to read though.

[@clarkkent9080]

@@justinscott4503 When I explain what is happening in the U.S. today with new nuclear, I will usually get a response about the failures being due to liberals, the media, or politicians. So, to nip that in the bud, I explain that in MAGA Ga. and South Carolina, there are no anti-nukes, 100% positive media coverage and politicians that are so supportive that the eventual cancelations were delayed by their insistence that a few more billions and they project will be a success. I stared my career at Shippingport, a Naval Reactors test facility, and worked at 5 different nuclear facilities. I have known so many ex navy nukes that I could relate sea stories that would make most believe that I served. In the past , the ex-nuclear navy folks have really impressed me as intelligent, very hard working, fast learning but some what cocky and lacking many social skills needed in civilian life. I have to say that opinion changed in my last assignment prior to retirement, my company hired two nuke sub chiefs, one Jr. Lt., and one nuke aircraft carrier mechanic. The one chief was bi-polar and would go out to his car and sleep most of the day, the other chief never attended rad worker training meaning that he never was allowed access to the nuclear side without an escort and he finally quit. The Jr. Lt spend his day networking and they finally demoted him from manager to glorified supply order and misc task person. The mechanic was top notch, intelligent, hard working, great people skills but the other navy guys treated him like $hit, I assume because of his navy rank. I guess that the Rickover way has worn off and it's no longer your father's navy. Your thoughts?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@Klerk Kant Nuclear power is only a problem because anti-nukers like you keep spreading disinformation.

[@TheSkubna]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@frequentlycynical642]

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

[@1968Christiaan]

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

[@frequentlycynical642]

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

[@frequentlycynical642]

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

[@dustinredeagle9465]

Every green person should be fighting for Nuclear energy.

[@Loopyengineeringco]

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

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

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

[@JellyJman]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@JellyJman]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@JellyJman]

@@clarkkent9080 no lie detected

[@clarkkent9080]

@@JellyJman You shall reap what you sow

[@wayneaustin5533]

Germany dropped the ball by closing their nuclclerar plants

[@rhmayer1]

One of the fatal flaws of nuclear power is not just that it is so expensive - more costly than many alternatives - but that it requires secrecy due to the high national security threats and associated risks, particularly with high efficiency materials (which are found missing every year). It is extremely high risk on so many levels - no other technology has such serious repercussions for things as mundane as faulty welding or myriad of other human errors. But it is the secrecy that prevents public access and oversight, that results invariably to cover-ups of accidents, spills, missing radioactive materials, etc. Secrecy and democracy, i.e. transparency for public oversight, just doesn't go well together. This doesn't even touch on the extreme cost of not only building nuclear power plants but the even higher cost of decommissioning them (since they have limited lifetimes), or that no insurance company will insure them and so it requires the U.S. taxpayers to subsidize the industry - that the government provides the insurance (the only private industry requiring ongoing public subsidizing) - unable to stand on its own and certainly failing a true Capitalist free market test, and not to mention the still unanswered questions about what to do with the radioactive waste long-term. And not to mention the increased cancer patterns of the usually indigenous uranium miners. All the billions spent chasing nuclear power would be better served improving, refining, developing the already less-expensive non-fossil fuel alternatives and a high-efficiency national grid system that can direct renewable energy anywhere needed when the local renewable energy is not efficiently produced (like solar-based regions when cloudy, etc.). These limited financial resources should also be directed to high-efficiency renovations of buildings where we have existing technology today to vastly improve energy efficiency and can reap huge cuts in energy needs and provide lots of jobs across the nation (and the world). There are simply cheaper, less risky, safer, better solutions to our energy and climate needs than nuclear.

[@clarkkent9080]

I don't disagree with some of your comments but the secrecy issue really does not apply to U.S. commercial nuclear plants. Yes, you cannot get floor plans for a nuke and they will not tell you when new fuel is arriving but other than that there are no secrets. Hell even their safety Analysis Report provides a lot of plant data. Corporate media concerns for sure but certainly not secret like in the DOD weapons programs.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Nuclear energy is actually cheaper than any of the renewables that the Greenies are pushing when factoring in energy storage. Renewables will not work without either fossil fuels or nuclear as we do not have the means to store renewable energy effectively to actually make it work as grid power exclusively.

[@christianpersectives]

Yes

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

How is nuclear more expensive than wind/solar with storage?

[@mikerock8177]

You don't need massive reactors the US Navy's has been using nuclear for years on their ships and all new ships will be as well well reactors

[@postandghost9391]

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

[@sabrekai8706]

1988 I started working as a millwright apprentice in Toronto. We had a presentation from Ontario Hydro all about nuclear energy (Sunshine units they called it) and how safe it was. They wanted some people to work at Pickering Nuclear power station. My buddy and I were seriously thinking about it. A short time after the dog and pony show, Pickering had an accident where two workers got their years dose in about 5 minutes. So much for that job. The two were instantly let go. The reason? They were doing some work in a hot zone and both the safety coordinator and the crane operator mistook the practice shield for the real one. Bright red and 14 tons for the real one. Bright orange and about 3 tons for the practice shield. So much for working for them.

[@bobsaturday4273]

with all the fake shilling on these comments , you add the reality factor . sure these stuff can be handled properly , except for one thing ...it's people doing the handling and people are morons just a few years outa the trees walking upright but still with a big craving for bananas

[@bateman9mm681]

What's the point of a practice shield? Seems like a really dumb idea. Why would someone make a nonfunctional piece of safety equipment that looks like the functional one? Like I'm going to have a practice parachute that's black, and a real one that's tan; that's won't ever backfire.

[@sabrekai8706]

@@bobsaturday4273 I have always wondered what Tepco was thinking when they built a nuclear plant right on the shore. Earthquakes happen fairly frequently in Japan, along with tsunamis. They could have built the plant the headland, paying the penalty for having to pump water up hill but then they wouldn't have flooded out the generators. I also haven't figured out why a power plant needs power from the grid to run itself. Lose the grid, flood the gennies and poof, you have Fukushima.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@sabrekai8706 "The two were instantly let go. The reason? They were doing some work in a hot zone and both the safety coordinator and the crane operator mistook the practice shield for the real one" This shows the safety culture in place at NPPs. If you weren't paying attention in the safety class, or ignore the checksheets - bam! - you're out! And quite right too. Idiots should not be coddled (in any industry). You and your buddy turned down a chance to work with the best, because you YOU FELT YOU WEREN"T GOOD ENOUGH, not that the nuclear industry is a terrible employer. Retention at nuclear plants is quite high. Here is an interview with a guy working at Ontario Power who was asked to transfer, and how much he enjoyed the transition. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4e1gICKjayogbM

[@sabrekai8706]

@@factnotfiction5915 man You are so full of it. They were let go because they took their total yearly dose in one go and could be exposed to anymore. As for us not being good enough? Guess we did OK, we both got our C of Q in 3 and a half years. My buddy moved to Alberta and ended up managing million dollar jobs. I moved on to something else. But carry on. Remember me when the next disaster hits. I'm sure it will be soon.

[@mjohn5921]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@Autonova]

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

[@PennyAfNorberg]

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

[@smokymacpot1733]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@dinosaurdude5668]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

Of course its true its on the internet

[@dinosaurdude5668]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@Andysaid420]

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

[@levinav2297]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@bergonius]

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

[@tuesdayjam5905]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@nekoJens]

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

[@robsmith9596]

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

[@Cody_Handsome]

Exactly! I have been posting this too

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

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

[@Z80Fan]

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

[@Cody_Handsome]

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

[@Z80Fan]

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

[@joelborden3242]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@pattybaselines]

Doesn't have to be this way.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@liammitchell2225]

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

[@nicholasgrubb151]

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

[@nicktecky55]

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

[@ricecakeboii94]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@ViIgax]

Yeah thanks a lot, tree huggers.

[@NavarroRefugee]

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

[@thecrazyinsanity]

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

[@ricecakeboii94]

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

[@ekszentrik]

People born after Chernobyl are "appropriately" (to its actual effectiveness) enthusiastic about nuclear. It's yet another change mainly brought about by old people dying off.

[@caav56]

Funnily enough, Ukraine is very pro-nuclear and kept all NPPs bar ChNPP (which was doomed to closure anyway due to graphite warping in the reactors putting a hard limit on how long can they run) running, even expanding and upgrading them.

[@BrotherStororius]

To be honist, nuclear energy doesn't scare me. If anything it excites me, the idea of emmission free energy with little enviornmental effect is the best for me!

[@clarkkent9080]

New Nuclear cannot be build cost effectively in the U.S.. Just look at the last 5 nuclear project failures in the U.S. and prove me wrong.

[@varyolla435]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@clarkkent9080]

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

[@varyolla435]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

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

[@banafys]

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

[@WitchMedusa]

I love nuclear energy, so good!

[@pierregravel-primeau702]

You must be very rich. It's 10x more costly than anything.

[@604h22a]

@@pierregravel-primeau702 yes because gas and coal are free

[@williamsmith1741]

@@pierregravel-primeau702 Nuclear is not expensive. Nuclear power is "capital intensive". When you spend $5B building something, that isn't a $5B expense, that's a $5B asset that you then depreciate/expense over the asset's "operational life", which for a nuclear plant can be anywhere from 40 to 80 years. Nuclear power has one of the LOWEST operational costs of any power source, chiefly because nuclear fuel is incredibly cheap, relative to the amount of power that it yields.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@pierregravel-primeau702 Factor in storage with wind/solar and you find nuclear is much cheaper.

[@DanielGarcia-eb3ui]

@@williamsmith1741 it like burning gold for fuel. not cheap at all.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

I’m a retired nuclear engineer who wholeheartedly supports nuclear power. I believe that it is very unlikely we will have a nuclear revival anytime soon such as within two decades. First, we do not have the skilled workforce to build the large nuclear power stations that we have today. I worked on such a project that was cancelled in 2017 and it was a massive struggle to find qualified people to build it. That wasn’t the only problem but it’s a problem any large nuclear project will have. Small Modular Reactors are proposed to get around this but the most immediately viable project was cancelled late 2023 because costs escalated beyond feasibility. Hate to say it but the future is natural gas. If the renewable transition fails as badly as I expect, we could even see a comeback in coal before nuclear.

[@drmosfet]

Thorium Molten Salt reactor are the real answer, current uranium and water reactors are the main reason for poor adoption rates, one way to describe the problem is to compare current reactors to a car that has a hole in the fuel line only 1% of the fuel turn the wheels of the car, the other 99% of the fuel goes into the ground for 20,000 years. To complete the comparison you need to remove the water from the car cooling system and replace it with gasoline/petrol and then add a endless amount of safety systems to keep the car form exploding. Uranium is for warmongering, water is surprisingly dangerous in a nuclear reactor when things go wrong and the reason that nuclear reactor have blew up in the past and sadly in the future because the nuclear industry dose not want to except the only safe form of fission reactors. How many radioactive ghost towns do we need before we realise that the current uranium/water reactors are a bad ideal regardless of what ever new sales pitch is used.

[@JAGRAFX]

Perhaps you are overlooking the track record of reactor projects using liquid metal [or molten salt] as a heat-transfer medium. Experiments for what would have been the first airborne nuclear power plant were performed as far back as the mid-1950's with many engineers reacting in amazement at the heat-transfer properties of the liquid metal as opposed to light water. This, however was short-lived being that the USS Seawolf reactor had excessive mechanical problems due to the corrosive nature of molten salt as a medium. EDF of France went in big back in the 1970's with their 1200 megawatt Super-Phenix only to come to a commercial viability dead-end. Trillions in today's dollars have been historically spent on these systems without much to show for it. Additionally; the real possibility of some type of water-sodium reaction occurring with ensuing mechanical damage in in the picture whereas this situation is not present in the light water types. Try to read our comment above on the viability of reactor power and CNBC's reporting on this important matter. RON JAGRAF/X

[@drmosfet]

@@JAGRAFX Thanks great reply I need to look up some of the points you made👍 Can you recommend some KZbin links on the sub and EDF you mentioned.

[@JAGRAFX]

@@drmosfet --- Do not have any favorite YT links for the subject matter but much industry data and literature is redly available to the casual and scientific researcher on the USS Seawolf SS[n]-575 and the SuperPhenix LMFBR constructed for EDF in France. The Seawolf's sodium reactor was changed out in its entirety from the General Electric S2G plant to the Westinghouse S2W(a) plant at General Dynamics Electric Boat Division. Believe that the details may still be classified in regards to cost to the US Navy for the technical escapade.

[@millennialmind9507]

What about corrosion?

[@moose5.9]

Nuclear is the green future. Not wind and solar

[@fiddiehacked]

Go clean, not gangrene...

[@Indi.a.B33ger.Viru.s.Nation]

🤣 Marvel reactor.... I wonder where the engineers got that name. 🍿😎

[@Simonpt2000]

Great video very informative

[@duerf5826]

A lot of fear-mongering in this video. The primary concern over nuclear power is not safety but cost. Building and running nuclear plants are _really_ expensive. The real question is how can we make nuclear cheaper so that it's competitive to other green energy sources or even fossil fuel.

[@reahs4815]

only building is expensive, running is cheaper than gas and oil even before carbon taxes and that stuff

[@pwillis1589]

@@reahs4815 Not quite. There are significant regulatory costs in maintaining safety and eliminating weapon proliferation. SMRs also create extra waste as the process causes neutron leakage which is another added cost.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Nuclear is already cheaper than wind/solar when factoring in energy storage.

[@matthewhuszarik4173]

You can’t make nuclear both safe and cheap. It is as simple as that. Even country’s building plants like China know they aren’t the low cost producer.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@pwillis1589 & Duerf - When you buy shoes, do you think about the price of the shoes or the price of the shoe factory? It is possible that an expensive shoe factory (bigger, more equipment, etc) might manufacture cheaper shoes. NPPs may be more expensive than a forest of wind turbines - but NPPs make cheaper electricity than wind turbines do. We can see this in RE Germany, retail electricity rates 2x that of Nuclear France. We can see this in RE California, retail electricity rates 2x that of Nuclear Illinois.

[@scibust]

"Curved concrete covering over the reactor is called the reactor vessel" -- WRONG The reactor vessel is a steel structure that houses the fuel and control rods The containment building is the concrete structure

[@specialopsdave]

Came here looking for this comment, I noticed that mistake too

[@TheAlphapuck5280]

Do you really expect anything better from CNBC? They are the reason Pop Tarts come with instructions.

[@scibust]

I guess you can never underestimate the intelligence of news outlets like these

[@Pilot597]

I’ve always said that the future of our energy generation would be a mix of renewables with nuclear reactors to compensate for when the sun isn’t shinning or the wind isn’t blowing. Renewables alone aren’t going to cut it. The mining of lithium to provide energy storage solutions is anything but ‘green’.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

Every energy production means we use today has problems either in extraction of raw products, construction of the facility or its function and sometimes a combination of the three. Each one needs to be constantly evaluated to mitigate unintended side effects. For example many birds are killed by wind turbines. Some technology has been developed to warn birds away from the wind turbines but I haven't seen how effectively they are.

[@iareid8255]

Joseph, I maintain, and for many good reasons, that renewables are a dead end and can never replace fossil fuel generation. Intermittency is the big problem with no answer. You canot run nuclear on an on and off basis to balance renewables' dreadful performance. Nuclear is run at full output at all times except for maintenance or refuelling, it's inherrent inflexibility is one negative against nuclear. The other main problem with renewables is that it is uncontrollable feeding a system that needs to be in supply and load balance at all times on an instantaneous basis. There are other slightly more technical deficiencies also all of which means that renewables can never replace conventional generators as they are not an equivelant.

[@neodym5809]

Nuclear reactors are the worst for complementing renewables. They are too slow in increasing or decreasing output.

[@CanadaMMA]

Telling someone not to use nuclear power while the world is simultaneously pumping countless tons of GHGs into the air, is like telling someone not to drink coke while pouring yourself a glass of bleach.

[@clarkkent9080]

Tell the 3rd world countries that cannot afford nuclear to just stay in the dark at night and eat raw food instead of cooking it because the rest of the world wants to reduce GHGEs

[@Lukaus1241]

Germany has a long history for tragically stupid political decisions.

[@quinto190]

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

[@fiddiehacked]

Come for the Thorium, stay for the reactors. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqrUioNsm5tpg9k

[@xinyanwang6910]

For chip, food and supply chain shortage, you notice them when they happen. For energy shortage, you don't notice it immediately. When you notice it, it's already too late. Save the planet, when we still can. Make it happen. Support and promote if you see; develop and deploy if you can.

[@aguspermana8643]

save the planet [that is convenient to our living], when we still can

[@plofighter95]

Honestly if you want to change the narrative of nuclear power plants, you have to change the name first. Most people get scared when they hear “nuclear”, all they envision is large mushroom clouds or Chernobyl. Remove the nuclear part of the name and then most people will support it when you tell them it’s carbon-free energy and the land footprint is small compared to other sources of energy.

[@clarkkent9080]

Changing the name will not make new nuclear cost effective in the U.S..

[@richard8651]

Thorium modular reactors are the way to go. It is dependable, safe and adaptable. They can also use the waste from conventional reactors as fuel and at the same time drastically cutting the half life of the present waste. Solar and wind do not supply a constant source of energy and do not have a way of storing the energy produced for when the Sun doesn’t shine and the Wind doesn’t blow!

[@mylesgray3470]

Yea, but no enriched uranium for weapons comes along with them so they never get built. That’s the sad truth.

[@Sacto1654]

The big change: the end of uranium-235 fueled reactors. The next change will be switching to using thorium-232 as fuel, and thorium is *WAY* easier to find than uranium.

[@arachosia]

Any idea when this will occur? I should invest in thorium.

[@michaeldeierhoi4096]

The reality is that thorium reactors still require uranium to facilitate the process.

[@Sacto1654]

@@michaeldeierhoi4096 Nope. What happens is that when thorium-232 is bombarded by neutrons, it turns into uranium-233, which is a fissile material that can be used by reactors.

[@fiddiehacked]

"Thorium" reactors will more likely utilize U.238 before U.233. The Sorenson vids by McDowall are great but keep looking at all the advanced designs like Terrestrial, Thorcon, Elysium, ...

[@neK6299]

@@Sacto1654 Also, Thorium is not fissile on its own. It would need to be mixed with uranium of plutonium to achieve fission.

[@rajeshru]

there is a vey nice pbs documentary on how nuclear energy was discreted by sierra club and led to its downfall

[@madtscientist8853]

I'm gonna be completely honest my problem With it is that 1. We still don't have a Perfect system 2. We are still Designing different systems to see if they work better 3. We Still can't Put out more energy than we put in 4. My biggest problem is It's literally scientists Idea of a perpetual energy machine

[@nicholaidajuan865]

No-one has been able to convinced me that small modular reactors are a good idea considering their nuclear security risk. "Small" and modular is a synonym for "a large number"

[@williamgleaves1954]

Then you may want to spend some time understanding the details of what constitutes a nuclear security risk and how irradiated low-enriched uranium spent fuel is not a large threat.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

No CO2 in the world and all Dictatorships with nuclear industries.????? Yep, monopoly profits and political donations for 100years

[@ammoboots9050]

Interesting video and interesting to see how technology repeats itself. The US Army tried small scale nuclear reactors (3MWt) using highly enriched uranium fuel in the late 1950s and early 60s. This led to the SL-1 incident where the 3 operators were killed by a steam explosion and meltdown. User error was involved but the incident highlights some key dangers of miniaturized reactors and the problems with using highly enriched uranium fuel. James Mahaffey's "Atomic Adventures" is well worth a read in this respect - it also goes through just how uranium is enriched - it is worth a video on its own! Colin Tucker's "How to Drive a Nuclear Reactor" is also well with a read. This explains in understandable detail how a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the typical reactor found in the West, is self-stabilising (amongst a whole lot of information!). The Fuel Temperature Coefficient and the Moderator Temperature Coefficient cause reactivity to fall if the core temperature rises. If temperature rises, power falls having the effect of lowering the temperature which will, in turn, bring reactivity back to zero. For a temperature fall, the reactivity will rise, the power will increase, and temperature will return to normal warmer values and will return reactivity zero. This 'negative feedback' is self-stabilising and enables a PWR to run days on end without control rod movement, simply held stable by these temperature effects. It is incredible how clever PWRs actually are!

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

Oakridge had some of the greatest scientific and engineering minds on the planet. Remember they designed the PWRs fresh off WW2 and this was ONLY their "stopgap design" made to learn how to use a reactor for power production. They did warn (and were correct on it) that scaling up a PWR would run past their inherent safety that guaranteed the containment to be absolute under a certain output. Above it, and without constant active cooling, the reactor was unsafe. They also recognised before the first one was even built what would be their downside (mainly, the low efficiency of the burn, and the necessity to rely on a rare isotope of uranium). But to them it was good enough for the time and it was good enough for their first client, that being the navy (who also gained benefit in safety from, well, being surrounded by water). What is not know is that they made BETTER designs, mainly in the liquid fuel, molten salt, low pressure regime. They used many fuels (standard U-235/U-238, plutonium, and U-233 which was their main target) and proved the design was better than the PWR in every way via the MSRe: the molten salt reactor experiment. The MSRe was hugely successful, fixing every outstanding issue with PWRs (expensive build, gigantic pressure vessel, inability to efficiently breed fuel, low burn rate, fuel damage, and the risk of meltdown and steam explosions) while also improving on almost every single characteristic of the reactor. Being at high temperature and in a liquid medium, the thermal reactivity was good enough to be the ONLY regulating element if needed. You could block the control rods, stop ANY cooling, and the reactor would self stabilize, and do so long enough for the drain plug to melt (a tiny bit of frozen salt kept frozen by a nitrogen pump, which turns off if power is lost) and drain the entire reactor's content into passively cooled drain tanks, where it can remain safe essentially forever. Its an idiot proof system, one entire passive that self triggers regardless of conditions or even user intervention (preventing a Chernobyl like accident through incompetence) Alas, Oakridge suffered from their success as it put into question the projects from rival institutions (sponsored by the government of the time) and the military (Making future reactors run on U-233, the bred product of thorium, meant you could not use reactors to make nuclear weapons, back then the main concern of the nation). Their project was forcefully stopped, and the documents actively locked up and not spread around. Its a real luck that any of it, as well as the MSRe itself, survived at all. For nearly half a century we were not even aware that such a level of success had ever been achieved. And even the programs supposedly to be "protected" by the removal of the MSRp from the picture (like EBR) were cancelled for political gains just as easily. And as usual, we still squander this incredible gift because nowadays we only assume that the PWR is the ONLY reactor type that ever exist. The length our governments go to hinder progress in the nuclear industry is quite telling.

[@indraneelsingh4854]

PWR are clever, but have a look at Gen-4 reactors, they are quite ingenious.

[@Bababui69]

The Navy has the capacity to use it's nuclear reactors to power a Small grid during emergency situations.

[@rolandvonmalmborg1905]

Self stabilizing? One of the constructors' wishing wells! Did not work in Fukushima.

[@bradyb2233]

I really think this is the only way forward in the “renewable” future.

[@simonloncaric7967]

If we start getting Uranium from the oceans (as it is dissolved in the water) it becomes a renewable resource. The uranium in the water would never run out as it's renewed by the rivers that flow in to the oceans. Thus becoming renewable.

[@eclipsetrekker]

Nuclear has and always will be the answer.