Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century

Nuclear energy has been a source of somewhat emotive debate since its discovery in the 1930's. This week we take a look at the current status of the global Nuclear Energy industry and the role it may play in the fast approaching energy transition.
Help support and influence the growth of the Just Have a Think initiative here:
www.patreon.com/justhaveathink
Research links below...
www.carbonbrie...
www.world-nucl...
www.world-nucl...
www.world-nucl...
phys.org/news/...
www.nytimes.co...
www.world-nucl...
policy.friends...
andthentheresp...
www.escholar.m...
ourworldindata...
www.theguardia...
www.renewabler...
www.bbc.co.uk/...
www.iaea.org/s...
www-pub.iaea.o...
www.unscear.or...
scienceblog.ca...
www.theguardia...
thebulletin.or...
www.theguardia...
www.livescienc...
articles.thmsr...
www.iea.org/we...
climateactiont...
ieeexplore.iee...
neinuclearnotes...
yle.fi/uutiset...
www.beyondnucle...
www.france24.c...
www.theguardia...
uk.reuters.com...
www.google.com...
www.theguardia...
www.google.com...
#nuclearenergy #energytransition #actnow

[@sharoncombs58]

I have been a subscriber for a long time, but haven't commented. I simply want to tell you that I like your channel very much. You obviously devote a great deal of time and energy prior to making the video; and I especially appreciate your calm and rational manner as you relate each video! So, thank you for all you do!!!

[@leax_Flame]

I also remember a reactor design that uses the “waste” from conventional reactors and could in theory power the US for 1000 years with what’s currently in storage. I mean it’s unproven but I believe they’re building a test reactor already. It’s interesting but I still lean towards solar, wind and hydro with grid scale power storage.

[@steamedcream7671]

There are proposed molten salt and pebble bed reactors that can use nuclear waste as fuel. Definitely something worth pursuing imo.

[@brian2440]

You seem to be describing a ABR or Advanced Burner Reactor, however these reactors unless combined with other processes are not effective for utility scale energy generation as nuclear burning releases significantly less energy than nuclear fission. As for the timeframe I would say that's likely hyperbole. Construction materials such as concrete or even steel have degradation periods that are shorter than 1000 years, so in order to sustain the reactor you would eventually have to replace it. There are several test reactors under development by the US National Laboratories particularly at INL - Idaho National Laboratory, which includes the largest test reactor facilities in the world. Most of these tests today are performed as computer simulations so as to reduce capital costs for experimentation. However under GIF - Generation IV International Forum there is a wide variety of generation IV advanced nuclear tests ongoing in over 20 different countries. So far there have even been the introduction of two commercial Generation IV nuclear reactors with the BN-800 Fast Breeder Reactor in Russia and the permitting of a IMSR (Integral Molten Salt Reactor) in Canada.

[@brian2440]

@Will JohnsonActually what the comment is referring to is more related to the DMSR tests at ORNL between 1970-1973

[@PalimpsestProd]

There IS a safe place to store spent fuel from 1st and 2nd gen reactors. Burn it in Thorium breeder reactors.

[@brian2440]

1. What exactly are you trying to burn? 2. What isotopes are you most concerned of? 3. Nuclear burning is typically used for actinides, which typically contain low levels of radioactivity thus presenting less overall risk to society. 4. Nuclear burning does not mean that the isotopes disappear, the process makes isotopes absorb neutrons thus converting them into different isotopes with the objective of significantly decreasing decay rate, but this also means that the radioactivity of the material will increase.

[@ICGedye]

So why isn’t stuff made more public knowledge? Should it be able to do something useful with nuclear waste, like further processing to create more energy, or build batteries for energy storage, then that would be great. Of course we should be able to reduce our consumption, and be actively doing so.

[@PalimpsestProd]

@@ICGedye Better efficiency with electricity? sure. Reducing consumption of electricity? Nearly impossible. Switching to all electric ground transport , a must in my mind, increases electricity demand by 50% or more. At the same time we have to start heating our existing buildings with electricity rather than gas. Most other types of building heating require a new building design. In about 10 yrs solar panels will start to need to be recycled and the energy to do that with grow exponentially, the same way the install curve did.

[@ICGedye]

PalimpsestProd I totally agree on more reliance on electricity being a great thing. Streamlining our power consumption to one source improves efficiency over the long run, and cost. But this says nothing about the people who consume much more than fair share, y’know offices with lights blazing through the night, homeowners who run mega flow hot water systems, drivers of SUVs etc. Wether or not they give a stuff about our environment, their selfish behaviour should carry a MUCH higher premium. That’s what I meant. Thanks for your reply👍🏻

[@mondotv4216]

@@ICGedye It is public knowledge. It's just that a practical Thorium MSR is not yet a reality. Therefore when people say this they should always preface it by saying that "When we have the technology to build a Thorium reactor that will last long enough to pay for itself".

[@purplechum9]

Capital costs for Thorium Liquid Salt Reactors are dramatically less than uranium light water plants. And can be sized to meet local as well as regional needs.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

And "fast neutron" molten salt reactors can use nuclear waste, plutonium, etc. as fuel.

[@stevenoliver9728]

One of the things that isn't mentioned enough is the whole NIMBY factor. While nobody relishes the idea of living near a nuclear plant, the efficiency of nuclear power means that fewer people have to live near one. The novelty of windmills and solar panels everywhere will soon wear off when people realize that you need many hundreds of square miles of these things to generate the same power of just a few strategically placed reactors. Where there was beautiful landscape in the past there will be these windmill monstrosities or the blinding glare of huge fields of solar panels. It doesn't sound great for the property values of a very large number of people.

[@mntbighker]

The bottom line is "distributed" wind and solar are a joke. Put them on your roof or on your property and reduce grid reliance if you like. But stop wasting money and time working on solar and wind farms. There is nothing wrong with helping reduce the need for base load individually. But base load needs to be next gen nuclear. NOW!! And it needs to replace other methods of producing industrial heat NOW as well.

[@karhukivi]

When the 150 MW Spanish nuclear plant at Zorita (43 miles E. of Madrid) closed in 2006 after nearly 40 years of operation, the local townspeople were upset because so many of them had employment in the plant or in local service industries. I remember watching them interviewed on TV and nobody had a bad word to say about it.

[@George-ib8ip]

I really appreciate your videos! 👍👌

[@Chimel31]

No, I appreciate them more! ;)

[@benjaminsisko4519]

You mentioned Thorium based molten salt reactors, These reactors are significantly safer than current nuclear reactors in that their design means they cannot melt down. they are what is called "Walk Away Safe" What that means is that even if there is a complete power failure, AND the operators stand back and do nothing, the Reactor will shut itself down safely. They require power and human intervention to keep them running, with out that, they shut down. if Chernobyl and Fukushima had these reactors, the accidents would not have happened. Also Thorium / Uranium 233 reactors produce significantly less radioactive waste than traditional nuclear reactors, and the waste that they do produce decays to a safe level in a few hundred years compared to 100's of thousands of years for Uranium 238 reactors which only burn 3% of the Uranium fuel and waste 97%. Molten salt reactors can also use waste Uranium from traditional nuclear reactors as a fuel, so a significant portion of current nuclear waste stockpiles could be reused in these reactors instead of burring it in the ground for 100's of thousands of years and hoping it doesn't come back to bite us in the ass. Molten Salt or Generation IV nuclear plants could provide all the power we will ever need for the foreseeable future. At least until fusion power comes along.

[@doritoification]

couldn't agree more :)

[@Music5362]

Thorium reactors convert Thorium into Uranium in a 'Thorium breaker reactor'. You can have Molten salt reactors with Thorium also.

[@kofManKan]

Problem is, the public were told - repeatedly - that nuclear power is safe. Now it's apparent that this isn't the case. Fool me once and all that.

[@doritoification]

@@kofManKan well there's a lot of hysteria around nuclear but anyone who isn't biased and has a basic grasp on statistics can see nuclear is extremely safe.

[@Music5362]

@@kofManKan Actually, even with the old dangerous light pressurized water reactors, and with all the accidents, I understand even with all that, it's still the safest form of energy production. The new designs, mainly molten salt reactors make them walk away safe. There is the risk of proliferation though.

[@oystla]

Nuclear is not cheaper than gas or coal. The new UK Hinkley nuclear require above 100 £ pr MWh, and to be inflation adjusted in 30'years. Higher than any other energy source.

[@brian2440]

So one reactor is now data for the entire industry in every nuclear country on earth? Never mind the insane amount of variables you just glossed over....

[@xxwookey]

Hinkley is £92.50. That's less thall the offshore wind we built so far (which is £130-£150). New gas and coal is usually quoted around £115. So it is cheaper than that. Existing amortised plant is cheaper than all of these (£50-70 typically), but you need to compare new with new when looking at what to build now.

[@oystla]

@@xxwookey 92,5 was agreed in 2012, but inflation adjusted since then, i.e above 100 now. Off course wind has been more expensive, but the point is cost decline as wind technology has matured. Wind can now be built without subsidies. Nuclear have only experienced cost increase with New safety requirements after every new accident.

[@xxwookey]

@@oystla Even if you take £100 due to inflation, it is still cheaper than new coal or gas, which is the point I was disputing. We all agree that new wind and solar has got much cheaper - around the £50-80 mark, depending where you are in the world. (all these number on an LCOE basis). What is not yet clear is how much extra system cost there will be from additional storage, grid reinforcement and overbuild to keep something approaching our existing grid reliability. The trick is to make this work without ending up with too much fill-in gas putting the grid carbon intensity up.

[@oystla]

@@brian2440 the same problem with the New French project at Flamnville or the New ongoing in Finland. Very expensive in the West including US.

[@philerator]

There were specific circumstances that lead to both the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. Chernobyl was an ages old graphite core reactor which should have been shut down decades ago. In addition, the proximate cause of the disaster was an ill-advised experiment. Regarding Fukushima, it was madness on its face to build it on the sea shore in a zone subject to earthquakes and tsunamis. Regarding 3 Mile Island, it was built using 'old' technology which wouldn't pass muster today. There does already exist a safe nuclear reactor technology and that is the Candu heavy water reactor. In the event of an accident, the core is flooded with heavy water which cools and moderates the core in a few moments. Thorium salt reactors are still being developed and tested and they do look promising. A key advantage to thorium salt reactors (if they can safely be brought into service) is that they are much smaller than current reactors. There are a half dozen or so companies pursuing thorium salt technology. Regarding the problems with cost over-runs of fission reactors in process of construction, it would need a thorough examination to determine the cause(s) in each case. However, bad management appears to be at least a partial cause in all. In summary, there is reason to believe that well planned and managed fission reactors could be safely built using modern technology and with due respect to lessons learned. Having said all that, according to media reports scientists working on fusion reactors believe they may be close to very close to bringing fusion reactors to the engineering design stage of development.

[@brian2440]

This argument includes a lot of correct information, but when you said specific circumstances youre not really going far enough. Graphite moderation played a role in Chernobyl, but what a lot of people don't fully appreciate is the amount of issues that all had to go a very particular way in order for the reactor to have a worst case scenario. These factors not only included fundamental systems in the reactor itself, but also required particular energy usage during the day, and specific operation time for the reactor. If the safety test at Chernobyl has been run 12 hours later than it did the events likely world not have occurred in the same way as Xenon concentration (a neutron absorber) would have been significantly depleted. We see this with every major accident and not only in nuclear accidents. Even with a less so incident like Three Mile Island a lot of people correctly point out to the issue of water reactors, but in order for that accident to have occurred there was a long stream of events that had to transpire in order for the accident to occur a particular way. In Fukushima yes there is obvious risk from seismic forces and yes the tsunami flooded the reactor creating issues. However there are additional issues such as the time and rate of pressurization in the reactor core following the accident, the culmination of radioisotopes in the reactor core at the particular time, the damage to ventilation pipes on the molecular level following the accident, the molecular composition of air in secondary containment and concentration of materials at a particular time etc. The idea that anyone can look at these accidents and say that one thing can be linked to saying that all nuclear is bad is complete blasphemy, because there are too many variables to say that there is only one major issue. A reactor may have points of failure, but that doesn't mean that these points of failure are always the largest reason why a reactor fails.

[@michaelwoodhams7866]

Yes, good engineering would have prevented all these accidents. I can point to three specific engineering failures at Fukushima: the seawall was inadequate to the long term tsunami risk, a risk which was known through geological and historical evidence. (A safety engineer at the building of another plant a bit further north along the coast fought valiantly for a higher seawall, and had he not won that fight there would have been a second disaster.) Secondly, they did not consider the consequences of tsunami inundation - had they done so, they'd have put the backup power generators in a safe location. Finally, they did not mitigate the risk of hydrogen build up in an accident scenario. The USA had recognised this and mandated mitigations, but Japan did not follow suit. This last issue would not have saved the reactors, but would have allowed keeping the vast majority of the radioactivity within the containment vessels. With good engineering, we CAN have safe nuclear power. Whether we WILL have good engineering, however, is more problematic. Whether we can have safe and economic nuclear power is even more problematic. See another comment I've made on this video for why I think molten salt reactors are a safety nightmare.

[@wlgoege]

You are correct. But these miserable, few examples of the "great danger" of nuclear are all this blog and other anti nukes have. Counting actual injury and fatality, nuclear power has by very, very far the best safety record in the power generation field. If you want safe, go with nuclear. The danger of "waste" is another example of the trickery employed against nuclear. "Waste" that is already serving as the fuel of the future in new technology reactors, has never hurt a single person, let alone killed any one. What do we call a "danger" with zero victims? An Imaginary danger just like the evil spirits claimed at Salem, Mass in the 1600's.

[@AdrieKooijman]

Good engineering may prevent accidents. But if we're about to build ten times as many nuclear power plants as we have, where do you recruit all those qualified engineers and builders?

[@shatteredstar2149]

@@AdrieKooijman are we running out of engineers?

[@user-lb8vw9el4d]

Hey Dave, thank you again for another very informative show. I absolutely enjoy watching your program, and would probably enjoy it no matter the material you presented. The topics you come up with need to be discussed and acted upon, as this world is in need of serious readjustment-well, humans are in need of a serious readjustment anyway. At any rate, I wanted to say thank you for what you do, and I really also think you've got one of the educated comment sections on KZbin. Thanks again Dave, can't wait to see your new episodes. :) Your loyal viewer, Aaron Andrew

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Aaron. Thanks for your feedback. Those are very kind words indeed! I do appreciate the support from folks like you, and I will of course keep plugging away with the message that I think we all need to hear so that we can all hopefully make some smart decisions about the changes each of us needs to get to grips with in the coming years. The next two or three videos are likely to be focusing on land use, following the recent IPCC report. There's some very interesting science out here on Conservation and Restoration Agriculture that I want go into in some detail. All the best. Dave

[@dewittmiller3698]

Thanks for an objective presentation of this important issue!

[@RobDeVos101]

They also have operational limitations they requiere water and during this summer in France 20 reactors were shutdown and of 7 the output was reduced. So they are not the holy grail!

[@xxwookey]

Everything has operational limitations. Seaside reactors do not have this problem of making the river water too warm for the wildlife. The reactors could work fine in heatwaves - it's just that the fish/ecosystems would hate it. It's fair enough to reduce power in that case. You could design a much bigger cooling system so it would still work on the heatwave days, but that would be excessive expense, given very occasional usage.

[@DaveKraft1]

@@xxwookey Correction -- seaside reactors have ALREADY had power output curtailed due to excessive heat of the water. For example, Pilgrim in the USA in 2015; Finland’s Loviisa power plant in 2018. It's not just that "the fish/ecosystems would hate it." They would actually die. Furthermore, the excess heat increases both bio- and chemical activities in the locally heated areas. This can result in a potential increase in algae blooms on the one hand, or creation of hazardous chemicals on the other hand. As you point out the solution is building bigger cooling systems, which of course drives up the cost of nuclear, making it even less competitive than renewables which do NOT depend on water to either make steam, or be used for cooling purposes. Finally, intake of hotter water whether from rivers or ocean bats reduces the electrical output from reactors, making the cost of power more expensive. So -- why do all this?????

[@xxwookey]

@@DaveKraft1 That you for the correction on seawater temp limits. Noted. Why do this is because you get very reliable, very low-carbon, very safe, very small environmental footprint power. That's a useful combination. The fact that heat-exchanger systems are constrained by environmental considerations is just another engineering/cost/reliability tradeoff, not a reason to dismiss nuclear power wholesale.

[@doritoification]

I love how nuclear has pretty much the best capacity factor going, Close to 100%, and you're arguing for renewables with some of the lowest capacity factors going based on this point. Are you okay?

[@xxwookey]

@@doritoification Capacity factors are essentially irrelevant here. They are built in to the LCOE price. What matters is what it costs per MWh (and some things about variability and predictability), not what the ratio of average to max output is.

[@baercontact]

Is there any chance of creating a podcast of your videos (I realise I would miss all the visuals) so I could listen to your input while offline during my cycling trips. Thanks for all your hard work and excellent preparation.

[@49andrew]

Thanks for this summary of the current discussion of nuclear power, and especially for the citation links to the sources. I think one next step in your discovery about nuclear energy should involve comparisons of things like accidental deaths of different energy sources, amounts of materials considered wastes, and the many different types of reactors now undergoing safety reviews. It's far too easy to lump all types of nuclear reactors together; engineering differences do matter. Existing nuclear plants are baseload electricity generators because they were designed for that. Molten salt reactors in particular are designed to be general purpose industrial heat sources for whatever you need heat for: chemical reactions, load following and peaking electricity generation, and more.

[@ggg148g]

Congratulations on this very informative and balanced video on a very polarizing topic.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Giancarlo. Much appreciated. All the best. Dave

[@lordsamich755]

It's not informative or balanced, It's just contrived to appear as such. He actively mentions thorium; doesn't lie about it, but he might as well be.

[@ggg148g]

@@lordsamich755, please be specific. What's wrong with speaking about thorium? Which part is not balanced in your opinion? Are there lies or dishonest omissions?

[@lordsamich755]

@@ggg148g More of a bait and switch. The fact that he mentions thorium betrays that he knows waste storage is a non issue; (and has been a non issue the entire time, even without LFTR technology). He then continues to talk about the need to store waste for 10,000 Years. He is leading the listener to think there are issues that he knows to be solved.

[@ggg148g]

@@lordsamich755, with nuclear power plants presently functioning, waste it's obviously an issue, everybody knows, not mentioning it would be ridiculous. The fact that this issue could be solved by a yet to come generation of nuclear power plants, it is very important and in fact it was discussed. I mean... today, tubercolosis is not an issue, thanks to antibiotics. But it was obviously an issue the day after the antibiotics were discovered. You could reformulate the whole thing in a different way, but saying that this video is unbalanced would be a gigantic exaggeration. Is this the harshest criticism you can do about this video? Then, come on, admit it, it is a very good one.

[@DavidDiaz-jt2km]

Wow. Your videos are sooo informative. Awesome work.

[@akithyren]

I'd love to see a video that mentions Traveling wave reactors as well ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor ) this one, besides enhanced safety has the advantage of being able to use the existing nuclear waste as fuel and therefore you take care of 2 problems in one go. Congratulations on your videos , they are really nice and I loved the fact that you mentioned Thorium energy as well. Keep up the great work :) and thank you again !

[@samueleveleigh2767]

Good video(s) I rarely see a genuinely balanced argument of nuclear energy, thank you.

[@donaldjmccann]

I think that thorium deserves a look; a couple of terawatts of thorium nuclear could be online in 12 years. I still think solar is the best possible solution because of its scalability and the availability of huge storage batteries now becoming available.

[@KateeAngel]

Funny, how Germany decided to close nuclear power plants after Fukushima, even though said accident happend because of earthquake and tsunami, and Germany has almost no earthquakes and no tsunamis!

[@renikun6243]

And is digging 400 meter deep holes (actually canyons to be more percise lol) that needs a few decades to be filled with water to burn the worlds dirties fuel... and still are some politicians here talking about a german leadership in terms of the climacrisis

[@oystla]

Will Johnson the German plants where OLD and had not many years left of their design life Anyhow. And they did not fulfill the present safety godes, and any upgrades would be more expensive than building new.

[@PalimpsestProd]

That's not funny, it's stupid.

[@user-py9cy1sy9u]

fukushima daiichi complex had 6 reactors. Everyone is talking about 3 that melted down and not about the rest that didnt. Why they survived and didnt melt down like other 3 while being hit equally?

[@brian2440]

@@user-py9cy1sy9u Actually 4 of the reactors experience radiological release, but three of the reactors were not operational at the time thus had no ability to cause a meltdown in the first place.

[@richardglover314]

The last century was full of hope and despair, madness and magic, ideology and idiocy. A century we must not forget. This century needs to be one of sustainability, a challenge that we must come to terms with. The fact that we can do something does not mean we must do it. Renewable energy is far less dramatic and magical than nuclear, it is benign. But just like the seemingly dull notion of sustainability, it is what we must embrace and come to terms with.

[@doritoification]

It's not benign to use vast quantities of resources and land to collect the most dispersed energy sources available to us to the detriment of nature. Sure... we should do it because we have the climate to worry about. But nuclear requires far less land and far less materials and produces *FAR* less waste. Albeit rather hazardous waste which is why we deal with it very responsibly and keep it isolated from nature (unlike any of the waste associated with other energy sources).

[@richardglover314]

@@doritoification For most of my life I have felt that the opposition to nuclear has been because of its association with nuclear weapons and that for many countries that has held back it's potential. Now with the rise of renewables I feel nuclear is a source we just don't need. Renewables we are told are cost effective and harnessed with storage make for a great energy system. I rather think of renewables as working with nature, not to its detriment.

[@doritoification]

@@richardglover314 yeah that's a very popular opinion, i used to be right there with you. unfortunately though, when you consider the actual land requirements and the fact we just don't have a storage solution which is scalable enough you start to see that renewables can only be part of the solution. Because nuclear is so energy dense it actually harmonises very well with nature by not interfering with it. Germany is leading the way in terms of renewable capacity deployment per capita and yet they still depend so heavily on coal. Why? because they began phasing out nuclear and they dont have any large scale storage solution for their renewables.

[@Tell-me-more-75225]

@@richardglover314 Nuclear is nature and none of us would exist without it!! (STARS) Nature even created its own reactor in Africa (do a search for France, Africa, Natural reactor if you are interested) and the world did not die. If we do not use an energy source that is a million times more energy dense than anything we currently have or reduce the amount of energy we all use, we will not survive as a species.

[@zottel7887]

As a Bavarian I have some problems with nuclear: 33 years after Chernobyl over a quarter of hunted wild boar are to radioactive for human consumption in Bavaria (1600 km away!) and most of the mushrooms in our forests. Chernobyl was the starting point for the renewable energy movement in Germany not climate change. And gave us with EWS the first 100% renewable energy provider in 1991. But in my view there are other disqualifying problems apart from meltdowns and contamination for decades and centuries. The most obvious on is the price! If I remember correctly, the feed-in-tariff for Hinkley Point C will be 0,12 €, right? That is more than not only more than onshore wind, but more than rooftop solar! Every home owner in the Uk that isn't working hard on energy autonomy isn't thinking straight! And then there is the disposal of radioactive wast. That isn't priced in. The price and the long brake even time that comes with it, prohibits innovation and cost reduction. The opposite is the case with renewables. Thorium like so many other hyped technology will be ready for the word market fare to late. You didn't mentioned when the first commercial reactor will be ready and if it fulfills European safety standards, but I guess not before 10 - 20 years. By then we should be 70% - 80% renewable, if we want to stop climate change. And leads to the next problem with nuclear: it's base load energy. That we don't need in our electricity system for a renewable future. All power input into the grid that is not solar and wind must be complimentary and flexible. Otherwise we need a tonne of storage and that will push the price of nuclear even higher. To recap: If it goes wrong it's a threat for most of the continent. It's the most expensive form of energy production. And more base load is the last thing we should ad to our electricity grid.

[@brian2440]

There are some issues for 100% renewable Germany especially if this country wants to pursue primarily solar and wind (even though most renewable generation is actually from biomass at the moment). -"Buffering volatility: A study on the limits of Germany's energy revolution" www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292117300995

[@xxwookey]

The price for Hinkley C is £92.50/MWh. That's cheaper than _all_ the offshore wind built so far (which is mostly £150 -£130 (although it is for 35 years, not 20). Newer offshore, coming on-line in future years will be cheaper than Hinkley, but it's a perfectly decent price for the time it was agreed, and you can make a good case for a dispatchable power kWh being worth more than a variable power kWh, although it does depend on how the grid is run/set-up. So yeah, Hinkley is not cheap, but it's not excessively expensive either, as a lot of people like to make out.

[@ICGedye]

I totally agree. If only we could turn off our lights when we don’t need them. The problem for many to create our own energy is the massive cost of installations and parts. Many of which require maintenance and in terms of solar, pv panel tech is ever evolving and vac tube arrays need replacement after the seals give way. The other big problem is unsuitability of our properties, with most being too small for capacity (roof area, or space for a thermal store or gardens big enough for shallow gshp) or unsuitable for solar due to roof aspect. It’s just not that simple, and always very expensive.

[@ICGedye]

xxwookey very good point. But that the bottom line isn’t the sole reason generation is in the spotlight. And anyway, you can’t just write off the bailouts governments are having to plough into failing projects because of budget overruns. If those were factored in plus waste management would nuclear still be cheap? It also my just be that Hinckley C was one of the better projects.

[@CheapHomeTech]

​@@xxwookey From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom: "Offshore wind projects completed in 2012-14 had a levelised cost of electricity of £131/MWh compared to a wholesale price of £40-50/MWh.[20] In 2017 the Financial Times reported that new offshore wind costs had fallen by nearly a third over four years, to an average of £97/MWh, meeting the government's £100/MWh target four years early.[21] Later in 2017 two offshore wind farm bids were made at a cost of £57.50/MWh for construction by 2022-23, nearly half the cost of a recent new nuclear power contract.[22]"

[@davidfinch2478]

and not to mention that Guy McPherson may have a point when he asks what happens to the 450 power plants if we a sudden major economic/societal collapse --perhaps a few 'meltdowns'?

[@renikun6243]

David Finch that is why we need the molten salt technology!

[@doritoification]

Its true that there are some (not many) reactors today which would require power and human input to ensure a safe closure in an extreme event but realistically this is just fear mongering. The cores shut themselves down at the first whiff of trouble so no more nuclear fission occurring and the decay heat only takes a day or so to be managed safely (sadly less time than fukushima had before the tsunami hit).

[@clivemitchell3229]

@@doritoification But uranium fuel continues to give out heat fast enough to require constant cooling - usually in a pond. Without human attention, the pond can dry leading to fuel ignition.

[@brian2440]

In an economic collapse energy usage falls, so if it would actually be more likely that these plants would shutdown than meltdown.

[@brian2440]

@@clivemitchell3229Actually nuclear fuel rods are put into cooling ponds due to the energy release of short lived isotopes as they experience rapid radioactive decay. The fuel rods are not critical when placed into the cooling ponds, with the exception of some very specific fuel matrix arrangement particularly found with plutonium fast reactors.

[@jtmcanada234]

Great piece! Thanks for your channel!

[@mctoel2630]

There's a positive point for your list I'd like to add: Nuclear energy isn't just good for the base load, it's actually highly flexible (about 70% base and 30% flex in 'normal' operation)

[@pauljmeyer1]

Check out MSR's to provide energy and to neutralize those stockpiles of highly radioactive waste as this seems to me to be a sensible way to go.

[@hooplehead1019]

Yes, and for that any fast breeder (almost all experts shifted from thermal to fast) is a good tool. However, physics dictate that this mode of operation is much less economical. So it wouldnt be suited for large-scale energy supply, but rahter transmutation - waste processing like you described. Until we know how gen 4 reactors fare technically and economically, we neet to upramp renewables, we have no time to waste. If gen 4 reactors or fusion in 30 years prove to be great - fantastic. Until then, we know what to do.

[@Jiefyang]

Problem I see with lftr technology is that it is crazy complex... rather than mediate a core of radioactive matter, you have to somehow manage a hot soup of molten cocktail of a radioactive periodic table... and then the piping becomes radiative... it is also so very underdeveloped.

[@DaveKraft1]

Greetings Dave -- I've been watching your excellent videos for some time now, and want to compliment you on how clear, well-researched, and fair your presentations are. If there were some kind of journalistic prize for reporting clear science, you should be nominated. Now, some comments on this video. As a safe-energy/anti-nuclear activist for 38 years, I want you to know that this was one of the best, clearest, accurate and fairly presented point/counter-points of nuclear power I've ever seen over this period. Of course I have my quibbles with some of your information, but that comes from a different level of interaction with the nuclear industry and its advocates than what your video encompasses. Here are a few items that I consistently find "missing" in these kinds of point/counter-point presentations: 1.) they describe nuclear power in the "platonic form," (i.e., the abstract, idealised representation where nothing goes wrong, everything goes according to plan and design, etc.), not usually in its day-to-day reality: as such the analyses usually rely on data/numbers etc. gathered and kept by government and international agencies with either an official mandate or predisposition to be supportive of nuclear power. This bias and distortion does not always come from deliberate "doctoring" of the data presented; but more often from 1.) HOW the data is presented, usually in a manner that subtly leads one to favor NP; 2.) what data gets LEFT OUT of the discussions and decisions, or is considered inadmissible for consideration. These two techniques (and others not mentioned) tend to end up skewing the PERCEPTIONS about nuclear power towards being more favorable. A grittier, more realistic portrayal of the industry and regulators is laid out in the recent book by the former CHAIRMAN of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dr. Gregory Jaczko: "Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator." As Einstein once quipped: "In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice, they are NOT!" 2.) nuclear power's political component: you're not to be faulted here, because NOBODY includes this in these analyses. But consider: in the U.S. for example, the nuclear industry wields tremendous political power through campaign donations, political power-relationships, etc., and the "inny" good-ol'-boy networks these create. The result is to make it impossible to OBJECTIVELY implement energy policy and resources. An example -- in Illinois where we operate, the nuclear giant utility Exelon Corp. (and its antecedent company ComEd) is the largest lobbying arm in our state legislature of any industry. They also donated heavily to the Barack Obama presidential election campaign. The results of these two items have been staggering: 1.) for over a decade, their lobbyists PREVENTED the major expansion of renewable energy resources in Illinois. And only now are they willing to allow modest (certainly not maximal) expansion, but only by FIRST getting a $2.3 billion "bailout" for economically failing reactors that cannot compete with renewables and natural gas on price and cost. This form of "nuclear hostage crisis" has been expanded to at least 8 other U.S. states, where billions in bailouts are being awarded to economically unviable reactors, and renewables programs are curtailed (Ohio is the most recent case in point). SO, money talks louder than rationality. 2.) This creates the self-fulfilling prophecy and distortion that, because renewables represent a smaller wedge of energy output, they cannot possible provide enough power to power an industrial/technological society -- without owning up the the fact that the nuclear utilities and advocates CREATED that bottle neck in renewables creation resulting in those smaller output percentages! 3.) the nuclear power/weapons connection: many of the comments already on this vid ask WHY thorium or other renewables were not chosen in the first place if not superior in meeting legitimate energy needs? Well, the light-water reactor industry was chosen in the 1950s to be quiet providers of plutonium for nuclear weapons manufacture. Atoms for Peace was the public fig-leaf needed, and up until recently, strenuous efforts were maintained to keep public discussions, perception and decisions about nuclear power separate from those relating to weapons manufacture. Reality again intrudes, as in: 1.) how Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India developed their nuclear weapons -- through using "peaceful research and academic" reactors to get the plutonium, and 2.) all the fuss currently being made over the POTENTIAL for Iran to get nuclear weapons through its "peaceful" nuclear power program. Not to mention the false fear and rationalization used to destroy Iraq because of their non-existent nuclear weapons program. 3.) more recently the U.S. government has contracted to obtain tritium from a U.S. commercial nuclear reactor, to be used as yield-enhancing agents for H-bombs. OK -- I've gone on too long already. You get the point, I'm sure . Again, your video was a huge cut-above; please keep providing these. You do a great job. Be well, Dave Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago IL USA

[@cncshrops]

Thanks for that detailed contribution. It often feels as though youtube comments are feeding a monster, but some of us are listening 😊.

[@DaveKraft1]

@@cncshrops Thank you. NEIS is a "service," and we take that "S" seriously. Be well.

[@lostboy583]

Definitely been my favorite new go to for science updates for several months now. Excellent climate-change related content. Liked&shared. Hope this channel continues to grow. Good day sir.. from Midwest US

[@jthadcast]

our problem isn't a need for power, it is the careless use by civilization to support consumption first solutions. the problem is thinking that our civ just needs a tweak to its carbon emissions and grid power.

[@grahamrdyer6322]

No I don't go for nuclear, just look at where they are built ..... Right next to the sea, um global warming/sea level rise/more strong storms.

[@matthewadamsteil]

Those are light water reactors. The newer gen MSR plan to have passive cooling. And from my understanding should be no different than a natural gas or coal plant in terms of water consumption.

[@nebulaaah]

Nuclear needn't be anywhere near as costly to construct. From a source within the video: '...costs of nuclear are much higher than for other energy sources. This is because nuclear plants are technically complex and must satisfy strict licensing and design requirements. The design and construction of a new nuclear plant requires many highly qualified specialists and often takes many years, compounding financing costs...' Pro nuclear advocates have pointed out that the costs are largely due to this bespoke approach to building nuclear plants. But if we replicate existing designs and deploy the same construction companies, these costs can be cut significantly.

[@ronkirk5099]

Nuclear - Damned if we do and damned if we don't! It is a difficult call whether or not use new generation nuclear (such as pebble bed reactors) to transition to greener forms of energy or just use the money we would spend on more solar and wind generation. My opinion is just to double down on more and better solar and wind with massive battery farms to smooth out the load. Improvements to the grid (smart grid technology) would also help. Again, another excellent video on the subject. We all need to educate ourselves on these subjects so we can pressure our leaders to make the right decisions for the planet and not just the expedient decisions for vested interests. Our very survival is at stake!

[@yummychips_]

good point, I would still say go nuclear. Nuclear investment will drastically reduce waste and emission. The problem with Solar and Wind, they will always create excess and indirect waste and emissions. Batteries have to be replaced, parts and have to be restored, new tech over rides old tech. It generates a ton of indirect waste, and wore so if you scale it up. Of course this is under the assumption that there is no break through that could circumvent this. I still think it is highly unlikely that a tech break through would happen though.

[@peteredge6308]

I wonder what alternative solutions industry/academia could come up with if they had the budget of £30billion (cost of current nuclear plant) to research and implement a low carbon/renewable base load production facility to match the capacity of Hinckley point?

[@lordsamich755]

Feel free to actually back that number up with say... absolutely anything. Something to consider that no amount of money changes the laws of physics. Which is to say... no it can't and no it won't. If you are genuinely concerned about the environment and climate change, support Nuclear Power. France has been carbon neutral for 50 years!

[@shmadmanuts]

30 billion? How about 10 times that? An October 2016 report commissioned by the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) on behalf of the Initiative New Social Market Economy (Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft, INSM) provided the first full-cost estimate of Energiewende to 2025. This amounted to over €520 billion in the electricity sector alone. The main component was €408 billion for the EEG levy, while the expansion of transmission and distribution networks totaled €55.3 billion. At the end of 2015, €150 billion had already been spent on Energiewende, excluding network expansion costs. Don't tell me nuclear diverts investments from renewables

[@redrockcrf4663]

I realise it is difficult to get figures, but in comparing carbon emissions and other perfromance issues of nuclear energy, figures for storage are never fleshed out. By that I mean the carbon emissions of building storage and safely curating the spent fuel has to have a carbon footprint and a significant cost. Thus when looking at nuclear we repeat the same mistake made with so much modern production of externalising certain costs to make the business case look better, even though those costs surely have to be paid (storage, vigilance, and associated carbon emissions)

[@macmcleod1188]

Nuclear energy can't correctly project it's levelized costs. It ends up being much more expensive than projected- the companies keep the profits and people not born yet pay the bill.

[@lordsamich755]

Absolutely nothing like wind power. Where the cost of wiring up 2000 generators in stead of 2 generators is externalized into the connection costs. Our connection charges went from 20 dollars per month to 40 dollars per month, and for what? Wind farms that aren't even producing 10% of the total power!

[@macmcleod1188]

@@lordsamich755 I can't speak to your particular area but that's not the levelized cost. I don't know if your electrical company is ripping you off to cover the cost of transitioning off of coal. Generating with wind has a lower cost (and a lower cost and less risk to decommission in the end too) Here's what I'm talking about www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/ "As LCOE values for alternative energy technologies continue to decline, in some scenarios the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear. "

[@lordsamich755]

@@macmcleod1188 "but that's not the levelized cost." "The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electrical energy over the lifetime of a generating asset." en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Levelized_cost_of_electricity Which is exactly my point. Mountains upon mountains of propaganda claiming that wind power is the cheapest / cheaper than Nuclear. That only works when you point blank pretend that nobody has to pay for the connection cost of massively distributed systems like wind. It still represents more than double the cost to me! The power company isn't ripping me off as such. The issue is the massively dishonest campaigns claiming that wind is cheaper. But this only works when you don't count the additional cost of distribution.

[@watsonmikeable]

I love your presentations and I'll just have a big think!

[@tomkelly8827]

I live an hour away from Canada's biggest nuclear waste site at Chalk River. Nuclear waste does need to be dealt with. France has the best system of burning, reprocessing and reburning the waste so there is very little actual high level waste left over in the end and also much more power is derived from a given amount of ore removed from the ground. Let's follow France's example in this regard. Also small modular reactors look to be the best chance of avoiding multi billion dollar cost overruns. I am living off grid with solar panels and batteries but I do see that nuclear is very powerful and very useful and according to the data it is far safer then every other power source, even when you include the catastrophies.

[@squamish4244]

You should have added length of operation to the pro section of nuclear plants. Many are still operating without issue after 40 or 50 years and projected to operate up to 100 years (!) longer. Hard to believe how badly we screwed the pooch on this one primarily due to fearmongering. The biggest reason nuclear faces such costs and delays is because nuclear paranoia in the 1960s-70s caused American nuclear plants to institute incredibly high safety standards and wad through oceans of red tape. Now nuclear is extremely safe, in fact the safest form of energy generation around (even more than wind and solar). Ironically, nobody complained when coal plants were sloppily built, there were afaik no regulations about scrubbing technology and the emissions from coal particulate matter (which they were well aware of at the time) killed 40,000 Americans just 15 years ago when half of American power _still_ came from coal. 800,000-1 million people still die of breathing coal smoke every year worldwide, and 6,000 people die in coal mining accidents, primarily in China.

[@myjizzureye]

Just a point of note, the term "Baseload" came from coal fired plants which took days to fire up from cold to full capacity so shutting them down during off peak times was not an option. The "Base Load" was the minimum amount of power the plant could produce before it shut down. This is where off peak power came in when market operators offered cheap night rates to power hot water services to maintain the "Base Load".

[@kaitlyn__L]

I for one am rather hopeful about SMRs, small modular reactors. The idea is to knock them out on an assembly line and ship them on the back of a lorry, operating them as a sealed unit the size of a large diesel generator or two, and once the fuel is spent the company comes with a new unit, replacing and taking away the old one. The factory construction and small size (a few MW or even just a few hundred kW) would hopefully eliminate the long lead times and sunk costs, while also vastly improving safety because there's only so much heat the tiny core can hold onto. And they could even be hooked up ten or twenty or a hundred to a larger power plant, which would afford much greater control than one very large reactor core. So I'd be curious to know what you thought about them, especially if there's downsides to this approach that I've not heard about. Obviously there is currently some public opposition to the potential of every town having its own tiny nuclear power station on the outskirts. But as a potential upside, they could potentially integrate better with smart microgrids much better into the future. Lots of angles to this. PS I thoroughly enjoyed your more recent video on fusion power as well. Keep it up man!

[@grasonicus]

This isn't an unbiased review as you didn't mention the following: 1) The death rate per unit of power generated is the lowest for nuclear energy: www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ - yes, lower than solar and wind. 2) Germany's massive spending on wind and solar helped only to drive electricity prices drastically up. Had they used that money to build nuclear plants they would have had 100% zero CO2 producing electricity. 3) Breeder reactors can use spent fuel to generate electricity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor The US and other countries using nuclear power generation for some time have lots of spent fuel that can be put to good use. Look at this: terrapower.com/ 4) France, the country which relies most heavily on nuclear electricity generation has not had a nuclear accident in all the time - more than 50 years. They export electricity to the renewable-relying greenies. And you said this which is not true: Storage capacity for electricity is developing apace. There's a physical limit and we are most likely very close to that limit. Look at the periodical table and the position for the best candidate, lithium. Not one big city, London, New York, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, can run for more than a few minutes on all the stored electricity in that country, even if they bring all car and other batteries not seen as part of the grid into the grid. If storing spent fuel is such a problem how come there have not been problems causing catastrophe because of that in more than 50 years?

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

yeah france had never a nuclear desaster, thats right. but the french reactor infrastructure is marode and crumbling. the most dangerous and instable reactor is directly at the german border and in the area here, local doctors, emergency responders etc have to stock large quantities of iodid pills, for the case, that something happens. if that reactor breaks down like any of the other large desasters, central europe would be inhabitable

[@grasonicus]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Typical. Scare stories about what may happen in the future while ignoring the past and present. Past up to present--nuclear has the lowest mortality rate per unit of electricity generated. Nuclear electricity is extremely reliable--24/7/365. Present: Germany and Denmark, two very politically correct countries, have the highest electricity prices in Europe. Iodide pills are cheap and last forever. They would have prevented many of the Chernobyl deaths. There's no reason to think France is not maintaining its reactors well. All reactors nowadays have containment shields, unlike Chernobyl. They also use coolant (water) moderation which guarantees that if the coolant is lost the reactions stop. Animals living in and near Chernobyl and Fukushima show no signs of radiation harm.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@grasonicus well, maybe you should look up your infos. wildlife in the chernobyl exclusion zone shows significant spikes in radio isotopes in the bone structure, the higher you go up in the foodchain. plantlife is also affected, as seeds like cherry seeds etc also have hightnened radio isitope counts. the whole area is polluted with toxic dustparticles from the reactor core. this dust has rained down in areas of germany too, thats why in these areas are banned for mushroom collection etc. most european reactors are from the 60s, 70s and 80s. these dont have extra shielding and are prone to regular malfunctions in and around the core reactor system. the oldest and most dangerous reactor of france is that way, because maintenance and renovation is lacking. those powerplants are not state run, but run by private energy corporations. final long term stowage, waste reprocessing etc are all in public hands and are financed by taxpayer money

[@grasonicus]

​@Matthew Huszarik I put up a link to a reputable organisation. You provided only your own opinions with no backing. No, they didn't use only radiation exposure. It's from uranium mining to your lit-up house. For solar, they even counted the people working on roofs killed. Roofers have the 6th highest work-related mortality rate in the USA.Hydro was pushed up by a hydro dam in China collapsing its wall killing thousands. Here's more: ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#24f7fd7709b7 www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/ www.power-technology.com/features/nuclear-mortality-rate-safe-energy/ But I suppose you know better. As no evidence exists to support your claims, why don't you get the data supporting your point, write it up and put it up clearly referring to the opposition websites and declare them charlatans? Let me guess; that will not happen. Libtards are called libtards because they elevate ideology above fact. Everyone with a grain of intelligence knows that facts rule as far as truth is concerned. Libtards hate facts.

[@grasonicus]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Give your references. You just make unsupported statements. Furthermore, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Why no nuclear disasters in nuclear-disaster-ripe Europe? Your radioisotope counts are surrogate results. That means they may have no consequences in life. This is a well-known occurrence in medicine. I was a doctor for 25 years. Show me actual phenotype detrimental effects. And no, nuclear power generation is not nearly the most expensive. That includes taking care of the waste. With combustion generated electricity it's just pumped into the air. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source And reliability and storage are huge problems for solar and wind. Show me credible sources saying European nuclear reactors are dangerous and not well shielded. Here's about nuclear waste: www.euronuclear.org/nuclear-basics/waste/radioactive-waste/ Only 0.2% is high-level waste. Only a fool goes against the facts.

[@DavidWilliams-DSW558]

By the way, had you heard of the nuclear power plant in Mülheim-Kärlich, Germany? It was built in the 1970s without adequate consideration of the earthquake risks, operated for just over a year, has been standing derelict for decades, gradually being decomissioned, with that process climaxing in the demolition of the cooling tower just last weekend, as you can see impressively here: facebook.com/watch/?v=373813426517314

[@ryanruggero9957]

Good balanced video on the pros and cons of nuclear energy. I lean in favor of nuclear development as a low carbon bridge to newer sources of power. Thorium reactors could be a gamechanger, so fingers crossed.

[@wlgoege]

Molten salt thorium reactors - Yes! But keep supporting the amazing existing reactors (100 of them in the U.S.) we have today. Most are paid for and making electricity at about 2-3 cents per Kwhr. The natural gas industry helped by big "environmental" organizations like Sierra Club, are lusting to push existing plants out of business so they can jump in to make billions. Harming to the environment? That's someone else's problem say the natural gas people.

[@ryanruggero9957]

@@wlgoege keep em humming. I actually toured the Enrico Fermi nuclear plant south of Detroit, back when I was in school.

[@MrGonzonator]

Have you done a video on the North Sea Wind Power Hub? Maybe I missed it... It seems to me like exactly the kind of project that the Climate Emergency crowd should be getting behind.

[@br1900s]

That was an excellent breakdown. I noticed you didn't mention the Fusion Energy as one of the future nuclear energies? Supposedly the research is at the cusp of producing more then they put in. Also, there is a push for smaller reactors which you did not mention either.

[@banksarenotyourfriends]

I'm happy to be corrected on any of this, but I think you've neglected a few details Dave: 1) The percentage of nuclear waste that requires long-term storage for more than a few decades is tiny compared to the amount of waste that comes out of each reactor per year - the figure you state per reactor is the figure for the entirety of the waste, including waste that will be safe within our lifetimes - so I think that statement's a bit of a misrepresentation of the reality. Also, it seems a bit weird to talk about the mass/weight of the waste when it's the volume that matters to the discussion - particularly as most people will have no perception of just how heavy an element Uranium is. 2) The severe lack of storage for highly radioactive waste is more a result of NIMBY-ism than any technical ability to build storage - this is, to my mind, no doubt largely due to a campaign of misinformation by the fossil fuel industry over the last 70+ years. 3) At 9:20 in your comparison between renewables and Uranium fission, you state that "renewable resources like solar and wind are in infinite supply", however the manufacturing and maintenance of renewable energy sources also produce vast amounts of toxic waste - including radioactive waste - which is far greater in volume than the level of waste from nuclear power production The materials throughput per TWh is far lower for nuclear power than it is for any of the renewable energy sources. Just ask the people of Baotou in Mongolia, where the majority of the world's solar panels are manufactured. Nuclear waste doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it needs to be compared relative to other energy sources to give a balanced perspective on it or else you are continuing that propaganda on the fossil fuel industry's behalf - and you're presumably not even getting any cheques off them! ;) 4) Just something that might have been worth mentioning but you didn't - statistically speaking, the number of deaths per TWh of energy produced from nuclear power compared to all of the other energy sources make it the safest energy source we have by a long way - no doubt in large part thanks to all the extra cost and regulation that goes in at the planning phase of the process. You mentioned the costs, but not the benefits of those costs. Anyway, I love your videos - and the rest of this one is no exception - but as always, the devil is in the details, and I think you missed a few important bits in this video. If I had to guess, I'd assume you came at this from an anti-nuclear perspective before you started researching the topic, and haven't changed your mind about it really? I appreciate that you always try your best to present a balanced and unbiased approach in each of your videos, but it feels like this one came up a bit short on that front, that's all. Perhaps I'm wrong. (SOURCES for the majority of what I just said: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrennial-technology-review-2015_1.pdf and ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ECOFYS%202014%20Subsidies%20and%20costs%20of%20EU%20energy_11_Nov.pdf) Reading that back, it seems worth stating that I don't work in the nuclear energy industry, it's just one of those things that I was originally against until I examined my biases properly, and realised I was incorrect. All the best.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Andrew. Thanks for your feedback. Just to clarify my position...I came to this video as someone who is 100% agnostic about Nuclear Energy. Those who are dead set against it have exaggerated the downside and those who are fully in favour of it unsurprisingly focus on the obvious benefits, and downplay the risks (and discount public opinion, which is not irrelevant). I have been putting off making this video for a year, not because I'm conflicted about the technology but because quite frankly I knew that the vast majority of viewers on both sides of the argument would completely slag off what I consider to be a fairly balanced presentation. That, I'm afraid, is analogous to the entire climate debate, especially in America. We are a truly cretinous species, totally unable to co-operate and take pragmatic decisions even when our own survival depends on those decisions. It is a pattern that has been repeated by every single major civilisation throughout history and it looks like we have learnt zero lessons from those experiences, so quite frankly we deserve all we get. Apologies that you have been the recipient of a bit of a rant but I have just spent an hour reading a string of utterly delusional nonsense from a stream of extremists on my comments thread (I do not include you in those by the way) and I just needed to vent a little bit. Thanks for listening! All the best. Dave

[@banksarenotyourfriends]

@@JustHaveaThink hah! No worries, I feel bad for criticising you now! It'll all be better after a nice pot of tea, I promise ;) Do you want a cuddle? Just keep on keeping on, and don't feel the need to reply to everyone mate. Your channel is getting too large for that anyway - if you need an excuse to run away and ignore the notifications... Thanks for clarifying your position, this video was never going to be an easy one. I think you're right about public opinion mattering; but I think the approach should always be to try and inform that opinion more with a view to changing it, rather than succumb to it just because the masses think they're right about something that they've got a shady knowledge of at best. Anyway, maybe just sack off the comments section this time around... Thanks for all you do. Your content is incredibly well made and I'll keep sharing it far and wide :) Now get that tea on.

[@JustHaveaThink]

@@banksarenotyourfriends Thanks mate. You're points are well made and absolutely valid. I appreciate your forbearance of my ranting (I rarely reach that point, I promise!) As you say, a nice cup of tea is definitely the answer :-) Cheers. Dave

[@kristopherdavidson2097]

Great video, thank you! I'm happy you weren't totally negative about nuclear energy. It needs serious consideration if carbon levels are to be reduced in a relatively short space of time.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

No, actually it is estimated it would take 40 years before the nuclear plants were online, whereas we can begin converting to solar and wind on a constantly growing percentage of our needs RIGHT NOW, and at a third to a fourth the cost per kW-hr.

[@kristopherdavidson2097]

@@rstevewarmorycom didn't say it was the ONLY OPTION, just that it has benefits that need to be LOOKED AT. Wind and hydro have benefits and drawbacks too.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@kristopherdavidson2097 I don't see ANY benefits if nuclear is going to cost 4 times more per kW-hr, and take 40 years to complete, where we could have cheap renewable power from solar and wind if we begin to start adding it right now. Wind and solar are ready to go, building plants to make solar panels and wind turbines are quicker and simpler and are known trusted technology, and reap an immediate increase in power available to the grid that grows exponentially.

[@shmadmanuts]

@@rstevewarmorycom em, how are you goingo to go renewables NOW! when China, with all it's push to renewables, es expected to generate electricity wind&solar from 14% to 40% in 24 years? Indeed, both nuclear and renewables are needed

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@shmadmanuts Except nuclear would take over 40 years to build all the required reactors, and train the personnel, and find the fuel, which is dwindling and becoming WAAY more expensive. And 40 years is well beyond the climate tipping points. Wind and solar are 4-5 TIMES less costly for the SAME number of kW-hrs, and we can convert all the car factories to build them starting today!! Go to a wartime footing on this and you can save the world in 15 years. China could do it a lot faster, and if they see US doing it, they WILL!!

[@RageDavis]

Since the topic of German energy production was mentioned: Have a closer look at actual German mega construction sites, comparable to the dimensions of building a new nuclear power plant: The new airport near Berlin keeps on getting delayed including vast cost overruns, same goes for a train station in the city of Stuttgart. Additionally, the future main station in Stuttgart is below ground water level, so passengers are in a real danger of drowning in case some pumps fail. Furthermore, the slope of the tracks and platforms is so steep, that wheelchairs and stollers are in danger of starting to roll downhill on their own. Another mega construction site was the Elb-Philharmonie, a concert house which also too way longer than expected, of course generating a massive cost overrun. And guess what: after it was finished, audiences complained, that the accustics of the building is crappy, to say the least. Taking this into account, everyone in Germany and Europe should consider themselfs lucky that Germany isn´t building nuclear power plants right now: Taking the recent "successes" into account, the power plant would blow up contaminating most of Europe even before being loaded with nuclear material, despite not being bombed by Israel´s airforce, as they did in Iran (in case you forgot...)

[@desertnurse8513]

The one Major thing you forgot to mention is how many of the currently operating plants are beyond, or far beyond there operational lifespan. Also what is the latest generation plant built, 2 maybe 3. Are any molten salt Thorium plants in use today anywhere in the world? A solar farm takes maybe 3years from concepcion to generating power for the grid.

[@billyjoeallen]

strictly speaking solar isn't renewable either because it's also nuclear and the sun will run out of fuel one day. There is more thorium than we can use in 1000 years.

[@ricksmall5240]

Sun won't run out of fuel for a few billion years

[@billyjoeallen]

@@ricksmall5240 point is that Thorium is sustainable so doesn't really matter if it's renewable.

[@Leifthrasir]

One of the things you forgot to mention is that another bonus to using Molten Salt Reactors, is that they are capable of reusing spent nuclear fuel, turning all the nuclear waste into usable fuel. The waste that comes from MSR's will only be radioactive for a hundred years (much more manageable) instead of 10,000 years from the older light water reactors.

[@hooplehead1019]

Yes, and for that any fast breeder (almost all experts shifted from thermal to fast) is a good tool. However, physics dictate that this mode of operation is much less economical. So it wouldnt be suited for large-scale energy supply, but rahter transmutation - waste processing like you described. Until we know how gen 4 reactors fare technically and economically, we neet to upramp renewables, we have no time to waste. If gen 4 reactors or fusion in 30 years prove to be great - fantastic. Until then, we know what to do.

[@Saurondor]

I find nuclear power to be the energy source least compatible with our current economic system. The long term commitment it requires is not compatible with the demand for better quarterly reports and that's the main rub, not the technical aspects. It's the governments and ultimately the taxpayer who ends up carrying the costs of nuclear failures and nuclear waste. Yes, Germany's change to coal is terrible, but on the other end it's not risking long term commitments with nuclear waste management. Just think how many renewable energy sources Japan could have developed with what it's spent on cleaning up Fukushima. Think how much progress could have been made with all the money spent on Chernobyl's new sarcophagus. And these two sites will be money pits for centuries to come.

[@brian2440]

Well it would be a comparison of Fukushima cost versus renewable, storage and grid infrastructure over a 30-60 year time frame and also an applied value comparison between generation of the nuclear plants versus these renewable sources.

[@xxwookey]

Japan is short of renewables to develop - that's a big problem. Floating wind turbines is its best bet, and I guess it should have some geothermal being on the ring of fire.

[@chrisfryer3118]

great vid, it really does need the widest circulation

[@ramblerandy2397]

I'm grudgingly in favour of existing nuclear power just to be used as a base-load provider while the transition to renewables takes place. But when their life is over, I would honestly want them gone. And we desperately need to properly solve the problem of nuclear waste. And I don't honestly see the necessity of developing Thorium reactors either. Renewables are clean and safe in operation. They leave no waste, except any which occurs in manufacture, and to make them 24/7 providers they just need adequate battery backup. Solar is best on our roofs, and leave the National Grid to provide the Wind, more Solar, and Water power in it's various forms.

[@42thgamer80]

Very well done video!

[@igorscot4971]

Thorium reactors produce far less waste than Uranium reactors, and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived. Add that they are by far safer than Uranium reactions and you begin to wonder why there is not far more investment in Thorium reactions.

[@grindupBaker]

How about disposing of spent fuel by putting it into holes drilled in oceanic crust at the boundary where it's subducted into the mantle. I haven't pondered drilling cost so perhaps it's cost-prohibitive but the mantle is ideally where you want to permanently dispose of anything on Earth. Everything on Earth came from there and oceanic lithosphere/crust subduction would perform the huge mechanical task of returning it rather than human energy having to do that, once you've got it deep enough into the oceanic crust.

[@dharmatiiger]

Yeah let's just keep on killing the oceans.

[@weldonyoung1013]

Tough topic to cover in 15-minuted. But perhaps not as tough as the 12-year deadline stated near the end of the video. If the world were to wholeheartedly embrace current nuclear technology, we'd have to start NOW ! But that is not happening due to cost (is China going to fund everyone?) and the amount of time necessary to build and/or approve a nuclear facility. As alway, Just Have A Think, great video. Though, in your short video you missed that uranium can be "messed with" as well, and then there is the heavy water nuclear reactor.

[@robroysyd]

Aside from the 'alchemy' required to turn thorium into uranium a couple of points: 1. The number of operational reactors is around double the quoted number if we include the ones powering submarines and aircraft carriers. They're small and so far have a pretty decent safety record. As you alluded to large high pressure water / steam is never a good mix hence high temperature reactors. Some designs can do both base load and deliver peak load performance and can work in conjunction with concentrated solar. 2. Our planets supply of uranium alone could power our modern world beyond the estimated life of our Sun. Yes nuclear waste is a huge problem but it's a big problem because of the amount of energy still in it. What a waste. Fast breeders address both issues but bring with them concerns with proliferation. Proliferation is a valid concern but so is the societal impact of AGW and rising sea levels and several billion more mouths to feed. Ultimately the real problem isn't an engineering one, it's a societal one. The IPCC is right, we need to change the nature of human society regardless of wether we adopt nuclear or its alternatives. On the one hand we don't want more nuclear weapons and especially not in the hands of fanatics but wind and solar are pretty difficult to protect from attack.

[@brian2440]

Alcehemy? Its just a reaction: Th 232 +1n (absorption) -> Th-233 -> (decay) Pa-233 -> (decay) U-233. A similar reaction already occurs in every conventional nuclear reactor: U-238 +1n (absorption) -> U-239 ->(decay) Np-239 ->(decay) Pu-239 The difference is though that most of our reactors operate in thermal spectrum as there are some added difficulties, risk associations and proliferation concerns (largely overblown) related to fast spectrum design. In thermal spectrum U-233 has a higher probability of fission than U-235 or even Pu-239 based on its neutron cross section and probability of absorption. In thermal spectrum Pu-239 actually has a high probability of absorption, which is in part when making nuclear bombs from conventional nuclear waste is effectively impossible. However in fast spectrum there is a near certain probability for Plutonium 239 to undergo fission compared to much lower probabilities for Uranium 235 or Uranium 233. Thermal, Epithermal and Fast Spectrum is a rather complicated topic that deals with the velocity of neutrons in a nuclear reactor core. Thermal spectrum relates to a situation in which neutrons are slowed by materials - these materials are called moderators in a nuclear reactor), whereas in fast spectrum there are no moderators.

[@MiniLuv-1984]

The question is how much $ and how fast can sufficient nuclear power be brought online compared with sufficient renewables + storage? I'd argue that the renewable approach has less risks (simpler projects) is cheaper and if we were to wake up to vehicle to grid as a storage mechanism, that aspect too would be licked and could be done in very short time IFF we stopped poncing around with politicians and their industry advisors.

[@AndDiracisHisProphet]

I'd argue you are correct.

[@nbx2au]

So the choice is: be scared of possible low level radiation or take your chances with the climate and RE You have forgotten to point out 30y of decarbonazed France, Sweden, Ontario... instead you are exaggerating the actual risks of nuclear. Oh, the cost. Environment has no idea about $$$, just emissions. What is the cost of German experiments to date?

[@reahs4815]

Most people seem to think radiation is just in 3 levels, background (if you even know that exist) normal radiation fallout from nukes and powerplant accidents and the last one is molten core radioactivity when it's just like temperature and it can go from 0 to infinity. the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl (over Europe) was basically nothing unless you took all the fallout from an area as large as four football fields and ate it then you would die from the radioactivity and that seems very dangerous to me (not). I don't even understand why common people should have a say in if we should have nuclear or not because most people don't care, are sheep or have been manipulated by the media. If anyone should have a say they should have an understanding of how the power grid works and how every major power generating way works so you understand what you are saying no/yes to.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

The Energie Wende was SUPPOSED to cost more TILL enough solar and wind plants are built. They are ahead of schedule. Their increased costs are dropping already, and will plateau at a low cost within ten years.

[@nbx2au]

@@rstevewarmorycom this is the conspiracy theory also pushed by the Australian version of #Energiewende emanating from Melbourne Uni. Germany had 18y and produced little reduction in emissions. And yes, the emissions are the whole point of the 'no coal' exercise.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

@@nbx2au You're blabbering paranoid bullshit.

[@IonorReasSpamGenerator]

Watch a few videos from this video compilation and you see why people don't want nuclear: kzbin.info/aero/PLkrPpn_JuDYy-VsOW3DnCpCJla7QS_e2m Whatever is technology up to the task is irrelevant because again and again, people paid a lot in the past for cost cuttings and pure ignorance of human life as a top priority in the nuclear industry, even countries with a perfect record as far as power plant operation goes tend to cut on uranium mining or nuclear waste processing and storage resulting in irradiated areas with properties nobody wants at which living communities with high death rates due to cancers that are stuck in place with no value to trade for required for relocating. So, unless you can somehow guarantee that only people with a spine could enter a nuclear industry, which you can not, people won't trust technology that requires morally uncompromising people to operate all levels of the nuclear industry from mining to nuclear waste storage in order to be safe.

[@BruceDuncan]

6:26 Isn't China's planned increase from 2% of 1625GW to 4% of 3188GW actually an increase of nearly four times?

[@harrydegenaar7251]

As a matter of fact China's will have 10% of its power from Nuclear Energy by 2030...

[@roger1818]

Bruce Duncan I noticed the same thing. Also, the amount of electricity China plans to produce by coal will slightly increase from 942.5 GW (58% of 1685 GW) in 2016, to 1,020 GW (32% of 3188 GW) in 2040.

[@shmadmanuts]

@@harrydegenaar7251 might be, might be, as those are installed capacity actually in 2016 china produced a total of 5860TWh those tiny 2% of nuclear produced ~200TWh in 2016, so 3.4% while the 14% of combined wind and solar produced.... ~300TWh so 5.1% as solar and wind rise... the more nuclear produces in %, in 2020 it did vs Solar PV & Wind ~500GW produced 720TWh(9.5%) Nuclear est 53GW! produced 366TWh!!(4.8%)

[@holographicbreathing]

Its is worth mentioning that Molten salt reactors (MSRs) cost 1/3 of the price to build compared of the the present water cooled reactors (WCR) and don't have all the safety issues. Also they are %96 more efficient than the WCRs. Also have no waste. Why don't we build those ones ?

[@holographicbreathing]

@Al 72 molten salt is not corrosive if it is kept pure. If it is solid flue as you have mentioned above it will be water cooled and still can blow up also it will only use 4% of the fuel the rest will hang around as radio active waste for 10,000s of years.

[@holographicbreathing]

@Al 72 My understanding is that india are just coming to MSR recently 1st they were investing in normal ones then fast breeders and now they are looking at msr. I have no doubt its a long time to get a commercial one up and running and considering new normal reactors can cost £19 billion in the uk . Billions is not a lot of money in this this market . Elysium take about the the corrosive element of salt. i am not sure which video its in but here is one - kzbin.info/www/bejne/laDYkKuprKdlmJI

[@holographicbreathing]

Here is a quote from kirk sorensen near the beginning of this video where the scientist from India is saying that they wished India Had started from the very beginning just using Molten Salt reactors kzbin.info/www/bejne/poWpgK1-qMepd6c

[@douggoodman3914]

The Paris Agreement document you show gives figures for reductions in carbon intensity, which, as I understand it, is emissions per unit of production. If intensity is halved while production is doubled, then emissions remain the same. Yet you said that China's agreement was to reduce carbon emissions. Please clarify.

[@Music5362]

Your analysis seems to be based on legacy nuclear tech, and that includes Hinckley Point. You seem to be unaware of the emerging nuclear technologies such as 'small modular reactors' / Uranium molten salt reactors. I think time will show that new small modular molten salt reactors will easily be the safest and cheapest form of energy production, and these can use Uranium or be Thorium breeder reactors. I'm surprised by the lack of knowledge about the future of nuclear expressed in the video and in the comments below. This info is available on KZbin. Just search small modular reactors / molten salt reactors.

[@cjreeve79]

One question about nuclear I think isn't raised enough is if climate change causes our civilisation to collapse, how will nuclear countries keep their nuclear power plants and spent fuel safe? If there is a risk of economic collapse then there are real moral problems with handing this potential problem for future generations to deal with. My conclusion is that if we can fix climate change without nuclear fission then we should not use it. Let's focus on renewables, storage and efficiency.

[@PalimpsestProd]

For anyone wanting to know more here's your homework, KZbin channel gordonmcdowell. Start at the beginning, they're more layman oriented. Also search Thorium remix.

[@doritoification]

Yep the thorium remix opened my eyes! Come for the thorium but stay for the small modular reactor, molten salt or not.

[@edwardpierce9185]

I really Like this I really think Thorium is the way to go. Less waste at a higher safety rating. It is a no brainer. and you can use old nuclear waste to help power the molten salt reactor.

[@lordsamich755]

Propaganda... He explicitly mentions thorium, but then deliberately winds on about the waste problem that he knows doesn't apply in that case!

[@logdog6762]

Fissioning U233 will still create fission products that will need to be managed

[@avejst]

Good points, hope the Thorium project will work in 20 years. Thanks for sharing :-)

[@xxwookey]

" hope the Thorium project will work in 20 years". If someone pays for a Thorcon plant they can have it in a lot less than 20 years. Indonesia have been thinking about it.

[@TheDuglas63]

Thank you for the informative video.

[@bicycledave]

I agree that it doesn't make much sense to build new nuclear power plants when the cost is so high and when the costs of wind, solar and storage are falling so rapidly.

[@xxwookey]

That depends where you are on the planet and what resource you have available. The UK has exceptionally high wind resource so might be able to manage without nuclear, but I've not seen any study yet (except lappenrata) which claims that it is possible. Many other high-lattitude countries have limited wind resource (and of course _highly_ season solar resource), so nuclear makes an awful lot of sense, unless they have so much hydro they can make things work that way (parts of Canada?)

[@Johnhart1944]

Solving the problems created by the mismatch between when the wind blows or the sun shines and when we need power to run factories or heat homes, etc. necessitates overbuilding the wind and solar components by a factor of three plus times, and then you still need to spend many billions on new high voltage DC lines to take that power from where it happens to be abundant today to where it's needed. And don't forget the additional billions in ongoing expense to maintain and replace energy storage for when there simply isn't enough power around. And of course there will still be days when the old fossil fuel plants will need to be run, so they must be maintained and staffed. All these problems become much easier to deal with if there's a steady reliable supply of dispatchable power available. The choices here are nuclear of fossil fuel with carbon capture and sequestration.

[@eriksundell1400]

Thank you for your video, I greatly appreciate the thorough source references! I'd love to add some relevant input. I'm starting a thread of replies to this comment!

[@eriksundell1400]

Just excellent summary of the complexities of going towards zero emissions, and how nuclear power or other baseload tech has a role to play: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5-2eqh9h6mblcU

[@eriksundell1400]

IPCC's latest reports concludes what is not firmly established among us non-scientists, that nuclear power has low emissions of greenhouse gases: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/energy-systems/06_figure_7-6/

[@eriksundell1400]

A simplified cost analysis, and how nuclear power isnt that expensive, from IPCC. But, important is to consider, that this does not account for the things discussed in Jesse Jenkins research presentation above on youtube, so no matter if there is one low-carbon source that is cheaper, baseload power has a role to play: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/energy-systems/07_figure_7-7/

[@eriksundell1400]

The EU report on the external costs of energy generation, concludes that the fossil options are far more expensive than the non-fossil options. See for example page 37 (which in the PDF is page 54): ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ECOFYS 2014 Subsidies and costs of EU energy_11_Nov.pdf

[@eriksundell1400]

Air pollution is the real killer, WHO concludes that it is together with climate change, the #1 global health threat 2019, and reports that 7 million premature deaths occur yearly: www.who.int/airpollution/en/

[@optimisticfuture6808]

I was certain I would tune into this video and here the typical “nuclear no way” environmentalist dogma. So you just gained a lot of respect from me. Correctly pointed out that many new technologies. The most promising are small modular reactors. There is a design that uses solenoids which have to be energized to push the rods into the reaction chamber so if power fails the rods are automatically shielded. Nuclear is the friend of renewables and provides baseline constant energy while renewables technology catches up if ever completely. Not only cleaner but can save fossil fuels for critical applications (and this would be about 20% of current consumption in my thoughts).

[@webchimp]

One point to add to the pro column for nuclear is that it put out far less radiation into the environment than burning fossil fuels.

[@shmadmanuts]

indeed! those 2% of nuclear actually produced 200GWh in 2016 while those 14% of wind and solar produced 300GWh !!!

[@georgelindsey7370]

Nuclear is just plain SCARY! I had a think on it a long time ago!!! Thanks good presentation!

[@xxwookey]

Nothing like as scary as failing to deal with climate change.

[@lordsamich755]

I think perhaps in the absence of unrelenting lies and propaganda, you might find it less scary. I am of course assuming you don't live under a regime that refuses you access to iodine pills? Assuming that's is the case, you also live in a country that mandates containment structures on all reactors.

[@paulenglish2809]

There is a video here on KZbin. Called LFTRs in 5 minutes. It is about the new nuclear approaches. Nuclear plants will be in expensive to build because they are not holding water under pressure, and because they will be modular and shipped to end users by truck. These plants will use thorium which is available worldwide, and the use of thorium will not leave byproducts for thousands of years. As a bonus these modular nuclear reactors that use thorium will be able to burn up the existing fuels from their predecessors which used uranium. New Brunswick Canada, Indonesia and Estonia have plans in the works for these so-called generation 4 modular nuclear plants. I noticed in your video that you thought China was only going to double its nuclear power capacity by the year 2040, I think China’s plans are more aggressive. What thorium nuclear modular power plants offer us is what we need to stop opening coal plants at a rate of 1 per week or the equivalent. There will be no shortage of nuclear power plant construction once some company builds the first one. The problem with nuclear power plants is that nobody wants to be the one who invests in the first one. Perhaps this is the role of government as well as climate agreements. Go Canada and set the example of what a small nation can do for the world!

[@shmadmanuts]

Let me just stress something, as was pointed out, the pies actually include installed power: Those 2% of nuclear produced 200TWh in 2016 while those 9% wind _________ 240TWh and those 5% solar __________ 66TWh While in 2020: 50GW of nuclear __ 366TWh 250GW of wind ___ 466TWh 250GW of solar ___ 261TWh

[@NaumRusomarov]

The Olkiluito reactor 3 has been delayed again, now the production start date is late 2022.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

"The plant started regular electricity production on 16 April 2023 after test production and commercial operation on 1 May 2023."

[@si2030]

Possibly the one thing you forgot to mention (that elephant in the room) was the decommissioning costs associated with a nuclear plant. These have really outpaced estimates by a country mile along with the problem of storing all the decommissioned fuel and ongoing management of that fuel "The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommission-or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plant-constructed early in the 1960s for $39 million-cost $608 million. The plant’s spent fuel rods are still stored in a facility on-site, because there is no permanent disposal repository to put them in. To monitor them and make sure the material does not fall into the hands of terrorists or spill into the nearby river costs $8 million per year." thebulletin.org/2014/04/the-rising-cost-of-decommissioning-a-nuclear-power-plant/ So after factoring in the cost of building (goes over budget) and the (decommissioning - goes over budget and.. takes up two two generations ..and is not safe for future gens at all -cant store spent fuel securely for 1000's of years) It seems to me this is a red herring for power. Anything where we require future generations to clean up and manage what we did is particularly egregious.. I think anyway.

[@doritoification]

There are examples of sites where decommissioning has become a ball ache but they normally provided enough value to have been worth while (if the decomission fund had been in place) but they would have been older designs. Some of which were originally designed to produce plutonium for weapons and were adapted to produce power. These ancient relics are no comparison to modern nuclear construction where they are built with decommissioning in mind and to last 80 years. your point is still valid I'm just offering another perspective to view the issue from

[@gregstevens7520]

Can you please lower the volume of the thunder that plays in the beginning of each video?

[@oystla]

The Fukushima accident will cost the Japanesé government some 600 billion USD. Accidents will happen again, it is just a function of time ANd probalitiy. So, no, it is not Cheap energy.

[@brian2440]

How are these accidents going to occur? If you don't know how these accidents will occur then you cannot draw any conclusions as to when they would occur or the probability of when they can occur. Also basing this probability off of the Fukushima accident does not support your argument as the significant impacting forces on the reactor were caused by a geological events that are extremely rare as in 0.00001%. Now granted there are factors that influence and can increase this probability, and location plays a significant role which is why Japan should have a more extensive understanding of seismic risk probabilities for all infrastructure in its country.

[@xxwookey]

Climate change will cost a hell of a lot more than that.

[@oystla]

Brian my point is that the next time there will be something Else outside Design basis criteria that will cause a meltdown costing the taxpayers 600 billion USD to clean up. All reactors have a design basis, but not all possible remote cases are covered. Like there are many present reactors that will not withstand a direct hit from a jumbojet airliner. Or a big drone with a big bomb attached. So terrorists are one possibility. Human stupidity as in Chernobyl is another. The nuclear Industry do not include the accidents in their sales brochures of "Cheap" energy, when accidents in reality tip the scale to the most expensive energy source on the planet. No insurance companies will ever cover a full clean up cost of an accidents, and the taxpayers are left with the bill, as in Fukushima.

[@oystla]

xxwookey agreed, but we can save the earth without nuclear. The ongoing projects in France and in Finland has been ongoing for 15 years now and still not finished. We have no time for insanely costly projects taking forever to finalize. We need fast Solutions to save the earth. Which means solar, wind and energy storage systems.

[@brian2440]

oystla What is the statistical likelihood of a jumbo jet crashing into a nuclear reactor, especially since all reactors have a no fly order regulated by the FAA and enforced by the US Air Force? What is the likihood of a terrorist organization attacking a nuclear reactor with a bomb and the likelihood that such a device would be able to cause enough damage to a reactor to create a significant emission of radioactivity? Keep in mind that a meltdown itself is not what causes the most damage but leaking and environmental damage as a result of an incident. My point is that these events you list as possibilities have a statistical likelihood of occurring less than 0.001%, which makes them by definition scientifically improbable. If we regulate energy systems below this probability than it is impossible to build anything in this country. I would say there is a greater likelihood of a meteor crashing into a hydroelectric dam than there is of a jet or a bomb destroying a reactor, so does that mean we should get rid of all our dams? No that is ludicrous

[@andershjelmare4462]

Thank you for making these excellent videos! On nuclear, or let us narrow it down to uranium fuelled fission reactors, we all know that there are ships driven by nuclear reactors. Questions: 1) Is this at all a viable alternative for merchant ships of all kinds? 2) Is this a viable alternative for aeroplanes? If not, why not?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Anders. Thanks for your feedback and for two excellent questions. I suspect the answer to both of the questions (rightly or wrongly) would be perception of safety risk. Something along the lines of "we asked 100 normal people whether they would be happy to fly from London to New York on a fully nuclear powered aeroplane, and 107 of them said NO!" You get my gist...

[@alangardner8596]

Chernobyl was not supposed to happen but it did. Fukushima was not supposed to happen but it did. Where will the next nuclear disaster happen that is not supposed to happen?

[@xxwookey]

We don't know, but it's worth remembering that fossil fuels produce death rates hundreds of times higher every year, operating correctly. Calling nuclear dangerous, whilst being OK with continuing coal, oil and gas operation doesn't really make much sense.

[@Janon48]

More people have died as a result of coal power plants than Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl combined.

[@MrSurferDoug]

Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. The Chernobyl plant did not have the fortified containment structure common to most nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world. It used a very old design. For Fukushima, it would have helped to build the reactor away from the Ocean. You can never eliminate risk but good engineering can reduce it. There is risk to GHG as well. China has built and is building 3rd generation nuclear plants, we shall see if they have gotten the engineering right.

[@bearup1612]

alan gardner Thorum reactor cannot melt down Do the research

[@doritoification]

@@bearup1612 or any molten salt fuel reactor design for that matter. That's not to say that modern reactor designs like the AP1000 aren't extraudinarily safe despite still relying on pressurised water as a coolant because surprisingly enough we've learned a thing or two about passive safety features throughout our years of harnessing the power of fission. Small modular reactors coming to market very soon like Nuscale SMR will be so safe you can position it right next to a highly populated area. Yeah... the nuclear regulatory commission has already agreed to this.

[@waltermcphee3787]

You did not mention the Windscale in Cumbria reactor meltdown in 1957. Too close to home, not that distance matters with nuclear disasters. Did you mention de-comissioning costs.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Walter. Very true. I did not mention decommissioning costs, you're quite right. That is an omission on my part. My apologies.

[@RichRich1955]

80 years of uranium remains? At the present consumption rates so tripling consumption makes it 25 years

[@doritoification]

Yeah this was factually incorrect. Not sure where he got that number from. Maybe he was looking at a specific mine

[@earlgibbs7083]

Check out the "Facing Future" website regarding the 2 part series on the highly risky canister storage usage of spent nuclear waste product from the around 100 American power plants. Other parts of the world use more expensive cask containers instead that are far safer for continued life on earth than what the United States is presently doing as a short-term cost-saving measure.

[@johnsheehan5109]

Just one question about the pro-nuclear garbage: How much fossil fuel is used in the storage and maintenance of nuclear waste FOREVER?

[@lordsamich755]

Essentially zero. Dry casks are air cooled, by natural convection. Also keep in mind that a conventional first generation plant's are producing 20 tons to power entire country's! One average fossil fuel vehicle produces 4 ton's of CO2 in the same time frame. So doing some basic maths, 20 / 4 = 5. 5 vehicles produce the same quantity of waste as do nuclear plants that can power MILLIONS of vehicles. Taking Hinkly C as an example, we have 3260 MWe of generating capacity. The rule of thumb for electric vehicle energy consumption is 0.150 KWh / Km. For average driving distance per year, we'll go with 15,000 Km per Year, as that's the number that most insurance companies work with. 3260 Mwe * 24 Hours * 365 * 90% uptime = 25,701,840 MWh per year OR 25,701,840,000 Kwh Per Year 0.150 * 15,000 = 2250Kwh Power consumed per car each year 25,701,840,000 / 2250Kwh = 11,423,040 *Just one nuclear power plant effectively removes 11,423,040 vehicles from the road.* *Managing ALL nuclear waste from ALL nuclear reactors in the US, is 20 tons, not even a full truck load!*

[@johnsheehan5109]

@@lordsamich755 Tell the folks at Hanford about how safe storage of nuclear waste is, or for that matter, dozens of other nuclear waste dumps currently spreading cancer and a host of other nuclear-related diseases. Or better yet go buy housing around one of the toxic facilities if they're so fecking safe...

[@lordsamich755]

@@johnsheehan5109 "Tell the folks at Hanford about how safe storage of nuclear waste is" _Shifting the goal posts already?_ _You're trying to suggest that a complete lack of any attempt to contain waste, is somehow the same as cask storage?_ "or for that matter, dozens of other nuclear waste dumps currently spreading cancer and a host of other nuclear-related diseases." _What other waste dumps? Be specific._ "Or better yet go buy housing around one of the toxic facilities if they're so fecking safe..." _What facility? Be specific._

[@michaelfasher]

You don't know what you are talking about.

[@kimshepherd9691]

Not to mention that a lot of these plants are constructed at close to sea level. I wonder if that’s going to change !!!!!!!!

[@nunofoo8620]

Yes, and not just sea level rise. There is also the fact ACC will affect agriculture leading to famine, civil unrest, civil war, economical collapse and international conflicts. It's the worst possible scenario in which to use nuclear power.

[@andershjelmare4462]

What would be extremely interesting is a quarter of an hour on the cost of batteries vs nuclear to provide baseline power. Can such quantities of batteries even be produced?

[@PalimpsestProd]

Sure they can be produced but they'd be more useful in our cars.

[@brian2440]

There are many other types of energy storage besides batteries such as: CAES, LAES, PHS, SMES, FES, TES etc. Regardless we will want to maintain a balanced energy portfolio that includes both renewables and sustainables.

[@domm1341]

My hope is that science and engineering crack the fusion problem to make that technology economically viable.

[@Chobaca]

that's a lot of numbers in quick succession. Maybe you should put it in writing as well?

[@RickShepherd]

While it is true that we mine Thorium, it is also true that Thorium rains down upon us all the time, just like sunlight and even when our sun has gone red giant and killed us all, Thorium will still be added to out planet from the cosmos just like any other thing you could argue is "renewable".

[@mattw9764]

It easy to understand why we have such a bizarre mix of dirty and unsafe electricity and energy sources. Vested interest, short term profit, and greed of a small number of power and money hungry individuals.

[@xxwookey]

You sure that china graphic is energy production, rather than capacity? The title is confusing, but suggests capacity (which of course is different from production by a factor of 5-10 for solar and factor of 2-3 for wind).

[@lvd8122]

One thing about nuclear waste that often is not considered is the advances in science. We say we have to store it for thousands of years, but I bet that it is at most 100-200 years until we find a good way to stop nuclear waste from radiating. If we manage to uphold human progress for the next 100 years we should be somewhat safe, but these 100 years will be super hard due to climate change and political tensions likely only growing within the next decades.

[@DominikKozaczko]

Some food for thought: 1. Uranium can be pulled from seawater. 2. Waste from older reactors is fuel for modern ones. 3. Nuclear waste at least is contained as opposed to fossil waste. 4. Nuclear is matched only by water in terms of CO2 emissions when taking generator production into account. Solar panels and wind turbines are sadly less environment friendly. 5. Nuclear just works - it is not weather dependent.

[@youxkio]

Yes, Yes, I wish the technology of Fission Reaction plants could progress and become cheaper than the Fusion ones. I know it will take some time, but I believe humanity would go in the right direction that way.

[@doritoification]

this is already the case...

[@vleessjuu]

So what about the decommission costs of the nuclear power plants at the end of their life span? I assume those are booked under the capital costs of the plant in general?

[@shmadmanuts]

Yes