Nuclear Power: Should We Use More or Less? - TLDR News

Watch the Whole Season: tldrnews.co.uk...
We asked our audience what they thought about increasing our reliance on nuclear power, so in this video, we're examing the pros and cons of building more nuclear power plants.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Discord: / discord
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk...
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk...
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk...
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
///////////////////////////////////
1 - researchbriefin...
2 - www.legislatio...
3 - s3-eu-west-2.a... (P32)
4 - www.greenparty.... (P14)
5 - assets-global.... (P54)
6 - labour.org.uk/... (P14)
7 - uk.reuters.com...
8 & 9- www.nao.org.uk...
10 - www.open.edu/o...
11 - www.gov.uk/gui...
12 & 13 - assets.publish...
14 - actacommercii....
15 - www.nrc.gov/do...
16 - researchbriefin...
17 - www.wired.co.u...
18 - www.carbonbrie...
19 - www.bbc.co.uk/...
20 - www.theccc.org...
21 - assets.publish...
22 & 23- researchbriefin...
24 - www.gov.uk/gov...
25 - www.lse.ac.uk/G...
26 - www.thetimes.c...
27 - eandt.theiet.o...
28 - assets.publish...
29 - www.nao.org.uk...
30 - www.eia.gov/el...
31 - e360.yale.edu/...
32 - www.tesla.com/...
33 - www.theguardia...
34 - www.ovoenergy....
35 - www.nei.org/re...
36 - www.reuters.co...
37 - www.open.edu/o...
38 - books.google.c...
39 - www.edfenergy....

[@WinterWeaver]

When talking about the numbers dead due to nuclear disaster or radiation, you should really compare that to the number of deaths due to coal inhalation and the health risks associated with that as well. When you do that you will see that the combined deaths/health issues from both nuclear disasters doesn't even come close to that of coal for example.

[@galactorsus_i.n.c]

Nuclear is safer then all power sources except fission. if you try to include as many people as possible in the deaths caused by nuclear energy it's still not close to solar, wind and hydro as well. well fossil fuels are obviously way more deadly. there are ways to make safe nuclear reactors which don't blow up, are easier to maintain, are smaller. cheaper to use, it's trash is only a few hundred years dangerous and u can't make nuclear weapons from its by product. Nuclear is safer, cleaner and more reliable than any other source. if we use safe fission and fusion then we can have free power for everyone with practically no security risk. but try convincing the power industry of that. not gonna happen unless people force them.

[@charlietsai1177]

Yes, the public really need to be educated with this fact. People died from air pollution caused by coal or gas fire power generation is much much greater than that of nuclear. It's really sad that ignorant politicians and public fear is blocking all these new nuclear tech which should've been implemented to stop greenhouse gases right now. (I'm looking at you Germany, your new natural gas line is a huge step backward, it's just sad.)

[@markus.schiefer]

Never thought I'd say this, but yes. The new generation of reactors with walk-away safety are pretty good and the environmental impact is even less than solar and wind. Investment in getting Thorium reactors up and running would even solve the problem with nuclear waste - even the existing one - reducing the half-life to only 30 years.

[@kokofan50]

Solar and wind actually have a surprisingly large environmental impact. The only way to make them look go is comparing them to fossil fuels.

[@Immudzen]

@@kokofan50 The big problem is power storage. Renewable + Power storage right now normally ends up with an environmental impact as bad or worse than a coal power plant because our power storage technology is so bad. In places like Germany they mostly just build more natural gas power plants and throttle them up and down to cover for changes in renewables. This also means building more than double the required capacity.

[@nntflow7058]

@@kokofan50 Of course they gonna compared the solar and wind to the fossil fuels. We used it almost exclusively for everything. It would be stupid to compared them to nuclear. Majority of countries in the world didn't use nuclear power.

[@666Tomato666]

@@Immudzen not the only problem, both solar and wind tie up large amounts of resources that are then underutilized, especially in case of solar that uses rare-earths which are especially nasty to mine and not by half as in case of gas, but but by two-thirds, at best

[@Immudzen]

@@666Tomato666 I definitely agree with this also. Solar and wind do have large environmental problems and it seems very few are willing to actually look at it.

[@sclair2854]

Nuclear was the issue that caused me to leave the Greens. Given how geologically stable the UK is, how safe modern designs are, and how small the area needed to contain the waste is... I think the benefit outways the high cost of building them. I think if we use them as a crutch to wean ourselves from gas we can feasibly switch to full renewables by the 2040s with better battery technology (and fingers crossed fusion if ITER is succesful) But I definitely believe EVERY non-fossil fuel energy source needs massively more investment than its getting.

[@nntflow7058]

It's not that I hate nuclear energy. What I hate is how stupid the government around the world has done with its waste. Like releasing it into the sea and thinking it's ok.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

The UK will continue to need Nat Gas for the foreseeable future, so the question is what proportion of the energy requirements it will provide. Currently, it's about 40% Natural Gas, 40% Renewables, 10% Nuclear Power and 10% Other. Renewables can be increased to 50%, allowing the UK to completely phase out coal, but they can't provide baseload power, so the only way to reduce the usage of gas is to switch to nuclear instead. Something like 50% Renewables, 30% Nat Gas and 20% Nuclear Power should be achievable by say 2050.

[@tomshackell]

​@@nntflow7058 Well so this is a really interesting one. Putting nuclear waste into the sea ends up diluting a very small amount of waste into a very very large volume of water. Sea water is already slightly radioactive and contains uranium so it wouldn't really make any difference. Personally I'm against putting nuclear waste into the sea, but mostly because I think in a few years nuclear waste will be seen as a very valuable fuel source. However, from a safety point of view, as bizarre as it might seem, dumping it into the sea is probably one of the safest things you could do with it.

[@AtParmentier]

@@tomshackell But I doesn't work that way, concentrations will be higher near the source. Just drop some kind of waterpain (just one drop) into a bucket of water. See how long it takes to spread. As long as the concentration is high enough to have an adverse affect dumping waste into the sea is stupid.

[@tomshackell]

@@AtParmentier Well you'd need to dump it far away from the land, obviously. But if you put a drop of ink into the middle of a swimming pool you're never going to notice it at the pool edges.

[@rikstan15]

I really like that you guys actually do your notes and references in the video, nobody else I watch does that and they really should

[@antontalbot9148]

Well not really. He never talked about thorium

[@dragonflyK110]

​@@antontalbot9148 I don't see what that has to do with TL;DR doing a good job of referencing their sources, which is what Stan was commending them for.

[@antontalbot9148]

@@dragonflyK110 It has everything to do with it. It's like making a video about trains but only talking about steam trains. Thorium reactors are efficient, produce much less waste, much MORE electricity and thorium is in much greater supply. Aswell as being nearly impossible to have a large scale disaster, they don't meltdown or explode 😂

[@FinicalFox]

It has everything to do with it. Why list the ingredients for a cake, when half of them are missing from the table. When they mention the promise of renewables, but not the promise of Nuclear? Then when the issues raised are in plants designed 60 years ago. No mention of 4th Generation reactors or modular reactors. No mention of the construction costs/co2 of renewables or the rare earth minerals required for renewables/batteries. No mention of the huge land /sea area that would be required by renewables. No mention of the environmental/biological impact of renewables or their waste streams with far less regulation. No mention of radiation from living around coal/ gas plants or comparisons of the radiation to day to day objects, nor the levels in the tritiated water at Fukushima compared to the beaches in Brazil or other countries naturally. No mention of the many solutions to the waste (non) issue (despite spent fuel never harming a single person). Does not mention deaths in other power sources other than coal/nuclear, but does mention the 2008 report on Chernobyl and not the 2009, becuase in 2009 the WHO revised their 4000 future predictable deaths to “undetectable”! I think if this was a PROPER comparison and not incredibly selective, the answer would be obvious, citation or not.

[@WanderTheNomad]

You guys missed the point of OP's comment. It was that tldr cited anything they _did_ talk about. If you want to complain about him not talking about a certain aspect of nuclear then that's a completely separate topic.

[@iwiffitthitotonacc4673]

Nobody ever mentions the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant when mentioning Fukushima. It was closer to the earthquake and tsunami and the reactor was completely fine, whereas the Fukushima management cut corners. Failure to mention Onagawa is a surefire way to spot anti-nuclear bias or just shoddy reporting.

[@Lordblow1]

In part it is just that humans only remember the times and places where something outside of the norm happened. In a way it is a complement to nuclear power that there are only 2 instances that something went wrong. News only ever covers things that are an exception to the norm. I mean when was the last time you heard of someone dying from lung cancer as a result of smoking or air pollution in the news, probably never because it is just so common XD.

[@philguer4802]

Oh,never heard about it.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

First time I hear about this despite being pro nuclear

[@st0ox]

The greatest security risk in Nuclear Power Plants are people cutting corners and I don't honestly see a way to prevent that from happening.

[@Lapantouflemagic0]

same as @andrès, i am clearly pro-nuclear and genuinley didn't know that. but no one talks about trains arriving on time eh ?

[@nutyyyy]

Nuclear and Renewables are the way to go, you dont need to pick just one.

[@edsr164]

Lewis Carlin Precisely

[@neuralwarp]

You don't need renewables if you have nuclear

[@wannabeaworldcitizen6938]

@@neuralwarp nuclear can't be the one solution though, everyone who says that denies or doesn't know that there are still risks ans problems with it

[@leerman22]

@@neuralwarp Nuclear today can't be throttled to demand very well, that's why it has/needs such a high capacity factor. In the future molten salt reactors of any type could use thermal storage.

[@michazajac5881]

@@wannabeaworldcitizen6938 you can use some form of energy storage and smart grids to flatten the demand curve. so we would have electric vehicles (once we replace all the IC ones) charged at night when demand is low otherwise nuclear providing constant 75-80% of peak demand and storage covering the remaining 25% during peak, and being charged midday. the main difference between this and renewables and storage systems and nuclear and storage system is nuclear would be entirely predictable, and it would require much less energy storage capacity. Or you can have nuclear making 100% peak demand, and your smart grid would decide at which time of a day excess energy can be used to run non urgent things - like water desalination, recycling, water purification, carbon capture or production of synthetic fuels. Also, remember that nuclear reactors don't make electricity - they make heat. And there is a long list of industries that can use that heat in their manufacturing process. High-temperature molten salt reactors can make heat to produce concrete in a very ecological way. It might very well turn out there would be an economical sense to have nuclear covering more than 100% of energy demand - you would have those plants making electricity if needed, and if not they will be making heat for industrial purposes.

[@hobog]

More nuclear power with up to date, standardized tech, yes please

[@liamhalliday8437]

So this is mostly fine, but a couple of points: 1) When talking about energy transfer, your arrows point to N. Ireland. I confess I'm a bit behind on your Brexit videos, but they seemed a little high for Ireland. 2) When talking about nuclear disasters, Three Mile Island is usually considered. Admittedly the outcome was significantly less than the other 2, but it was a disaster all the same. 3) You talk about the deaths and victims from nuclear disasters, but offer no comparison against fossil fuels. For example, 500K - 1m die from coal alone, every year, as well as the many millions who are victims to unclear air. If you look at deaths per TWh between power generation methods (full cycle, disasters and pollutants), nuclear is tiny, with gas the next safest method at x40, and coal more than x450(!). We should really be comparing these if we're going to critique safety / risk of nuclear power. 4) You talk about the life cycle cost which is good, and highlight the geopolitical risk for relying on uranium production, but fail to discuss the damage and risk from solar, which relies on rare Earth metals that often have near monopolies controlled by China. At least with uranium, a 1/3 is in Australia and Canada a further 10%, countries which lessen any geopolitical risk. There is way more spread across multiple ideologies axis, making a uranium version of OPEC less likely.

[@yrosan]

On point.

[@doritoification]

well said brother WHO reckons air pollution kills 7 million a year. So Chernobyl would have to happen 1750 times a year to kill as many people as air pollution. Obviously nuclear goes a hell of a long way to solving air pollution and chernobyl was a one off so really nuclear saves lives and A FUCKING LOT of them

[@dalorasinum386]

I’m glad someone knew the stats on deaths from other power sources. I knew they were higher than nuclear but not by how much, just shows the amount of paranoia and misinformation around the dangers of it.

[@jimgraham6722]

Absolutely correct, thorium is an abundant mineral as is uranium, given a bit of processing uranium can also be extracted from seawater. By the time these fission fuels are depleted there is little doubt fusion energy will be common place

[@mapmuncher5587]

The whole of Ireland is one unified grid, I know there's at least one connector it'd make sense if it were between Britain and Northern Ireland.

[@MyCrafcik]

9:50 And yet it still way lower than the amount of people who will die because of us burning coal and gas ;p

[@PennyAfNorberg]

And up to , "victims" doesn't equal the actual number of deaths, around 200....

[@Jake12220]

Total number of deaths is actually lower than the amount that die installing and maintaining solar panels and wind turbines as well. Its even worse when you work it out in terms of deaths per megawatt produced.

[@DaDunge]

@@PennyAfNorberg The proven number of deaths from nuclear meltdowns is actually somewhere around 40. When you weigh in how much energy a nuclear plant churns out it's actually relatively speaking much much safer than wind or hydropower.

[@coreymicallef365]

@@DaDunge 47, all exclusively from a single event, Chernobyl and there all sorts of reasons why something like that won't be repeated.

[@somethinglikethat2176]

About 2 million people die each year from air pollution. It kills more than a Chernobyl's worth of people every day.

[@gadgetpotato1975]

Just use Thorium, it’s easy to stop a meltdown reducing security risk. it’s also more energy rich, abundant and is extremely difficult to be weaponised. Did I mention it also has an abysmal nuclear waste output?

[@andrewfoot4610]

requires plutonium which is extremely expensive and hard to get but yes, if the first nuclear power plants used Thorium instead of uranium the world would be fulled with nuclear power plants because it's better in almost every way.

[@cageybee7221]

@@andrewfoot4610 doesn't require plutonium specifically, just the specific type of radiation emitted by plutonium. if that can be sourced from another material then that would also work. plutonium can also be produced in conventional nuclear plants.

[@SamJamesCrawford]

Most times I hear Thorium mentioned people are suggesting LFTR type designs. If I recall the key flaw of these is that the molten fluoride salts over time would corrode any metal they came into contact with, so pipes etc would need constant replacement to be safe. I accept though that the real issue is that a lack of positive public opinion or state financial support is likely the real issue, as it prevents any attempts at innovation

[@billyfox6368]

I'm glad that someone's mentioned that because everyone seems to forget about it.

[@cageybee7221]

@@SamJamesCrawford hence the solution is to use a non metal lining.

[@kokos742]

in near future we might use traveling wave breeding reactors that actually run on so-called burned nuclear fuel so the residual waste would be dramatically lower in volume and severity

[@Raussl]

I'm sorry this new generation of nuclear wasn't even mentioned in the video.

[@MrPoliticTosh]

As proposed by The Gates Foundation, I assume.

[@goldfishbowl42]

Theoretical new types of nuclear aren't available to build at grid scale now. We need instant solutions, not distant ones. Event an EPR like the one at Hinkly C takes 15-25 years to build and that's current tech!

[@cageybee7221]

@@MrPoliticTosh the gates foundation is not involved in nuclear energy, go away alex jones.

[@tomshackell]

@@goldfishbowl42 Up to a point this is true .. but there are next generation nuclear projects targeting the late 2020s for first construction. They are aiming that new plants after that will only take 2 or 3 years to build owing to much simpler construction that makes heavy use of factory based fabrication. So if things go well these new designs might well be able to be rolled out at scale within 10 years.

[@Accessless]

Are we on the verge or an energy shortage crisis? - Yes Can we build more fossil fueled power plants? - No Can it be resolved with renewable energies? - No Should we build nuclear power plants? - What do you think Sherlock?

[@billyfox6368]

But, it's also important to try to employ renewables to some degree too; unfortunately, nuclear isn't entirely perfect due to the necessity to import uranium and the inability to fluctuate supply quickly and although it's highly unlikely and retains the lowest deaths per kilowatt hour, the more nuclear plants we have, the more room there is for disastrous mistakes. Therefore, we should preferably utilize it alongside renewables, but definitely, we need to less reluctant to view it as an alternative.

[@327legoman]

@@billyfox6368 you don't have to use uranium. The only reason uranium was used was for nuclear weapons during the arms race. Thorium is much safer and produces far less nucealr waste and is being used widely in India.

[@billyfox6368]

@@327legoman Yeah, I'm also on the other comment spread about thorium (supporting it) and although that's true, don't you think that it would still be difficult to implement nuclear power sufficiently to solely rely on it? If every country did it, we'd eventually run out, so isn't it better to use a combination of nuclear and renewable energy now so that it's less of a problem in the future?

[@IncubiAkster]

@@billyfox6368 'solely rely on it' No one with any sense is advocating for this, not sure where you are going with this. We should not solely rely on anything.

[@tomshackell]

@@billyfox6368 It's certainly true that current nuclear plants are limited in their ability to fluctuate supply .. but I don't see how renewables would help with this. Renewables definitely have their place, and I'm not "anti-renewables" .. but one disadvantage of renewables is that they have no ability to ramp up power at all. If the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing you're out of luck ..

[@acadoe]

Nuclear is like that annoying childhood friend that you tried to leave behind as you got older, but you keep noticing that they have always been there for you and are actually becoming less annoying. In fact, they are the best friend you`ve ever had.

[@MattJones-ki6wh]

With leaving the EU, we lose the free energy trade that was highlighted in this video. The UK therefore needs a quick, efficient way of generating power as come January, we will not be producing sough electricity to meet demand. Nuclear is cheap and has a stable production rate, if Thorium power stations are used, it is safe and without waste also. In addition to this, more reliable renewable sources should be built, I'm thinking the severn barrage as the UK has one of the largest tidal flows in the world and this could reliably power about a third of the country from one plant.

[@dandun30]

thorium is decades away

[@0xCAFEF00D]

With how long it takes to put nuclear in place it seems fairly late to put that in place half way through what's going to be the last year of trade. You should have started expanding your energy independence and general independence the day after the referendum.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Nuclear actually takes longer to get up and running. Cos those are massive power plants, and unlike wind and solar that generate from each turbine or panel, you kinda need to finish the whole nuclear plant (or at least most of it) before it can be switched on. Cos it's ultimately just a small handful of powerful reactors, unlike wind and solar farms which are made of large numbers of small generators and so ramp up production steadily as you get each up. As for Thorium, it enjoys a lot of support for it in theory, but still barely exists in reality. It just ain't ready yet.

[@Njemanja]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn There are new, small, modular reactor designs. Thorium reactors for instance. VHTR design is not only modular but can in addition produce hydrogen and other synthetic fuels requiring high temperatures.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@Njemanja I already mentioned my views on Thorium - the amount of support it has seems inversely proportional to how much it actually exists as part of the power system. It's basically the nuclear industry's version of the Tesla Cybertruck at this point. Anyway yeah, smaller reactors are nice, but I'll wait and see if any of them actually take off.

[@eddualmeida5790]

The world should use ALL OF IT! Since power generation accounts for 70% of all CO2 emissions. And preferably with MSR reactors that are safer and produce only 10% of the waste of old reactors.

[@DaDunge]

We should use it if is viable to do so and the way to do it is to not go around subsidizing it or outlawing it but rather to keep strict controls in place and let it compete with the other. If it is worse it will fail, it is better it will succeed. It is not the job of the government to decide these things. The job of the government is to mitigate risks of any power generation, be it nuclear meltdowns or people falling of hydro power dams (which actually is a higher death rate per terrawatthour than nuclear meltdowns is).

[@gastarbeiter1]

@@DaDunge i would disagree that the government shouldn't have a word in how to produce power in a country. Fracking for example is not allowed in germany and i am glad that it is not allowed here. Also some forms of energygeneration need some help to start and the benefits show later like it is with renewable energy of which germany now uses for almost half of its energy production. But yes after that phase you shouldn't subsidize it. Nuclear energy is highly subsidized which makes it affordable. But imagine if private companies had to pay for transport, secure waste disposal, secure storage and a fund for probable hazards if something went wrong....nobody would touch nuclear power.

[@DaDunge]

@@gastarbeiter1 That's different, that's setting guidelines. What I am talking about is outlawing things in absolute terms. Heck I am even willing to allow them to burn coal if they can ensure that it has 0 carbon emissions, and no not net 0 carbon emissions but actually zero. Of course since that technology doesn't exist today and might never exist it amounts to a ban but I don't think it is in the best interest of the people that the usually scientifically illiterate state to take a heavy handed approach to these things.

[@DaDunge]

@@gastarbeiter1 Nuclear also is hemmed by in by either not being allowed to build new plants or if they are allowed not knowing if the new plats will be allowed to stay open long enough to run a profit. Like I said I don't know, and I don't think anyone can know, what would be the most effective energy source if we allowed them to compete evenly while just making sure they adhere to regulation, I really don't think it's the business of the government to make that assessment.

[@IainMcGirr]

@@gastarbeiter1 Yeah right .. .Germany totally covered in wind turbines and solar panels virtually all the bees and butterflys extinct due to being in the flight path aside from the insecticides ..and nothing grown pretty much across the country except corn which is used for the fuel for the gas stations.. so ...lets review... lots of hedgerows destroyed killing natural habits .. check... lots of insects killed due to being in the flight path.. check .... total carnage of the nitrogen cycle in the soil due to growing of a mono crop year over year over year... check to fuel the gas stations... hmm... sorry give me nuclear any day... BUT not these big stupid Gen 2 which they still build.. you use the Gen 4 and the small modular reactor versions... which has no building cost run on spent nuclear waste stuck in the ground can even but put into older coal plants... ..Please dont put Germany as some kinda beacon lived there for 6 years... you are closing your remaining nuclear plants and building 25 more Coal plants ... hmmm right ... and everyone forgets BECAUSE you dont hear of any issues with France which completely has been running on nuclear ..and forgive me not hearing of any accidents there are we ? If you are serious about the "environment" you need to consider all the "environment" the impact on wildlife etc.. it is known that the current mega projects for nuclear are massively outdated ..dangerous compared to newer Gen 4 reactors and the passive safe are not considered.. as they dont make much revenue for nuclear companies.. ie its built shipped to site.. .stuck in the ground etc... fission stated ..and well come back in 80 years or a 100 ...

[@badboy06660]

Nuclear, plus renewables, with Hydro storage to help cope with surges in demand. Could also manage demand to some extent. Remember that a 'cost' to the buyer is 'wages' to the builders, which ploughs back into the economy. It's a question of how we as a country wish to allocate our resources and how we are going to look after our environment. I think we should build and maintain a national pool of excellence and expertise in order to reduce the risks. The risk of a disaster is always there so we need good technical and political competence over the very long term. Funny though, people like me won't be around when all this comes on stream, and the people making the key decisions don't have the experience and wisdom to make them. And are the 'general public' voters sufficiently educated and informed to make the political choices? Are they/we simply being manipulated? We need proper adult non-tribal conversations. The human condition ........ Still I think TLDR are doing their bit quite well ......

[@0xCAFEF00D]

The cost case is especially strong for most western nations that have a lot of high-tech industry.

[@neuralwarp]

You don't need renewables drooling heavy metals all over the place if we have nuclear. And anyway, there's not enough copper to give renewables tk more than 25% of the world. There is no sufficiently large form of battery or hydro storage. Modern nuclear reactors can easily load-follow, and produce medical isotopes instead of nuclear waste.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Any plant started now will never deliver a single kwh of electricity. Maybe if they give it away for free they can still find someone willing to take it from them. But who is going to be dumb enough to invest billions in order to give it's production away for free for 50 years? Never going to happen.

[@alfaeco15]

Just nuclear. High energy density, better use of land and resources.

[@InderjeetSingh-im3eh]

There are designs available that address many of the issues that people have with nuclear. Designs that prevent a Chernobyl or Fukishima type event. Some of those designs also can be used to draw CO2 from the atmosphere or from the sea. You can also use the designs for desalination AND Hydrogen production or for creating carbon neutral fuels for the aviation industry. They also cannot be used for being a material souce for terrorism due to how the nuclear fuel is diluted in the core. Additionally these designs can also address the waste issue by consuming the existing waste and reducing the amount AND time needed to bring it down to natural uranium sources. Some of the Thorium based designs can also allow countries to gain some resouce independance for rare-earth elements as some of those are found with Thorium, so you can reduce the cost of mining these elements. Liquid designs can also allow you to extract medical grade isotopes for cancer treatments and for RTGs, RTGs are needed for space missions that are too distant from the sun for solar panels to be effective.

[@jimgraham6722]

Absolutely spot on, if we want to avoid climate catastrophe we must do it.

[@Bitrey]

The background music is so awful, it's like a 6 second loop

[@imouse3246]

A little softer would make a great difference.

[@perp1exed]

I happen to love it

[@Suscida]

Love your videos. One minor suggestion, your mics sound quite muffled. You could try upping the eq treble a tad, or if you have foam on the mic really this is only necessary when recording outside to deal with wind. Thanks again for the varied content!

[@SuperYacub]

Nuclear energy is the CLEANEST energy

[@ilikedota5]

Net cleanest that we have available right now. The energy future, the point that nobody is getting, is that if we want to start a long-term, carefully planned, ideal solution, that requires us to start now, and accept the fact that the right solution is going to have a broad mix of energy sources, and for the foreseeable future, we will need oil for airplanes, and cleanish natural gas for now.

[@ilikedota5]

@@davids.654 long term storage solutions like yucca mountain. In the meanwhile, temporary storage status quo.

[@andyhughes1979]

All TLDR reports are very useful - but with the awful background "music" drowning out the voice, I'll stopp listening I'm afraid

[@ElliePetrova24]

I’d prefer different music/no music

[@matteofabbri6633]

YES, ANYONE SHOULD USE MORE NUCLEAR

[@frymate1261]

Matteo Fabbri I think the UK should have a hybrid system where 50% from nuclear and 50% from renewables like winds and solar.

[@mattsavage6365]

@@frymate1261 Once we really figure out large-scale affordable and reliable power2heat, power2gas and energy storage technology in general, we'll be good to go. I believe those technologies are easier to accomplish than figuring out any longterm reliable and secure storage for massive amount of nuclear waste. Until then keep the current nuclear reactors running but keep an eye on them.

[@wannabeaworldcitizen6938]

@@frymate1261 YES a balanced answer - I agree

[@scorpixel1866]

@@frymate1261 The sun may be renewable but the components necessary to build solar panel are not, along being way more destructive to the environment and killing more people than nuclear ever had. Furthermore most of the rare metals in question are owned by Winnie.

[@frymate1261]

Scorpixel I know there is some damage to the environment when making solar panels but it’s a lot better than other fossil fuels like oil and coal. I think solar should be put on peoples homes with some battery storage so it takes stress off the grid. I am pro nuclear, people who say we should just run off 100% renewables it can’t be done today (except Hydro). Every single way of making power has some bad effects to the environment, and most people do think we should get of coal and natural gas as fast as possible. But the bad thing about nuclear energy is the cost of building the plants and the waste afterwards. And you need to put that somewhere. Hopefully there are some good solutions in the future where we can re-process it into more energy or something but there is no way of doing it right now because a lot of countries have change their mind about nuclear and the counties that do you care they have an innovated for the last 30 years! Also the processes to get the license to build a new nuclear plants takes for EVER! Like Hinkley point C it was proposed in 2007 got the license in 2012 and only started building in 2017 and it won’t be done until 2035 and only will produce some power in 2030. And it cost £20+ BILLION!! That’s why people like renewables like wind and solar because they are quick and cheap!

[@Mitjitsu]

12:10 - Damn, and I remember when a nuclear power plant only cost $5000 to build In Sim City

[@benjamintomassennordahl7911]

Current nuclear technology is fail-safe. A nuclear plant does not need to be pressurized anymore eliminating the possibility for a large explosion such as Chernobyl. Furthermore, the use of other nuclear options such as Thorium could provide shorter nuclear storage, hence eliminating the need for long-term underground storage.

[@karinmagnificent1308]

Please lower the volume of the background music in the last minutes or use a less intrusive track. Thank you.

[@thedave8097]

Germany: let's go for renewables, forget nuclear Also Germany: largest importer of fossil fuels in the EU

[@valentintapata2268]

they import also a lot of electricity (mostly produced with fossil fuels).

[@Croz89]

@@valentintapata2268 It's nuclear/hydro a lot of the time from France. But also some wind and hydro from Denmark and Norway.

[@MetallicReg]

Don't look at Germany as a good example for success. We have the highest energy prices of ALL developed world only because of our completely brocken energy system. And yes - because of the unreasonable shutdown of our reactors before their actual working period, we got the highest coal consumption ever recorded - which is by far the worst of them all.

[@valentintapata2268]

@@Croz89 From Poland it's fossil.

[@mrjonnylowes]

Also much more polluting than neighbouring France who has 80% of their energy from nuclear and the French electricity bill payer who pays less than their German counterpart.

[@acadoe]

I think anyone that uses their head instead of their hearts to answer this question will give a resounding yes to more.

[@richardspence5093]

Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Nuff Said.

[@frymate1261]

I think the UK should have a hybrid system where 50% from nuclear and 50% from renewables like wind and solar.

[@Aoskar95]

Solar isn’t as renewable as people think. The panels don’t really have emissions but the manufacturing process is pretty bad and the end of life cycle is even worse. Most solar panel recycling companies actually just sells the panels to the Arabs since the Arabs rather buy lots of cheap panels than efficient ones and then just scrap them somewhere like Vietnam or Pakistan

[@frymate1261]

oskado95 I know the process in making solar panels but when you made it, it will be making power for 30 years +

[@frymate1261]

tom black ?

[@Aoskar95]

@@frymate1261 No solar panel lasts for 30+ years. About 10, tops

[@Lordblow1]

@@Aoskar95 That depends, 30+ years is a massive stretch and certainly not the lifespan of any current solar panel but the high quality ones can last for 15 years at relatively high capacity. 10 is usually the guarantee for most companies but most can work for longer so long as you buy good quality ones, their production capacity just shrinks over time. This is mostly just due to the panels expanding every time they are heated by the sun and shrinking when they cool, over time this causes the decrease in energy production.

[@danchang9976]

I would like to point out, out of the 3 deals that have fallen through, 2 controlled by new horizon have expressed interest in restarting the project. They have completed all the design, but they have disputes with the government over the funding model.

[@neuralwarp]

Problems with capitalism, not with nuclear engineering.

[@jaroslavstava3704]

@@neuralwarp we do live in capitalistic economies. If there are cheaper and safer alternatives, they will be preferred. Non-capitalistic systems have their own share of problems (Chernobyl)

[@killcat1971]

@@jaroslavstava3704 Depends how you define cheaper and safer, you also neglected reliability.

[@jaroslavstava3704]

@@killcat1971 yes, I actually meant safer investment. With reliability it also depends what you mean :-)

[@mattsavage6365]

The only reason nuclear power plants seem cheap and competitive is the fact that we don't sufficiently include risk, liability/insurance and disposal and long-term storage of nuclear waste. You tell me whether in the US you think $13B is enough to cover any accident where many experts believe Fukushima's disaster will easily break three digits in Billion of cost and Chernobyl is already estimated at $450B with recurring costs in the future. In Europe the liability varies from country to country but I don't believe €700M to €2.4B will suffice by any stretch of imagination. Even with German laws that requires unlimited operator liability would hardly generate more than €8.5B i.e. if you take all the stock value from EnBW. That doesn't mean mean that we should just shut down every nuclear power plant prematurely like Germany's approach which triggered a spike in fossil fuel usage and was counter-productive at best but nuclear energy in its current form is not the future, it was a necessity from past times due to lack of alternatives. Keep running them as long as you need to, increase supervision and make sure those private businesses are not cutting costs.

[@peterschlichter1712]

There isn’t enough focus here on the clean alternative to nuclear which are renewables and are littered with problems. Renewables is the answer that saves the climate and destroys the environment in the process. The reason we don’t do more in nuclear is cause of misconceptions based in emotions and not scientific fact.

[@acegarcia3719]

What I like about nuclear power is it's one of the few renewable energy that provides permanent jobs. A windmill or solar panels are left alone after construction but a nuclear plant constantly needs employees to operate it which creates jobs.

[@georgobergfell]

Technically I am pro nuclear, but I don't support the construction of new plants until a good solution for disposal of nuclear waste is found. No other country than Finland has made significant progress in this regard in the last 50 years.

[@RaffySonata]

Nuclear is essential for transitioning to green and clean energy. Solar and wind wouldn't just cut it yet

[@MatthewJBD]

Every single Nando's in England, Scotland and Wales is powered by 100% renewable electricity.

[@mina-xt1mj]

@@MatthewJBD households are not equal to commercial restaurants and so they need don't to advertise with what type of energy they use

[@4vesta255]

Matthew JBD So? That’s only 300 stores.

[@jaylarkin2000]

wind and solar are too unreliable to replace coal and nuclear, nuclear out of all the energy productions is proved both the safest, and very reliable. the only times nuclear reactors has failed was due to 2 of the 4 using 40s era nuclear design, the Fukushima was due to not only it being built near a fault line but a little known fact that when it was designed they made the fatal flaw of not scaling up the generators for anti flooding equipment, Chernobyl was also using 50s era nuclear design and the explosion that resulted was due to high pressure steam with the second being from the Zirconium heating up to 1200 Celsius and it didn't help that there were a number of problems going back to its earlier construction. the whole scare about nuclear power is quite frankly moronic at best, a sheep mentality. plus it doesn't help that many of the tv programs GREATLY over exaggerates the potential disasters to the point of absolute lunacy. the whole fad of wind and solar being the future is utter garbage, all you need is a cloudy day with no winds and they both will not able to produce electric

[@frymate1261]

I think the UK should have a hybrid system where 50% from nuclear and 50% from renewables like winds and solar.

[@SnakeRush]

Just going by the tenor of your video you are making/coming across as assuming that there is only one type of 'Nuclear Reactor'. I would recommend doing a bit of research into Thorium Reactors. The reactors you were talking about were mostly if not all Uranium Enriched Reactors which have to operate under extreme pressures and result in waste that can't be disposed of. However with Thorium most if not all of the risks/problems that arise from those 2 factors go away completely. Not to say that Thorium is the perfect solution to energy or anything but going by what i've read up about them they certainly seem like a very good step in the right direction.

[@MDP1702]

At this moment there is no running thorium reactor (I thought India had one, but can't find it). In theory, yes thorium is great. But untill we actually have new plants which proves this, it is speculation and most governments will not accept that and will not bet on thorium. The aerospike for example is on paper great for space rockets, however due to practicality/engineering issues there isn't a single rocket using it even after decades of research and development. Thorium reactors could potential go the same route, great promise on paper, not so great in reality. I definitely hope this isn't the case, but as of now, thorium is just great promise, but not really showing it yet.

[@doritoification]

Thorium is promising but there's nothing wrong with current nuclear or even nuclear from the 70s. Excellent safety record, extremely efficient, tiny amount of waste which isnt externalised to the environment but rather is managed responsibly and just bloody CLEAN! 12gCO2/kwh

[@MDP1702]

@@doritoification Expensive though.

[@thisin.]

Fusion and high efficiency renewables are likely the best options in this century. Wind turbines are pretty bad in every way, but if solar panels keep improving they should become a good option. Until then, fission is probably the best, and greenest option.

[@kokofan50]

Improvements in solar panels doesn’t change their fundamental flaw: they’re dependent on weather and don’t work at night.

[@thejfactor1]

Fission will outlast renewables

[@TheLastAngryMan01]

I'm always a bit torn when it comes to nuclear power. Pros- cheap and renewable fuel; medical treatments; pest-control etc. Cons- Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. If highly technologically advanced countries such as Germany and Japan have decided to downscale/decommission their nuclear power programmes dramatically in view of the risks, I am inclined to believe that few countries would be better placed to regulate such a power supply. There's also a small but real risk of some of the more antediluvian extremists out there targeting nuclear facilities in Western countries.

[@IonorReasSpamGenerator]

Both Japan and Germany depended on old era nuclear reactors that were cheap but not that much safe, new ones are far safer but also expensive. We also do not throw nuclear waste in barrels into the sea anymore as we did in 70ties which means that not only nuclear reactors but also waste disposal is much more expensive, though not necessarily safer as many shallow ground nuclear waste storage sites that replaced throwing barrels into sea tends to leak nowadays, only a few countries have proper long term deep underground stage because of cost, so it all depends on how much you are willing to pay for public health while at the same time trying to stay with your nation competetive which also depends on the cost of el. juice...

[@treemansser]

i love how the narrator can't decide between nucular and nuclear

[@jadefalcon001]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed that. Was giving me terrible flashbacks to the George W days of white house press conferences. Nook-yoo-ler. GAAAHHH

[@robinbeckford]

@@jadefalcon001 God, yes; not just me then

[@peka2478]

Thanks for this comment, it leads me to instantly stop the clip before he said it even once. No one pronouncing it "nucular" is worth listening to..

[@LeShaiyan]

Why is this comment at the top xD holyshit, if this is all you get out of this video then i dont even know why you are subscribed 😂

[@Jake12220]

It seems wrong to talk about nuclear without talking about the current options available, the currently available technology is nothing like the old plants built 50+ years ago.

[@Jake12220]

@JZ's Best Friend what track record? All the nuclear waste ever produced (most being very low grade like contaminated clothing) can fit inside a football stadium. We could easily store it in deep abandoned mines in geologically stable areas, but politics and Greenies are always trying to block those developments. More importantly, what's waste today will have value as fuel in years to come. Thorium reactors, whenever they arrive can use uranium reactor waste as a fuel additive, and their end output is almost nothing (any leftover fuel not used in the reaction is added to the next cycle so to be used of burnt off). If your talking about Fukushima and the disposal of the water or something then you need to look into it a bit more as the situation is nothing like the situation some sources would suggest.

[@Paerigos]

Btw: Nuclear CAN be ramped up fast or slow... assuming the reactor is built to do so. Most are not. and well uranium import- you buy a batch once per 20 years? :D

[@cageybee7221]

canada has alot of uranium and does alot of trade with the UK, so that is a bit of a silly concern. and yeah some plants can be scaled. if not worst case scenario you send the power to one of the hydro power storage facilities.

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

Nuclear can indeed be ramped-up fast, but that is 1 to 2 minutes fast When talking about grid power, reaction time has to be within a few seconds But still, nuclear is far better than renewables in that regard

[@xthor86]

@@andresmartinezramos7513 you Will have some gas turbines with the nuclear regardless.

[@johnmorsley]

I can't hear you over the stupid backing track! :(

[@bigabau]

Each big city should have a nuclear power plant to feed her and it should be built inside the city area. People who are the biggest consumers and have the need for big amounts of energy (cities) should be the ones more exposed to the risks.The isolated rural and natural areas should not take the risks of it, since they are not the ones needing huge amounts of power. The latter areas should be fed with renewable energies, produced at the point of consumption, for example in the roofs of the buildings for solar. In this scenario, units needing energy would be energetic sustainable and responsible for their energy and specific demands. Everyone has different needs, so let's start to be responsible for them.

[@antontalbot9148]

More

[@EMBer3000]

Just a quick question. What about a Solar-Wind-Battery-Biomass mix? You use solar and wind for most of your energy and batteries for short term supply shortages/fluctuations. For covering the gaps that the batteries doesn't have the capacity to handle you use biomass gasification plants that you spin up if you forecast a supply shortage. Thus you would run them during a day with no wind or sun or to make up the solar portion during night time. Biomass gasification is much greener than coal but has similar or lower construction and operating costs.

[@Mitjitsu]

Nuclear energy technology has greatly improved in recent years and the safety fears are greatly overblown. Fukashima for instance had reactors that were built back in the 70's. Also, coal and gas stations aren't exactly safe either. Due to them worsening the air quality.

[@ryangrange938]

More nuclear is the way forward, including the deaths caused by pollution of coal plants even with the nuclear disasters its many times safer. We need to get it done now.

[@wannabeaworldcitizen6938]

it's better than fossil energy, yes, but why is it better than renewables, aside from being more reliable (tidal power plants and other water working sources are very reliable)

[@existentialselkath1264]

Just 2 points, I dont know too much about this but large scale solar might be cheaper but it takes up tons and tons of space that could be used for farmland, housing, roads etc And the previous nuclear plant disasters happened long ago and plants should now be a lot safer

[@Apollorion]

How about building those solar power plants in deserts & a.o. use part of their power to pump water out of the ocean or sea & desalinize it, after which you can drink or irrigate with it?

[@mick7909]

I really wish you guys would sort out your audio equipment it's very very frustrating. Seriously how hard is it to go to audio to consistent decibel level.

[@acegarcia3719]

What I like about nuclear power is it's one of the few renewable energy that provides permanent jobs. A windmill or solar panels are left alone after construction but a nuclear plant constantly needs employees to operate it which creates jobs.

[@ytpanda398]

Pleaaaaase change up the music, the videos are fine but the music makes me want to walk around in Tesco's and let people cough on me

[@Nasherrrzzz]

Probably we should although there is the question of decommissioning these plants. We still have not commissioned any of our nuclear submarines which stretches back to the 80s. If we sort these issues out I will be much more confident for nuclear power as a good short to mid term stop gap

[@MDP1702]

As for the costs at 5:29, I find them a bit weird. The LCOE of these sources tend to more along the lines of: Wind onshore: 40-50 $/MWh Wind offshore: 70-90 $/MWh Solar can be as low as 20-30 $/MWh (though only in very sunny area's of the world, so not UK) to as high as 120-180 $/MWh (individual solar panels, like for houses). Coal-powered: 60-70 $/MWh Gas: 80-90 $/MWh Nuclear: 120-180$/MWh Considering this, the nuclear numbers in your video's seem very low, while the gas numbers are extremely high. Could you have accidentally switched them?

[@alessandromestri9004]

Maybe he added cost of land? Or maybe it has to do with the fact that lot of renewables camp are subsidized by government do decrease final price

[@MDP1702]

@@alessandromestri9004 Usually all cost are taken into consideration in the LCOE (investment: building and decommisioning, operation, fuel). So land should be included in the price. LCOE never takes into considation subsidies. In the contrary, subsidies usually are/were determined somewhat by the calculated LCOE. Eitherway I can't understand how gas is so expensive in this video and nuclear so cheap. So I can only assume it got mixed up. Especially seeing how close they are to eachothers expected values.

[@Croz89]

@@MDP1702 The gas cost is for OCGT, which practically nobody uses regularly because it's so expensive and inefficient (the upside is they are cheaper and simpler to build). CCGT is much cheaper and the vast majority of UK electricity generation using gas uses CCGT. It is rather misleading I agree. The £95/MWh figure is the agreed upon price by EDF, so it's got evidence behind it. It is linked to inflation so it will increase over time. Onshore is cheaper but a bit like nuclear, it has a fair amount of resistance to construction because of the visual pollution in often scenic rural areas, plus offshore is less intermittent and produces more energy per turbine so it's attractive from a grid management perspective.

[@rare_kumiko]

No, we shouldn't use more nuclear. Main argument being it's not economically feasible. - It's expensive. VERY. Nowadays, new plants cost billions to make, take many years to build (some taking literally decades). They also require to be constatly staffed by skilled labour which increases the costs even more. Nuclear power plants also generate a lot of energy that has to be distributed over a large area, which incurs extra cost in distribution. Meaning that current production of electricity with nuclear energy is affordable and relatively cheap, but expanding nuclear power is impractical and is just getting more expensive. - No one wants to pay for nuclear plants. Lot of nuclear plant projects are being delayed and cancelled in developed countries, and for a good reason. Private companies don't want to invest billions upfront for a payout that can take several decades. The risk involved is huge for the company. In 20 years, renewables may get so cheap that your nuclear plant isn't even profitable anymore. The government may decide that they don't want nuclear plants anymore and it'll be closed. No private company wants to incur this risk. - Using public money is as bad of an idea. The risks are still there, of course, but added to that, no politician wants to spend billions on a project that will only see benefits in two or three decades, because said politician will not be there to gain anything from it politically. Compared to that... Renewables are cheap and getting cheaper. They're much easier to invest into. Of course there's the problem of availability and adjusting production to demand, but those Now, that doesn't mean we should close all nuclear plants. They are cheap-ish, they don't produce that much waste (they still do, but not that much as they're only a percentage of the total energy production), the risk of accident is low. But we definitely shouldn't make more, unless there's some breakthrough in technology that makes them more affordable and safe.

[@kokofan50]

Nuclear’s life times costs are lower than renewables. Also, a few skilled people working a nuclear power plant is a lot cheaper than the small army of people needed to operate a large solar farm. All forms of power generation require power lines to get the electricity to where it’s needed. Solar and wind are actually the worst in that area because they have to be built where there’s sun and or wind. A nuclear power plant can be built relatively to where the electricity is needed.

[@rare_kumiko]

@@kokofan50 You only half addressed one of my points, and that's incorrect. Cost of new nuclear power plants, with new harsher regulations (for instance, those introduced due to the Fukushima incident) is astronomical because the costs are rising, and most new power plant projects end up requiring up to two or three times the initial estimated budget. Energy from newly built nuclear plants is expected to cost over 20 ct/kWh, which is double the cost of wind and three times the cost of solar. And the tendency is for solar and wind to go down, and nuclear to go up even more, which brings me to the other two poinst I mentioned. Who will invest in that? And why would anyone even invest in that? If we had built a bunch of nuclear plants in the 90s or early 2000s, we'd probably have a lot more cheap nuclear energy. But right now, it's impractical, and becoming even more impractical with time. For your second point, the issue is nuclear produces A LOT of energy, which means that unless the plant is next to a very large city, some of the energy will have to be moved to some other place. Solar and wind are more distributed and require less transport of said energy. This is not really a huge issue so you can ignore it, anyway, but my point stands that nuclear is more expensive and harder to invest into.

[@kokofan50]

@@rare_kumiko a argument isn’t that nuclear is more expensive, just that is has needless burdens put on it. Being spread out is exactly what makes it cost more. Rather than building a few lines between cities, you have thousands of lines from the turbines or what ever then link them together. I’ll also repeat myself, wind farms and the like aren’t normal located near where their electricity is used.

[@preciousinfinity]

So, then this is a highly complicated issue and we could really do with trustworthy experts to figure it out?

[@dennispremoli7950]

Not really. Get a scientist and they'll look at the facts (the real risks) and still tell you to use nuclear cause of course, especially if research into Thorium reactors is successful. The only thing keeping nuclear back is politics.

[@jaroslavstava3704]

Depends what questions you ask. Anyone with sound knowledge of current nuclear industry will tell you that nuclear has - crazy large initial investment - high risk of delays and cost overruns due to the complexity of construction - very long amortization (outside normal investment schedules) - no guarantee of ever archieving profitability - the renewables just keep getting cheaper and cheaper. Simply put nuclear is not commercially viable. What can "save" nuclear are probably only - mass produced modular reactors (2030+) - massive public "price guarantee" subsidy - a large (subsidized) supernational strategic construction program (eg China now, France around 1980)

[@DTK-X-GAMING]

One of the major regular natural disasters in the UK is flooding, a strong network of Hyrdo-electric dams would solve that problem and create power for millions, add in a few nuclear reactors up to a base load capacity and then put the rest into distributed renewables for peak coverage.

[@bourpierre198]

8:01 France uses nuclear power to adjust supply and demand therefore it's possible to do it. If I remember correctly, up to 50% power variation can be achieved over an hour or so.

[@abelzatyko1513]

Yeah, they can just use special rods - graphite, maybe, I dunno - to slow down or speed up the fission thus changing the temperature and power generation. Quite a bit of precision engineering, but a relatively simple theory. An elegant way to do it, I think.

[@tomkite1933]

I think some of the references are missing. In the video you go up to 59, but the description only has up to 39

[@antontalbot9148]

Thorium reactors yeah, loads more

[@327legoman]

Dissapointed he never mentioned thorium.

[@SamanthaCoolBeans]

If you want thorium reactors then you firstly need ‘standard’ fission reactors. Can’t have Thorium reactors with Uranium fission.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Thorium enjoys a lot of support for it in theory, but still barely exists in reality. It just ain't ready yet.

[@Steven-og8jj]

Everybody research Thorium Energy. You will not be disappointed.

[@altrag]

Unfortunately, there is little information about thorium reactors. Most of what you can find is overwhelmingly positive which should be a warning sign right off the bat - _nothing_ on the internet gets away without criticism. The problem is that while the theory behind thorium (and LFTR in particular) is reasonably sound, its still just a theory. As far as I know, there was only one test reactor built in the 60s and whether you want to claim it was ignored due to its inability to produce weapons-grade material during the cold war, or its results just weren't up to snuff, the point still stands that there's been basically no research done on thorium reactors since then. Well, until apparently the last few years. A quick Googling suggests a few groups are attempting to start up some thorium test reactors again. I saw one from 2017 and one that looked like it was from a few years earlier but didn't get a clear date (and a few others I didn't bother really looking at.) I don't know what sort of results those tests have produced but I'm guessing they haven't found anything world-changing yet or we would have heard more about it. But how to fund more research? Between ever-louder calls for governments to somehow operate without any sort of funding (ie: constantly lowering taxes) and general political malaise toward nuclear as a whole, public funding is spotty at best. So they're pretty much out. What about private industry? That's become my go-to gauge for the future of energy simply because unlike governments who are more free to pursue whatever seems interesting (and politically expedient,) private industry has a vested interest in pursuing things that are likely to not only work, but work well enough to be profitable. To that end, its somewhat telling that there's vastly more private investment in green energy and even fusion power than there is in thorium. That doesn't say thorium couldn't work in principle, but it does somewhat indicate that the cost of bringing it from theory to reality outweighs the expected return on investment. So how to move forward? Well assuming you really believe the tech is workable, the best thing to do is try to educate people I guess. Private industry isn't likely to change their minds (people looking to invest on the scale of billions do their homework!) but public investment is not off the table. You just have to convince enough people that spending their tax dollars on thorium research is worthwhile. If enough people want it, some government somewhere will do it.

[@H3LLB0Y2403]

Opinion: Nuclear does not work anymore together with renewables. Renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper and are already at a level nuclear will never reach. Therefore nuclear energy will always be pushed to the right (out of the market) on the merit order.

[@mina-xt1mj]

but they're not reliable

[@Kip_Novak]

Breeder reactors produce 1% of the radioactive waste that PWRs do, and that waste will last centuries rather than millennia. Plus the waste we have from current reactors can be used as fuel in Breeder reactors

[@brian2440]

That’s not even remotely accurate nor does it make any sense what you’re saying You’re effectively stating that by fission Breeder reactors produce stable isotopes.... That is not correct

[@doritoification]

Well done for being overall very balanced and impartial on the topic.

[@doritoification]

@tom black Air pollution kills 7,000,000 people every year. THAT is hell. Chernobyl would have to happen 1,750 times a year or nearly 5 times a day to kill as many people as that. But, of course, Chernobyl was a one off and could never happen again. It's all about perspective my dude.

[@Jake12220]

@tom black far more people die installing and maintaining solar and wind than ever have from nuclear power production, and that's at the worst estimated deaths from nuclear. In terms of confirmed deaths nuclear is safer by far than all other forms of power production, including hydro and all renewables. Add to that, all the previous nuclear disasters happened in plants designed in the 1960s and 70s when they had far less understanding and far less developed safety systems (just look at how safe cars were back then compared to now). Many of the proposed new nuclear plants, including one in the UK are SMRs or small modular reactors, these are far far cheaper to build and can't meltdown, they have also been used on nuclear powered ships for decades and we're what the original nuclear plant designers suggested be built from the start as they are both safer and cheaper. The reason they build the big ones in many cases was because they were needed to create the weapons grade material for nuclear weapons, but these days around 1/3rd of nuclear power is being generated from decommissioned nuclear weapons. As in they are using the weapons we were worried would destroy us all to provide the cleanest power we currently have available (yes nuclear is cleaner than all renewables in terms of lifecycle pollution, waste and CO2 per MW generated).

[@X3h0n]

@@doritoification That would be assuming that the 4000 figure is accurate. What ticked me off is that they cited the 4000 figure yet did not give any of the evidence against it any mention. There have been multiple studies of people from the clean up and at the site of the Chernobyl disaster that show that radiation exposure has not resulted in any significant increase in mortality long term. The greatest killer has been suggested to be the emotional and mental strain from the incident mostly fueled by irrational fear of the radiation. It does not help that the Soviet Union turned it into a freaking nationalist melodrama. Something that Ukraine has inherited, thus the 1.8 million 'victims' figure. Even though if you count all the people who were evacuated as victims, it would be a few hundred thousand people. That figure is just utter fantasy.

[@Morgoth1889]

Nuclear power should Provide all our energy

[@shehrozmushtaq6877]

I really don’t like the extra sounds or background music

[@YourEnvironmentSeattle]

8:35 from a nonproliferation perspective foreign imported uranium should be the standard because of treaty obligations which prevent the products of that fission from being used in weapons. Nuclear fuel costs are tiny compared to construction, finance, and other O&M costs. Finally it is also possible to extract uranium from seawater. With so much coastline England has enough territory to harvest uranium from the seas with no geographic restriction.

[@scepticskeptic1663]

yes use an island off coast and run a giant cable inland.

[@Raussl]

literally inviting an environmental dissaster and contaminating fishing grounds for a century?

[@Paerigos]

thats not really cheaper, and its problematic in when it works too.

[@frymate1261]

I think the UK should have a hybrid system where 50% from nuclear and 50% from renewables like winds and solar.

[@edders2009]

The further away power plants are from cities, the more energy you waste getting it to homes

[@Nikikanor]

Good video, but I miss the immediate safety aspect. Google "death by mWh". From that perspective nuclear is quite safe, even when counting the accidents.

[@elliotwatson3754]

It's a real shame that these videos aren't your most popular. You get the TLDR community involved and put loads of hard work and research into this, but don't seem to get the amount of views you merit. Keep up the good work

[@12kenbutsuri]

We should use more. Also for all ships.

[@galactorsus_i.n.c]

We should build plans that can't destroy themselves when things go wrong and use fuel that doesn't take thousands of years to decay.

[@mrgizmo7190]

We have fixed it though that is why it’s been 9 years since the last accident

[@galactorsus_i.n.c]

@@mrgizmo7190 yeah I forgot about thorium reactors my bad

[@uniwersal7061]

The sound effects are really unnecessary. They are just kinda distracting, making it harder to focus on what's being said.

[@scottstone9718]

I think you need to bring some experts onto these to give some insight. Currently they are just bombardments of numbers.

[@noone-qg1od]

I don't want to get bitten by a tiger, so I'll get a pet bear instead.

[@YourEnvironmentSeattle]

You're making a pretty bad analogy. Nuclear is very low risk for the energy output that it creates. Renewables are still dangerous to workers and wildlife and their energy output is so small that the injuries and deaths per kWh end up higher than nuclear. A better analogy is an elephant vs a flock of ducks.

[@tomd5678]

Solar, wind, tidal, wave and hydro could fill the gap. With gas as an emergency fill in and batteries to provide instant boost. This is even more practical when you consider how many electric cars will be attached to the grid semi permanently, being charged and, occasionally, giving current back into the grid

[@Daful85]

I would like to point out that waste from a light water reactor really isn't waste. It still has 95% of it's available power left meaning long term storage isn't the same as " dumping it in a landfill". Is more on the lines of holding on to a just opened bag of charcoal briquettes through the winter until you can use it in the summer.

[@Paerigos]

BTW - milion tons - thats milion metres cubic... its like 100x100x100 metres. compared to ocean - the ocean will not see any difference in radiation in like... 5 minutes of dilution.

[@doritoification]

it should never have been stored in the first place

[@AshLewis500]

I live near Hinckley pointed. It is being funded by the French and Chinese. Also, the demand for housing locally has increased for the thousands of construction workers. The main town closest to Hinckley has seen millions of pounds in regeneration and expansion, and is one of the quickest expanded towns in the country, with alot of international companies being attracted to it (including recent rumours of a Tesla factory)

[@screes620]

I mean it's either Nuclear or Coal. Would you rather DEFINATELY make global warming worse, or MAYBE irradiate a part of the world forever?

[@doritoification]

Spent nuclear fuel is less radioactive than the ore it was mined from after about 300 years

[@MichaelWarman]

The French produce a lot of nuclear power, which is one of the key reasons they sell energy to us; you can't really turn nuclear plants down, and storage is difficult, so in periods of low demand they balance their system by selling power to us super cheap.

[@CompoundInterest-SG]

Not a fan of all the swoosh sounds. With high-end headphones they are quite distracting.

[@givememorebliss]

you just wanted to brag, admit it

[@joshuabotham9103]

The UK is an island nation, meaning we have the ability to rely on tidal power systems, like the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea, South Wales. I think this is what we should rely on, with only limited nuclear plants where necessary.

[@Mufcforever-sl2gf]

Definitely should use more

[@CarlosKTCosta]

There is another form of energy that is rarely talked about. The current Standard of Uranium based Nuclear Energy is a product of the nuclear race during the cold war more than it is the best solution. Thorium based Nuclear is technically safer and less prone to be used for weapon production (the exact reason it was not chosen in the first place) but still very valid in terms of energy production.

[@doritoification]

The IPCC says nuclear is 12 grams of CO2/kwh which is on par with offshore wind at the same 12gCO2/kwh The land requirements for nuclear are 450x less than for solar and 400x less than for wind. Nuclear has the lowest material throughput per KWh out of all the energy sources period. The fact that Tesla cars could become a decentralised virtual power plant doing frequency control for the grid is a really really really good thing but i don't know why it has to be specifically good for renewables??? Nuclear base load still requires peaking power to back it up during high demand.

[@Paerigos]

to effectively backup up equivalent of 1GW of nuclear power comming from any renewable you need 500 000 tesla 3s hooked to the grid 100 percent of time.

[@Lordblow1]

@@Paerigos that doesn't really answer his question. He asks why using Tesla's for batteries would depend in using renewable energy which it most definitely doesn't. 1GW of nuclear power isn't any different from 1GW of wind, solar or coal. It is just 1GW of energy. The point of storing it specifically for renewables is that energy production of renewable energy depends on the weather. To make this form of energy production more reliable you need to store excess energy when you have a period of high production. In the case of other energy sources you can decide the energy production of a power plant based on need. If you need less power just burn less coal. You could still use tesla cars as batteries for these production methods but it is just less needed as you can regulate the energy production to suit demand at any time.

[@Lapantouflemagic0]

nuclear being only good for base load is a common misconception. they can follow the demand, but this requires a specific design. we use that in france, we're one of the few countries to have gone that way but it works just fine.

[@Paerigos]

@@Lordblow1 Well actually the difference is that if you build 1GW of nuclear powerplanet you can be sure it will work 80-90 percent of year when you push the button. when you build 1GW of wind it will work only 20-30 percent of time inland and 40 percent off shore. thus - for 1GW of nuclear you actually 3-4 times the wind + storage. solar power - you definitel 4 times plus storage. having a 4GW of solar power during noon is pretty much a 0GW of power druing midnight. Given how Sun operates you need at noon to catch 3GW of power and store it trough midnight... to put it bluntly - so it works just plain capacity wise - its 500 000 tesla 3s - which keep charging during the day and stabilize the grid during night... meaning - you cant charge them during night... (that premise alone is false)

[@kokofan50]

One idea I’ve heard is to build to peak demand and during low demand use the power for things like desalinating water.

[@dinofeather]

This a good video, I like how shows the pros and cons in a balanced manner. I do however want to point out a few often missed things about nuclear power plants. The foremost be that they haven't seen a significant change in technology in over fourth years. There have been suggestion to improve the designs but no one has tried them commercially yet. For those who don't know. the way a nuclear plant works is a solid piece of radioactive fuel is placed in a water bath, heating up the water. The water is then used to hear up a separate loop of water turning it into steam and moving a turbine and producing energy. Two major improvements have been suggested over the years. One switch to a liquid core which can be vented to a containment vessel in case of emergency, and will produce less nuclear waste. And two remove water as the thermal control medium as every major reactor failure has been due to problem containing and moving highly pressurized water based cooling. So often comparing nuclear plant to most modern energy processes ends up a competition between an 1800s steam train and a 2020 Ferrari. This is especially frustrating due to the fact that no one wants to invest in the technology due to the political and monetary risk. If you have made it this far thank you, and I apologise if I carried on a bit too long.

[@garyt1119]

Love your channel. followed it from the very early days, BUT please don't go the way of TV shows, which I can't watch as they drive me nuts. Please, Please, drop the inane and annoying background 'music' like a dripping tap. Keep everything else though, and thanks

[@tomshackell]

Just a note on the idea of using car batteries to balance the grid. It's important here to do some simple maths. The UK has about 40 million cars. The average electric car has a roughly 30kWh battery, meaning if every car in the UK was electric that would provide 1.2 TWh of storage. The UK currently produces roughly 330 TWh a year of electricity and uses roughly 900 TWh a year of oil mostly for transport. If we replaced petrol cars with electric cars it's reasonable to think we would therefore need roughly 1200 TWh a year of electricity. The 1.2 TWh of storage provided by car batteries would thus be able to store about 9 hours of UK energy production. This is not even close to being enough to smooth out the intermittency of renewables, which can sometimes go for as long as a week without producing significant power. This does not account for the conversion losses, the fact that cars will not always always be available to act as storage when excess power is being produced. Whatever people think of nuclear I would argue that it's necessary because there is no realistic way to make 100% renewables a reliable source of energy.

[@BigyetiTechnologies]

There's a perfectly good energy source currently drying my washing outside. Nuclear is too expensive to build, run and decommission.

[@igorscot4971]

There are other options including the Severn Barrage, which could be build so that the power could be available for a long time. Methane could be produce from sewage, and other sources, and hydrogen generation could be used to fill in when other power production is unavailable. If the UK has to go down the nuclear route, the small molten salt thorium reactors, appear to be the best solution, if they can be made viable!

[@ZearthGJL]

I remember the time when Singapore wanted to have a nuclear reactor on an island. On the one hand, it was a smart idea. In the long run, it'd drive cost down for electricity, clean, and cut reliance on natural gases for the powering of the country. But then the Fukushima nuclear disaster happened and the decision was reversed. Although in the end, it didn't really stop the progress for the country's lowering of reliance on gases, since then, there's been solar panels being placed on roofs and reservoirs for the country's electrical demands.

[@antontalbot9148]

Fortunately the UK doesn't have issues with tsunamis

[@kevinconrad6156]

@@antontalbot9148 Why, it has a big coast. A large glacier dropping in in say Greenland could cause a huge tsunami.

[@Paerigos]

Roofs never can supply enough power.

[@kevinconrad6156]

Or an offshore earthquake off of Iceland. Get real dude and accept were dangers can come from.

[@ZearthGJL]

@@Paerigos Agreed. But it can lower reliance of natural gases and the likes.

[@MrMurminator]

One of the more balanced explanation on nuclear power I've seen to be fair versus other sources I've seen, though I'd have like it more if you'd have mentioned potential solutions to the problems nuclear faces such as thorium rather than uranium. Or issues with other "True" renewable's such as the issue with disposing of solar panels once their life cycle has ended, or the carbon cost of constructing wind turbines, there's also arguments to be made that more investment could be made into other forms of renewable energy (Such as wave energy pioneered successfully in Scotland) though that would be a little out of scope.

[@andrewfrancis3591]

Thorium molten salt breeder reactors cheap clean

[@MDP1702]

There isn't enough current empirical data to look at right now to determine if it truly is this great solution. We'll first have to see how these new powerplants come out around the world. And that will take years to even see if it is so good.

[@antontalbot9148]

100% and safe.

[@Paerigos]

would be nice if they existed in working model.

[@doritoification]

@@Paerigos most of it was demonstrated in the 60s at oakridge national labs

[@wannabeaworldcitizen6938]

I'm a german and I am completely surprised that so many people are still pro nuclear. How come?

[@kokofan50]

Because it’s clearly the best power source we have.

[@kokofan50]

@@davids.654 If the nuclear industry was paying people off, it would be the politicians, so they wouldn’t have to deal with absurd over regulation.

[@wannabeaworldcitizen6938]

@@kokofan50 is that really so? I mean it has obvious problems, 1) the waste and 2) the risk. It's not like there are no accidents. There was one in New York and one in Britain and one in France and of course the huge ones in Fukushima and the ukraine, and IF they happen, radiation is gonna stay longer than humanity remembers (I mean the first civilizations were 7000 years ago, and radiation can stay for 100000 years so...) and it's the same with waste. For global warming it's definitely better than coal, but we have to built up renewables so at some point we can stop relying on this radiation thing.

[@DaDunge]

14:18 No point in compensating those living close. if there's a meltdown the fallout could end up a thousand miles away. The fallout from Chernobyl ended up in northern Sweden Norway and northwestern Russia.

[@LetsTakeWalk]

New nuclear plants just do not meltdown. Several steps have been made that makes it impossible to get a runaway fission event. Old style plants like Chernobyl and Fukushima are simply not build anymore.

[@stuartschaffner9744]

Fredrik Dunge , I am somewhat sympathetic to your feelings, but your comment contains a huge but common mistake in quantification. There are many many orders of magnitude of difference between "(all of)the fallout" and a "detectible amount of the fallout". Heavy contamination from Chernobyl and Fukushima mostly occurred within tens of kilometers away rather than tens of thousands of kilometers.

[@DaDunge]

@@stuartschaffner9744 The fallout on northern sweden is bad enough that you cant eat things from nature in these places. And that's the same as the area around Chernobyl. It's how things are with alpha and beta particles.

[@mrow7598]

Other things that are missed in the video. The daily output of wind and solar are so erratic that you need large banks of inductors and capacitors along with gas turbine plants to stabilize the power grid. Solar panels produce DC, you then need an inverter to covert the power to AC. Inverters also cause large impedance in the power lines which then cause the lines to need even more inductors and capacitors. Larger inverters for grid purposes do have an efficiency of 95% you still lose 5% of all power produced which is then put out as heat and they put out a TON of heat. Gas turbine plants unlike many other power plants can be turned on and off quickly as demand is needed. Part of the video was talking about needing outside resources uranium/plutonium those in a nuclear plant last at least 15 years, so unless a war happens for years on end needing outside help with those shouldn't be a problem. Lastly nuclear power plants also produce bi-products that are used every day, Caesium, Strontium, technetium, Iodine, Samarium and Americium are all made by nuclear power plants of one type and another and are used in many things like x-ray detectors, nuclear medicine and smoke detectors. Stopping all nuclear power plants would hurt many different things.

[@billyfox6368]

Definitely, we need you to resort to a combination of nuclear and renewable energy because that's going to be the safest, most environmentally friendly and most reliable source of energy.

[@abubakrqaasim8565]

Im quite surprised smaller modular nuclear power plants were not included in the video even though the video covered mostly everything. Apparently the smaller modular reactors use less fuel so are a lot less expensive and are more agile. But I think it is quite late to be thinking about building nuclear power plants as coal and gas power is being replaced by renewables and they are getting incredibly cheaper by the year as more R&D and mass production kicks in. The amount of energy storage solutions being trialled is increasing too and in my opinion all these little pieces would very likely push nuclear powerplants off the table for the next few years (and hopefully bring in fusion power plants in the next 20 years!)

[@nibnob3850]

What about thorium reactor I've heard very good things about them

[@jkih0021]

no one wants to try out new experimental technology. Especially not rich conservative nations. Especially not with nuclear reactors.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

Thorium enjoys a lot of support for it in theory, but still barely exists in reality. It just ain't ready yet.

[@neuralwarp]

You're wrong there. We've been able to build them since the 1960s. There was one at Oak Ridge for a decade. India and China, among others, have development thorium reactors of different types (solid pebble or molten salt). The corrosion concerns have been resolved with new alloys in the last year. We could go live in 3 years if it weren't for technophobia and scientific illiteracy. Fortunately there are a number of technologists in the House of Lords.

[@Jake12220]

Yep the first molten salt thorium reactor was run for 15,000 hours back in the 1960's, technology has advanced a lot since then. Currently China and especially India are pushing hard to develop thorium reactors. Once they start using them the rest of the world is likely going to follow and given its basically impossible to use them to develop nuclear weapons it's going to be hard to sanction or go to war with countries for using them. So India and China will be the first, but will soon after be followed by many Asian, middle eastern, south American and African countries. The more 'developed' counties will likely fight against it at least for awhile due to the amount of political influence the current energy producers have, but in the end costs will win out, cheaper power is good for everyone.

[@michazajac5881]

@@neuralwarp The one at oak Ridge was a small, experimental reactor - it hasn't made a single kilowatt of energy during its entire operation. to build a prototype of a real rector was their next goal - unfortunately, they never got any funding for it. and bear in mind those people who build that experiment are either retired or dead of old age now. the truth is the technology needed to build full scale thorium reactor does not exist. materials to build them are not yet invented, not to say about testing them - that's what some companies around the world are doing now. But it's going to take an awful lot of time. Just to name one problem thorium reactor is expected to run and much higher temperature than uranium one - a material it would be made of has to endure temperatures of like 500 degrees and remain undamaged for 60 or so years. That takes some testing... not all is lost tho - just read some news USA are finally made up their mind and decided to fund construction of an experimental molten salt reactor. It is still expected to take several years tho.

[@michaelsoland3293]

I'd argue to build a base out of Nuclear Power and then fill in the gaps with renewables. Of course, this will change as new technology appears in both nuclear and renewable energy fields.

[@SuperCookieGaming_]

if we can get thorium reactors to work then we should defiantly do it. Nuclear power will reduce co2 emissions so we have more time to make better fully renewable sources.

[@wannabeaworldcitizen6938]

Why is everybody talking about Thorium? Even if Thorium is easy to mine and assuming there's plenty enough, thorium reactors can't be the perfect solution, because there is still a risk of blow up, and there would still be waste that we don't know what to do with. Planes are safer than cars too, idk

[@tremarley9648]

@@wannabeaworldcitizen6938 Thorium waste is hardly dangerous