Nuclear Power and Climate Change | Jeff Zweerink and Kevin Birdwell

Join Jeff Zweerink and Kevin Birdwell as they discuss new discoveries taking place at the frontiers of science that have theological and philosophical implications, including the reality of God’s existence.
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
One undeniable question accompanies any discussion about climate change: How much power do we need and what existing technologies are capable of generating that power? Most technologies capable of producing sufficient power for the world’s energy needs also emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. Technologies emitting fewer greenhouse gases don’t produce abundant power-except for nuclear power. In this episode, atmospheric scientist Kevin Birdwell and astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink discuss how current and future nuclear power technologies dramatically impact our ability to generate adequate power for humanity in an environmentally friendly way.
_____________________________
LINKS & RESOURCES -
Jan Emblemsvåg, “Safe, Clean, Proliferation Resistant and Cost-Effective Thorium-Based Molten Salt Reactors for Sustainable Development,” doi.org/10.108...
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “Time Warp: Molten Salt Reactor Experiment-Alvin Weinberg’s Magnum Opus,” www.ornl.gov/m...
PLAYLIST - Stars, Cells, and God
_____________________________
HOST: Jeff Zweerink
GUEST: Kevin Birdwell
_____________________________
CONNECT WITH US
▶️ Help us reveal God through #science by supporting Reasons to Believe at: support.reason...
▶️ Follow RTB_Official for more #apologetics content!
Facebook: / rtbofficial
Twitter: / rtb_official
Instagram: / rtb_official
Website: www.reasons.org

[@jamiesomma2566]

I’d like to lobby for re-editing this interview to splice in some of the slides he is referencing during his descriptions. Really important interview that could be made more accessible to a broader audience of varied learning styles with some visuals.

[@johnstanton1361]

Nuclear energy is clearly in our future. Thanks for the informative discussion.

[@katwalden7955]

Extremely interesting!

[@dgh5760]

The biggest challenge will be getting the regulatory process trimmed down to a much quicker and less restrictive process than we have now. Regulations are stifling innovation and progress IMO.

[@Kev11sky]

Where else could I find this kind of casual discussion about such cutting-edge technology?

[@robertgibson9959]

These channels & organization focus primarily on Thorium nuclear energy: Thorium Remix channel, "gordonmcdowell" channel, & Thorium Energy Alliance. These channels focus on any type of nuclear energy: Decouple Media channel, Breakthrough Institute, Thies the Atomic Jeti channel, & Illinois EnergyProf channel [features a Nuclear Engineering professor from the University of Illinois]. I don't know if any of these channels have a Christian Worldview or not.

[@robertgibson9959]

If engineers and scientists can overcome the corrosion issues with molten salt reactors, the MSR would be an excellent way to generate energy. I like fission energy over fusion energy because fission reactors were designed in the 1940s, and the first commercial demonstration reactor produced electricity in the 1950s with a lot less technology than fusion. A few small reactor designs may have black start capability so the electrical grid can restart from a regional electrical blackout. In the USA, construction on reactors 3 and 4 at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia started in 2013 with only 40% of the design plan complete, and Westinghouse went bankrupt in 2017. While these delays and other delays were going on, interest was building on the loan from the investors. These factor are some of the reasons why the cost of the AP 1000 was so high. The cost of the AP 1000 should be lower in the future.

[@ajesusdisciple]

Is this correct? To estimate how many square miles of solar panels would be required to meet the USA’s electrical usage, we need to consider the following factors: 1. Current U.S. Electrical Usage • According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the total electricity consumption in the U.S. was about 4,000 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2022. 2. Solar Panel Efficiency • A typical solar panel has an efficiency of around 15% to 20% in converting sunlight into electricity. • The average solar irradiance in the U.S. is about 5 kWh/m²/day. 3. Conversion Factor • We can assume that 1 square meter of solar panels can produce around 1,825 kWh/year based on U.S. average solar irradiance. 4. Total Area Required • To find the total area, we can divide the total energy demand by the annual energy produced per square meter: \text{Total Area Required (m²)} = \frac{\text{Total Energy Demand (kWh)}}{\text{Energy Produced per m² per Year (kWh/m²)}} Substituting the values: \text{Total Area Required (m²)} = \frac{4,000,000,000,000 \, \text{kWh}}{1,825 \, \text{kWh/m²/year}} = 2,191,780,822 \, \text{m²} 5. Convert to Square Miles • Since 1 square mile is equivalent to 2.59 million square meters: \text{Total Area Required (sq. miles)} = \frac{2,191,780,822 \, \text{m²}}{2,590,000 \, \text{m²/sq. mile}} ≈ 846 \, \text{sq. miles} Comparison with Texas: • The total area of Texas is approximately 268,596 square miles. Conclusion: • To meet the USA’s entire electrical consumption with solar panels, you would need around 846 square miles of solar panels. • Texas is about 318 times larger than the area needed for solar panels to power the U.S. Thus, the required solar panel area is a small fraction of Texas-only about 0.3% of Texas’ total land area.

[@Auntypatti]

Here in AZ we have a nuclear plant but they use waste water as the coolant. Which I thought was so cool an idea

[@pierreabbat6157]

But what's a quad? Is it some number of joules?

[@davidrichards2113]

The most recent large scale Nuclear Electric Power Projects are new versions of LOCA resistant designs are badly over budget and very late? New research reactor projects in Oak Ridge (TRISO, etc.) molten salt reactors offer many advantages over PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors). Any new administrations had better get (Funding) behind these new technologies or fall behind China who now have new large scale molten salt reactors in development.

[@MichaelUle]

I will comment that the real problem with Nuclear Power has nothing to do with the technology, it's a branding problem. Namely the word Nuclear and it's connection to atomic weapons. It reminds me a bit of MRI machines -- what's the connection? Well MRI machines are really NMRI machines (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging), but early on it was recognized that the word Nuclear would scare folks away and so it was dropped. If there was a similar way to do it with "Molten Salt Reactors" or whatever, maybe it would help!

[@gerhardlamprecht1098]

I agree completely. Just take the nuclear out of the name.

[@ronbehrens3081]

I have always smiled at the rebranding the NMR to MRI. Agree that something like this would be helpful here also.

[@MichaelUle]

Does Jefff normally spell his name with three fs?

[@galaxyn3214]

☢✝