Save the World with Nuclear Power | Leslie Dewan | TEDxUniversityofRochester

Nuclear engineer Dr. Lewslie Dewan discusses her experience designing and creating a company around a new type of fission reactor that eliminates many of the dangers of nuclear power. She gives a brief overview of the history of nuclear power and considers her own triumphs and failures in her work. Dr. Leslie Dewan is the CEO of Tailfin, a conservation technology company based in San Francisco, CA that focuses on new nuclear power technology, carbon-free energy production, and applications of artificial intelligence for global good. She is also the co-founder of Transatomic Power, a company that designed safer nuclear reactors that leave behind less waste than conventional designs. Leslie received her Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from MIT, and is a member of the MIT Corporation, MIT’s board of trustees. She was named a TIME Magazine "30 People Under 30 Changing the World," an MIT Technology Review "Innovator Under 35," a Forbes "30 Under 30,” a National Geographic Emerging Explorer, and a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx

[@Humanprx]

i think the fact she put her work out in the world is one of the most beautiful things. i would like for america to become another pillar of innovation

[@kayakMike1000]

It always was the pillar of innovation. americans were the first to split an atom, the first to the moon, the inventors of the internet, commercial scale steel production....

[@MrGottaQuestion]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) this means the Chinese government got a boost in MSRs as well.

[@csscsv]

This is the first speech I hear from her after Transatomic got shutdown and it’s really disheartening. I feel that her charisma is lost. Her speeches back in the day inspired me to pursue advanced nuclear engineering (specifically on MSRs). I really wanted to work for Transatomic one day and now it’s impossible :( @Leslie : If you ever read this comment, I really hope that you bounce back strong from your failures and achieve your dreams :) I believe in you

[@lesliedewan9933]

Thank you :-)

[@september1683]

Oh, I didn´t know that Transatomic was shutdown. Sorry for that! Here in Germany they have destroyed our nuclear industry. And I hoped that Transatomic could open a new horizon for clean nuke. Keep on fighting guys!

[@leighpurnell5156]

@@lesliedewan9933 Really sorry to hear the news about Transatomic, but you and your team did move the needle when it came to new reactor designs and the Nuclear power discussion as a whole! I started my own venture backed company in the UK 5 years ago with the aim to sell and get the resources to then start a nuclear energy company, so I understand the stresses of external funding and the pressures you and your co-founder must have faced. Good luck and I hope we bump into each other someday!. All the best

[@shirleytraver7255]

So @Leslie Dewan, do the VCs like own you now?

[@jimfrazier8611]

I got out of nuclear power almost 30 years ago, and like you, I was inspired by the TransAtomic MSR design. I have a different take on why it failed, born out of a different perspective on why the Pressurized Light Water Reactors design took over in the first place. To my thinking, it was more a matter of the US Navy turning out a ready stream of operators trained in operating PWRs, and steeped in a militant safety culture revolving around understanding the ramifications of every action they took. The Soviets on the other hand, went with an outgrowth of their Plutonium Breeder Reactors, a design concept the US had only used where necessary for weapons production and only out in the middle of deserted areas. Where TransAtomic and all the others failed was assuming that the nuclear utility industry would fund development of their design, simply because of the undeniable safety advantages. For such smart people, that was really naive thinking. If you want to get your innovative reactor design funded, developed, and universally adopted, make it simple enough for a college dropout to operate, and make it fit in the engineering spaces of an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Sell the Navy on fuel savings over gas turbines, and the ability to run with the carriers indefinitely, and you'll have funding faster than you can say "F-35 cost overruns".

[@gerryiannuzzi815]

just shared this with my high school chemistry class. Sorry to hear they had to shut down. Strong message here to persevere.

[@scottcoston7832]

As a systems engineer who has worked across multiple disciplines (space systems, biometrics, pandemic detectors (that actually works) I was very happy that Leslie shared that failure is a invaluable. ‘Hard Problems’ are a blast to work on, but they require working as an integrated team that is willing to push each other and challenge almost everything. I’ve worked on problems that were so difficult it took us months to develop the “good idea”. There are times where it’s 2 steps forward 1 step back. This type of work is both exhilarating and crushing. It requires extraordinary commitment & persistence. When it all comes together it’s pure bliss.

[@Esther-pw2vv]

I've been having doubts about studying nuclear engineering and becoming a nuclear engineer so this is very helpful

[@petersimmons3654]

You are right to have doubts. Seriously. It's 20th century tech, with a bit of 19th century. Renewables are the 21st century tech to become involved in.

[@Esther-pw2vv]

@@petersimmons3654 it's gonna take a while though. Nuclear fusion too which is top tier! But I've gotten stuck with the idea of becoming a nuclear engineer, I just wanna do more than that but I don't know what. Any ideas?

[@DAVE720294]

@@petersimmons3654 Quite a few 19th century tech issues with renewables when you consider the whole lifecycle of mining rare earth material, expansive land grabs for solar sites, disruption of wildlife, death to birds of prey and bats, huge amount of future landfill waste, heavy metal waste sent to poor third world nations to "recycle". Also there is redundant fixed costs for fossil fuel peaking power stations that need to come online during the days the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine etc etc. Nuclear is the answer to clean energy as demonstrated by France vs Germany regarding CO2 emissions.

[@scuzyprod.1611]

I think this industry has the potential to boom in the near future.

[@davidjessop2279]

@@Esther-pw2vv MY eldest son is a renerwables engineer, his doctorate is on distance data-logging, but he also works on wind turbine design, and has built and installed PV panels. Just don't mix with nuclerar, it really is a death deathnology, adding to global heating isn't cool, or everyopne would be burning car tyres, which would still not do the same damage as nuclear.

[@billyjoeallen]

Dr. Dewan is just an amazing young woman.

[@robertweekes5783]

And a rocking bod. Married tho 😅

[@martinlintzgy1361]

I love smart women... And Leslie is hot

[@mrcleen70]

Well said, well done. Very brave, all the best to you & your colleagues.

[@hassanbahzad]

Our world needs clean energy and this team has tried and put good efforts. God bless them and hope that other teams will rise to the challenge and complete their work.

[@hasanchoudhury5401]

Excellent educational discussions for the serious people to go further towards safe zero emissions environmentally friendly nuclear power. Thanks.

[@gjbeardsley7665]

Thank you.

[@ftc9258]

Gotta be really hard to do this. My hat off for keeping herself together during the speech. Having gone thru all she did at her age, it's really something. Changing scenary by moving to the sunny state from Cambridge, Mass may be good for the new start. Thanks to her and few brave souls, now the world is finally catching on with MSR thing. I hope, she sticks around this space.

[@brockjohnson5068]

I think it was Popular Science that ran a story about Thorium reactors back in the seventies or early eighties. I believe the main problem they figured, was that they didn't think the valves and pumps etc would not last long in that environment.

[@kensurrency2564]

One of the huge problems is that thorium doesn’t produce enough nuclear material for BOMBS. This is why uranium and plutonium are still used. WAR

[@lsteiner]

Oh yes, you will have a huge impact for good on our planet. The butterfly effect has spoken! Thank you for being so bold, you are a special person!

[@JCGErvin]

There are those of us who watched this video and are interested in Leslie and others because we know this is the best existing option to quickly, safely move away from fossil fuels. Germany’s lack of success, and the impact of warming resulting from a warming Arctic will ultimately shine a bright light on this technology. But politically the present administration must be replaced.

[@petersimmons3654]

Quickly? LOL Safely? LOL PV is going up all the time, offshore windfarms are being built and planned, all new builds made to have PV roofs by new buiding regulations would create more energy than several nuclear stations. It really isn't the answer to anything, it's old tech, they keep trying to add a shine to it and call it new but that only fools fools. Germany has already supplied its energy needs for a 24 hur period with what renewables it has, more would simply make it all the time. The warming arctic you mention is partly being waemed by ALL THE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS PUMPING OUT COOLING WATER INTO THE SEA! More of them and the seas would warm even faster. Nuclear is not the answer, it's part of the problem.

[@simonjohnson1]

Having worked as a fast reactor physicist in the past I have a particular interest in this. The best design of MSR that I've seen is the Stable Salt Reactor by Moltex Energy. A waste burning, fast reactor with excellent economics and safety. The first build will start soon in New Brunswick, Canada and hopefully the design will spread across the world after that bringing safe, clean, economical electricity and high grade heat to the world.

[@davidjessop2279]

Forget waste, nuclear whatever it is, is ADDING TO HEATING THE PLANET. Sorry I shouted, but can't you see? Or do you have too much invested in this cult to open your mind to the possibility you have been damaging the environment all this time? You can only make it worse you know.

[@chapter4travels]

I believe the Elysium Industries molten chloride fast reactor to be even better than Moltex, far less fuel prep is needed.

[@simonjohnson1]

@@davidjessop2279 The amount of direct heating of the planet by all of human energy production is too small to be relevant. It is the increased heating due to the man-made increase in CO2 levels that is important.

[@simonjohnson1]

@@chapter4travels I agree that the Elysium Industries reactor looks promising and the fuel prep is probably cheaper. The reactor is similar to the Moltex design in many ways and I suppose that in the end it will come down to the economics. In terms of the reactor build and operating costs the Moltex design might have advantages but as to which design wins overall when the re-processing is included I don't t know. Perhaps we need both approaches to be built and eventually one will become the favoured system to be built in large numbers?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@davidjessop2279 Wow, did Q tell you to repeat that nonsense?

[@aymanelrafee1]

Hope that new reactors come to life sooner

[@davidjessop2279]

Why? Do you so want to destroy Earth? What's it done to you apart from nurture you all your life? Nukes ADD energy to the ecosystem, what part of that is hard to understand? Maybe it's me, usually my explanations are convincing. Is there an error of logic? Pleas do tell me, I am always ready to learn. But don't suffer fools at all.

[@VFPn96kQT]

@@davidjessop2279 @Nukes ADD energy to the ecosystem@ WTF are you talking about? Have you even had any basic physics course in your life?

[@shawncalhoun1363]

Fukushima wasn't a reactor meltdown. It was a Hydrogen gas explosion due to the spent fuel not being cooled properly after the pumps failed. Which did result in the release of ionizing radiation, however resulted in 0 deaths from that, unlike the death toll from the Tsunamai (16,000+), and the deaths linked to the stress of the mass evacuation of the region. Meanwhile coal, natural gas and petroleum kills hundreds of thousands each year. I just read today that the research on the offspring of the Chernobyl meltdown have shown no elevated risk of degraded DNA damage.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Three reactors melted down at Fukushima, but everything else you said is correct.

[@wedgeantilles7731]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk agreed! And he's right about the radioactivity of coal. And that is constantly spewed into the air while the damned thing is running!

[@francislecuak2252]

Thank you, Nuclear power along with renewables are a necessity in order to stop climate change.

[@jimgraham6722]

Absolutely!

[@andrewmeilinger6203]

Nuclear is really the ONLY clear choice. Renewables are not worth their salt

[@wedgeantilles7731]

@@andrewmeilinger6203 I was just going to say that!!! And I appreciate the pun regardless of intention.

[@clarklarsen1973]

Leslie has both brains and beauty. I hope her ideas have a true, long term impact on U.S. and perhaps world wide energy use and energy policy.

[@suchdevelopments]

Like Elon Musk, you have believed in what you do and it through to its end. I encourage anybody to follow their asperation, like Leslie. She is being true to her goals.

[@davidjessop2279]

Wasted her life and education in reality. All these years she's been contributing to global heating and climate change, yet calls herself an environmentalist.

[@carlmclemore6104]

@@davidjessop2279 "Global heating." 🤡

[@wedgeantilles7731]

@@davidjessop2279 Sounds like you have it all figured out. Maybe you can give us all some life pro tips.

[@jamescampbell720]

oh this beautiful nerd had me when she compared air pollution with render distance in a video game. I'm all ears for the remaining 16 minutes of your presentation :)

[@avikfett1551]

Smart woman. Easy on the eyes too.

[@777palena]

A Safe and natural technology has been developed by the Keshe Foundation, they have just released a Stand Alone Plasma Generator, this unit can produce Mega Watts of energy and is now being offered to the world Governments, truly a game changer.

[@boogeyman2868]

so why did the company have to close down`????

[@pfwag]

Until fusion reactors become feasible, THORIUM based reactors solve all the issues of uranium based reactors. India, which has the largest thorium reserves in the world, has a proto up and running. Maybe China too.

[@goutamboppana961]

but the sad thing is idk if it is still going or just stopped if not stopped then i am happy

[@makshay]

@@goutamboppana961 work is still in progress and reactor is expected to go critical in 2022-23

[@wedgeantilles7731]

I heard someone say once that fusion is better than fission but fission is good enough to meet our energy needs for a thousand years. It was on a Tedx talk iirc. I will cite if I find it...

[@kensurrency2564]

@@wedgeantilles7731Fusion is supposedly the holy grail, but we haven’t proven it yet. So in the meantime why don’t we use fission UNTIL we figure out something better?!

[@teddylee1218]

About X-ray heat

[@bhatkat]

It's good to see there''s still quite a bit of support for fission power, it has enormous potential with most of the problems being simply political due to fear and ignorance. If we stick exclusively to passive safety, fail safe designs I am willing to bet nuclear will eventually live up to it's potential if we are willing to innovate. There's quite a bit of smart money on it so if we just hang in there long enough should be eventually accepted as a reliable base load source at least.

[@petersimmons3654]

The ignorance is yours. When you stop telling yourself you're superior and all opposers are simpletons you might start learning how wrong you are.

[@wedgeantilles7731]

@@petersimmons3654 you sir are an ignoramus. This is the second time I've seen your uninformed opinion in this comment thread. Which oil company do you work for?

[@theallseeingeye9388]

Plainly Difficult The above is the youtube channel that has a comprehensive list of incidents and accidents highlighting nuclear safety. Good place to start if we would like to understand whats at stake and how little it takes for stuff to go south.

[@davidjessop2279]

They don't want to know. Cultists never do, they have the truth, it's been revealed, unbelievers are not to be listened to. 'hari krishna krishma krishna, hari hari.'

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Every single nuclear accident in history still makes nuclear the safest form of electricity we have.

[@bigpoppa5732]

Yep, there's your answer Greenies.Nuclear

[@paulrprichard]

Which nuclear and which is better? There are two nuclear fuel elements: Uranium and thorium. There are three nuclear fuel cycles: Fissionable uranium-235 isotope representing 0.7% of all uranium. Fertile uranium-238 isotope representing 99.3% of all uranium which when it absorbs a neutron will eventually breed into fissionable plutonium-239. Fertile thorium-232 which when it absorbs a neutron will eventually breed into fissionable uranium-233.

[@chapter4travels]

The fuel is not the important part, it's the reactor design. The molten salt reactor is the special part because it can utilize all three plus nuclear waste.

[@mobilisem3603]

Failure, mainly of funding though not exclusively, was the blight of Isambard Kingdom Brunel throughout his professional life so no one should be disheartened. Perhaps the nearer we get to a climactic precipice the more the money will come in. At the moment the Nuclear 'I told you so's' have the upperhand since Japan and why not? Who builds a reactor close to the sea on one of the worlds most unstable tectonic plates where earthquakes and tsunamis happen regularly. This molten salt reactor really needs marketing to the masses so that we all get a real handle on how inherently stable the process is. Any PR companies out there fancy a challenge?

[@craighartley551]

Why doesn’t anyone talk about using tidal power ? This is bigger than anything we have on earth. No pollution no waste . What are we doing using oil for anything except cars and transport systems. And so easy to do ,any answer appreciated. Craig Hartley England.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Show your operational utility scale tidal power plant.

[@craighartley551]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk hello is there any protection on my working drawings.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@craighartley551 Working drawings are many years away from being an operational utility scale tidal power plant.

[@Idontbelievethehype2]

Now you're making me research WHY you threw in the towel.. would have appreciated a little detail on that.

[@rexfrommn3316]

Our government should be supporting nuclear research for new reactor types such as Small Modular Reactors using Thorium Molten Salt technologies. Many examples of MSR's exist. I hope this young woman finds a place to go in the nuclear industry. Nuscale is building a type of SMR in Idaho. We desperately need to standardize SMR's using Molten Salt Reactor technology such as Florine and Thorium. We will never solve the climate crisis without industry, government, the military and academia all working together. It should be like a Manhattan project only with the idea of ruthless standardization for the most efficient, safest and cost effective SMR's for mass produceability. Nuscale could have the answer. The Russians are putting SMR's on ships for remote communities on navigable rivers in the Arctic areas of Siberia. We need to start doing these things too in the United States. We might need several types of different reactors for different applications such as hydrogen fuel manufacturing, desalination and electrical power production. Some proposals suggest putting SMR's on barges in drydock along the coastlines. Landbase SMR's might be best with a different type design. The Department of Defense is looking at small micor-SMR's put on a railcar or truck for the National Guard to power Guard camps for soldiers at places of a natural disaster. We need SMR technology whether a person hates nuclear or not, we just have to have nuclear power ramped up rapidly to fight climate change. Fossil fuels are guaranteed death for America and the rest of the world in the 21st century.

[@assakka1409]

Thorium need uranium to start and run, so you'll have to accumulate the radioactive waste.

[@wedgeantilles7731]

@@assakka1409 well, one could just buy some fuel from ge or whoever is making it. Maybe INL could help with that? Excellent conversation here tho. I wish I heard this talk more often. But we all agree that we need to move forward on this. Maybe we should inform Congress of our positions?

[@mhirasuna]

Unlike Elizabeth Holmes, Dr. Leslie Dewan has shown us what to do when your start-up's technology does work out.

[@RLXPrez]

At timestamp 4:33 she shows a photo of the USS SEAWOLF being launched and says it's the NAUTILUS... a little disappointing for a PhD.....not that hard to tell them apart... not to mention the hull number printed on the sail in huge letters....

[@HollywoodBob39]

That's what I thought. The Nautilus' hull number is 571. Being a former SSBN submariner, I still notice those things!

[@grahamflowers]

Betz limit has been smashed and debunked wind power now works. regards Graham S Flowers

[@Grasshoppa65]

I keep hearing about these salt reactors and Thorium reactors......but where are they? If they are so wonderful.......where are they? There is obviously a design problem they are not talking about. I put this in the same place as fusion reactors. A flight of fancy.

[@mitravindabyreddy9795]

A thorium prototype research reactor has been in operation in India for more than a decade- it is at Kalpakkam -called Kamani reactor

[@carlmclemore6104]

@@mitravindabyreddy9795 keywords are "prototype research", and you could only come up with that one example, so OP's criticism still stands.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

MSR reactors have actually been built and tested. Show us your operational fusion reactor built and tested.

[@eduardodelvalle4711]

I think she said 1857 and meant 1957

[@Jim54_]

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

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

If the press hadn't conducted their 50+ year anti-nuke campaign, there would be no anti-nuke movement, except against nuclear weapons.

[@Jim54_]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk nuclear weapons are necessary to maintain global peace through Mutually Assured Destruction of the major world powers

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@Jim54_ Obfuscation to nuclear weapons has nothing to do with this video or your own meme. Nuclear energy is the safest we have and much less damaging to the environment than any fossil fuel generation method.

[@Jim54_]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk I agreed with you on that, I’m just responding to your comment on nuclear weapons

[@elxero2189]

Why not just use thorium

[@chapter4travels]

Because uranium in the same type of reactor is cheaper, easier, and has all the same advantages that are touted by thorium. There is also no shortage of either uranium or thorium.

[@abecoulter8550]

what about country's that have banned nuclear

[@davidjessop2279]

They are building up renewables and installing energy storage; wharehouses of massive batteries; liquid and gas compression system, hydro storage, chemical storage, every day there seems to be new inventions. We are at our best when under pressure. Using old discredited wasteful and dangerous technoplogies of fifty years ago simply arte not on. Nuclear is part of the problem.

[@edgehodl4832]

@@davidjessop2279 I reported you for spreading fake news, please stop posting fake information next time

[@kaya051285]

Why use nuclear to make heat to make eletricity which is only about 38% efficient and needs to fight for a small share of the eletricity grid? Nuclead should be used for 100% efficient heating and send that heat out to buildings via a distributed heating grids Nuclear could take as much as 90% of the share of heating needs In the UK total eletricity demand is 320 TWh while total heating demand is over 400 TWh Nuclear for heating 🥳🤯🤠🥸🤓

[@chapter4travels]

38% is plenty efficient when the fuel is so cheap.

[@RichardKoenigsberg]

I didn't realize NUCLEAR POWER was so CUTE.

[@koowasha]

I hope public awareness after HBO’s Chernobyl helps her get funding she needs.

[@killman369547]

+koowasha. Only if people have the right takeaway from the show. The series did a good job trying to pin the blame where it actually belonged (the entire communist system) but who knows how many people actually get it.

[@michazajac5881]

you give this public way too much credit. most of the people who watched it are exactly the ones who were screaming in a panic, looking at that picture of something red spreading all across the Pacific from Fukushima - and never ever have they even wondered why is the scale on this picture in centimetres...

[@Just_do_the_thing]

our current nuclear tech is fine as is. we just need to build them.

[@Just_do_the_thing]

@muhahaha what we should do is adjust the safety requirements. We have safety measures that increase costs drastically but do not actually increase safety in any meaningful way. this drastically drives up the cost.

[@michaelbaker2470]

talk about burying a lead.....

[@HarryHoppins]

Astroturfing intensifies

[@tomdixon1213]

I could go for it if you could go slower and more clearly for my non scientific mind. If you can get me to comprehend it, you can get the world to comprehend it. What is that open source web sight? I missed the address.

[@teddylee1218]

What can go wrong will go wrong. It how Deadly it will be ????

[@jimgraham6722]

The answer to polluted air, energy poverty, overpopulation relative to resources, and of course climate change is staring us in the face. Stopping progress, safety isn't the issue, it's vested interests wedded to the status quo.

[@davidjessop2279]

The only answer to all that from nuclear would be blowing up the world then no one would have to worry about anything. Why are you all so determined to reject what's staring you in the face? Renewables are racing ahead, getting cheaper every year, getting more efficient, getting installed in more and morte applications, both standalone and grid linked. We have the technology to fight climate change, you seem to want to increase it. Why, do you hate Earth?

[@lazygenes]

The covers were pulled off of the Nuclear waste issue shortly after the Fukushima accident. The experimental water treatment system failed and they were forced to dump all the radioactive wastewater into the ocean. They are currently suing France for a faulty system. They are still dumping it in the ocean. We have not found a way to solve this issue. Every system to break down the solid waste has failed miserably, causing fires and an end product that is harder to store. We still have not been able to design and build a storage system that will not end in disaster in 100 years. Please find another hobby that will not destroy future generations.

[@chapter4travels]

Dumping the water into the ocean was always the correct solution without harming anything. Solid nuclear waste is an asset, not a liability.

[@tonydeveyra4611]

Damn, I don't know what Leslie Dewan is doing know but I hope that when Andrew Yang becomes president and puts money into developing new thorium molten salt reactors she can get a ton of grant money and continue her R&D.

[@VRtechman]

How you Doing Tony?! 😏 Are ya good?! 😎

[@davidjessop2279]

Fantasist. You need to learn what nuclear really is.

[@carlmclemore6104]

Idiotic. And Yang couldn't even get elected mayor of NY with that craptastic campaign, nor win one state before he dropped out early for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020.

[@odderlendsolvang3790]

You need to learn what nuclear really is. Clean energy.@@davidjessop2279

[@gabrielferrer3205]

@@carlmclemore6104 He could have won if he didn't drop out of the race and used the pandemic on his UBI agenda.

[@karl.weaver]

Fascinating talk, terrible sound.

[@michaelbaker2470]

Her last speech talked about how they could use nuclear waste to power a reactor.....and that was the PhD.....so...they solved that and now......she just.....shuts up ant says its not ok......not even an explanation?....that shows the power companies flexing a bit.

[@mcduck5]

There was a mistake in the calculations that resulted in it only 'eating' about half the amount that it was originally going to. What I dont understand is why it isnt still going.... half is better than nothing!

[@davidjessop2279]

Your faith is intact, you sound as paranoid as all cultists.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@davidjessop2279 You should look up the definition of a cult.

[@AlmightyChubb]

Why’d this get no views

[@michazajac5881]

that's how social media work. a video that proposes a solution - be it right or wrong it's up for debate, but if you have just a few hundred views there ain't much debating going on... Gretas doomsday speech, that doesn't offer a single solution to the problem - millions of views

[@ironconrad4981]

When you let the luddites define the terms, you've already lost. You build better nuclear reactors to save people money, and meet the energy needs of the world. Worrying about the zealots feelings is not the job of the engineering community. Focus on a safe, efficient reactor and the high school popularity problems solve themselves. Debating carbon scales, frameworks, trends, or other such nonsense is a distraction. Don't engage. Power at 10 cents a KW H versus power at 20 cents a KW H means you can spend the difference on medicine, education, art, or whatever you want. It makes everyone's lives better. Poor people helped most (if it need be said). Three Mile island was not a horrendous world ending disaster. More people died that year from drowning by accident in 5 gallon buckets. Yet, one is a disaster and the other a convenient way to carry water. You spent all that time on learning science and technology. Go use it. None of the "feel good" things that Dr. Dewan's group did changed anything. The zealots comfortable in their private jets and warm houses don't care about the people who don't have power. It's not their problem. There will always be another Indian burial ground or mystical reason why it's an abomination to proceed. I salute you for your efforts. Now, get back to the drawing board. Nothing sells like a working technology.

[@davidjessop2279]

You don't get it, YOU are the luddites, nuclear tech is from the fifties, does anything else from then strike you as being cutting edge? Modern? Concorde has bee retired, pretty but old fashioned and not wanted. Nuclear was never pretty, it was always based on burning civilians in a whole town destroyed, and energy was just p[art of the PR. It's wasteful, polluting, cripplingly expensive, takes a decade to build and then it pumps heat out to the ocean, Adding to warming and sea ;level rise. It's ALL about war and killing, nuclear subs, nuclear missiles, and an ego trip fpor politicians with small penises. They can't save money, they cost the ERRarth, renewables are hugel;y cheap[er faster and cl;eaner, and since we only currenntly harness 1% of energy from the sun, so plenty more there. Nuclear lost the argument decades ago, you just haven't woken up to that yet. No one can afford it, Germany and Japan have rej3ected nuclear and are dismantling all reactors which should never have been built. Germany is well on the road to 100% renewables. All countires should do the same.

[@caav56]

@@davidjessop2279 You're saying this, while Japan is restarting the reactors and Germany is back to mining lignite - the dirtiest coal there is, turning large tracts of land into wastes.

[@Rep0007]

Funded by the Nuclear Industry Marketing Association. "Facts" provided by the Nuclear Manufacturing and Construction Council of America.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Show where the facts are wrong.

[@teddylee1218]

Don't Look Good To Me

[@aaroningram9465]

Slick, smooth taking presentations from the nuclear lobby been popping up alot here. Doesn't look like a lobbyist, does she?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Show where she is wrong.

[@Technetiumalchemist]

Fusion.

[@shirleytraver7255]

I remember reading a section on fusion in a book on reprocessing when I worked at a national,lab. It said, "ignore this section." Wondered why that was....maybe because fusion actually works lol. Oh wait...we cant make any money if things are free!

[@HarryHoppins]

@@shirleytraver7255 Fusion would be even more expensive, because of the very complex machinery behind it. As long as the sun shines there will be no competitive commercial fusion or fission. And no, fission plants are not competitive, they are only operational for building compact nuclear warheads, don't delude yourself, though a couple hundred bombs as a deterrent is fine i think.

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

People have been screaming fusion all of my 60 years. No flying cars either.

[@ihavethedocuments2580]

Take money out of the equation and you might have a point. But I'm afraid it's to late... You are dealing with power you cannot comprehend

[@ihavethedocuments2580]

You are definitely to young to understand this

[@ihavethedocuments2580]

And when talking about sodium cooled reactors, you failed to mention the rockedyne failure in southern California in the 1960's. Or did you even know about this? Apparently not. You know how many lives it cost? Do you care? Get a freaking grip

[@fromthehills814]

First, even though no one cares😂

[@milespuckett392]

Yea nuclear clean energy ? lets not forget that one nuclear power plant just polluted the entire pacific ocean for thousands of years ! it would be imposable for coal to have done this .

[@troth6251]

Yea plus nuclear waste lasting thousands of years .

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Show anything in the Pacific ocean that has died from Fukushima radiation. Coal ash happens to be more radioactive than nuclear waste. Your nonsense is not impressive.

[@chapter4travels]

It did not pollute the entire pacific ocean or even a tiny part of it, that's anti-nuke propaganda. Solid nuclear waste is an asset, not a liability.

[@brockjohnson5068]

A true environmentalist would say that this is not clean energy, and they wouldn't be wrong, BUT nuclear energy is the only viable direction we can go in for reducing carbon emissions - all other sources of energy are pipe dreams at this point.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Wrong. Renewables are vastly improved and faster to build.

[@benmcewan1989]

@@stephenbrickwood1602 BAHAHAHAA... ohhh you were being serious. Living in Lapland I see.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@benmcewan1989 as I said elsewhere here. No CO2 in the world because 100 companies have raised $BILLIONS very quickly. The USA military will stop all other countries burning fossil fuels. Nuclear industries in every country on the planet. 90% of the world's population is in dictatorships. Mr Putin, Russian dictatorship. Mr Xi,China dictatorship. Mr Little Rocket man, North Korea dictatorship. Mr Ayatollah's Iranian dictatorship. 9billion people to have 100,000 SMR power reactors, nuclear reactors, nuclear industries, Big, big, big business has the answer, just have a taste, 5years to build, 25years to start making a profit, no insurance company will touch it, government guarantee. 60years to 100years of profits. NOBODY TURNS OFF THAT MUCH INVESTED money. Each $Billions, each 2 decade to profit, each with the with highest quality construction workers, operators, Powering all transportation, EV, electrical vehicles, powered up. One power station now not big enough we need 3 power stations. We need 3 grids, 3 poles and wires to the streets and homes to carry the biggest ELECTRICAL LOAD the world has ever seen. Just have a taste. It is like a drug some one wants YOU try and it doesn't cost much.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@@benmcewan1989 how old are you? I have found that many under 40 do not know what my generation lived with. My elders were horrified when I said communism sounds good as a government..

[@kidkique]

she have an onlyfans? 😂

[@Badge1122]

The world does not need to be "saved", just leave it alone, ok?

[@bobleclair5665]

Russia,because of Chernobyl,1600sq miles abandoned forever, people shouldn’t have to live in fear

[@bobleclair5665]

I don’t

[@ukpnpg5528]

@@bobleclair5665 Chernobyl is not in Russia...

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Most of those areas around Chernobyl should never been evacuated, and the wildlife is absolutely thriving there. Maybe it's because they don't have internet.

[@liberalmonk839]

"you know?, you know? " - no, because if I knew, I wouldn't watch her

[@andyhaun8702]

really? do you need your brilliant nuclear physicist to speak like a professional broadcaster and never get nervous looking for the right phase? jeez. we all need to start giving each other a break... and i'll give you one, by assuming that this was an attempt at humor. her ideas are important and worth considering.

[@edgehodl4832]

Nuclear power? Wtf? We need to close all nuclear plants asap like Germany and go 100% renewable green power.

[@chapter4travels]

Nuclear is the greenest form of electricity production know to man, also the safest.

[@garymatter8306]

Yes that seems to be working for them then?

[@caav56]

@@garymatter8306 All those lignite mining operations...

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Now Germany is buying energy from neighboring countries, some of it nuclear.

[@davidjessop2279]

First fail, you are not an environmentalist. No nuclear engineers are or could be environmentalists. You are all nuclear cultists, you have faith, as all cultists must have, and that faith is unwavering in the face of any facts. The claim that nuclear is zero carbon is false, from mining to extraction, manufacture and, transportation round the world, the carbon footprint is massive, add to that the amount of concrete used to build the plant - [10 feet thick concrete walls?] concrete manufacture is a massive carbon emitter, so added up, every single nuclear plant has a heavy carbon footprint, which cultists dismiss with the 'lifespan of the plant', Yet the sgeer cost of the plant makes it necessary to set extremely high prices for electricity over the lifetime, simply to make it profitable for the builder. An environmentalist would have wondered about the siting of nuclear plants on coasts, of course, they all need vast amounts of cooling water to prevent the whole thing melting down like Chernobyl, nut none mention sea level rise and the certainty that they will all become liable to flooding. If Sizewqell, in Suffolk, England,is typical, the sea is very close, and a high tude coupled with a storm surge, as have been known a few times in recent years along the whole Eastern coast of the UK, will one day threaten to inundate it. Yet government proposed nerw build will be replacing all the old plants that have to be closed. That's how old this technology is, created aroiund the time of Concorde, long since retired. If instant solutions to clean energy are needed, and they certainly are, nuclear isn't an option, in the ten years it takes to build one nuclear plant, millions of PV panels can be attached to roofs, and new roofs equipped with PV roofing tiles can be in place and generating all the time. And for a fraction of the price and really clean with no CP2 other than the small amounts in manufacture and delivery. Oh, and they too last 25 years at least, so this tiny cost really is pennies over their lifetimes. I won't even bother to mention pollution and waste disposal, even nuclear engineers know that's an issue, that's why they avoid it. The main point, and why this woman isn't an environmentalist, is that nuclear can never be part of the solutioon of global heating and climate change because it is ADDING all the energy released to the Earth's enmvironment, whether it's the small percentage harvested by steam turbines, the most wasteful energy transfer technology ever invented, dating from the 18th century, or the bulk of the energy flushed into the sea directly as cooling water, except that it heats the sea, and is an addition to the sea warming. If anyone thinks this is a small thing with the oceans so vast, a rough calculation is that it amounts to approximately 75-95 Trillion therms of heat annually. While fossil fuels being burned is simply returing carbon long ago sequestered by plants to the environment and bio-fuels are carbon neutral as they take carbon out then return ity immediately,, real renewables directly harness some of the huge amount of energy that hits Earth, so merely converting what would be absorbed as heat anyway in order to do work powering our lives, and returned to Earth as energy, since energy can't be destroyed. All the energy from splitting uranium atoms goes directly into the environment, and doesn't even have to be transferred into the oceans from the air, a direct injection. It was never removed from the ecosystem and isn't part of the sun's energy, but extra to it. So, not part of the solution in any way, it is already part of the problem of a heating world. More would make it a worse problem, and other technologies would need to remove it. Under the mlistaken idea that nuclear is both clean, low carbon and 'part of the solution', politicians have been conned by this cult into promising yet more wasted billions thrown into something that is making the task of tackling climate change that much worse. But it will keep pointless nuclerar cultists in comfortably numb salaries while they play. If any nuclear engineers fancy taking me on with any of this argument, please do. I promise I will destroy your argument faster than you can scream 'Me;ltdown! Everybody evacuate the country!

[@kaya051285]

Use the right technologies for the tasks they are best suited to For the UK for electricity Wind/Solar/Hydro for 80% of eletricity with the remaining 20% coming from interconnectors and also natural gas For Heating buildings nuclear makes a lot of sense because the alternatives are not likely to work Once a generation winter like 1962 when the UK was at negative 20 centigrade and most the country was under snow for 2months (needs at least 250GW of heat for the UK in this condition so how do you solve that problem?) Heat pumps? These suffer from the problem that they won't work during the once a generation winter and thus households will be forced onto resistive heating which means you would need just for heating for the grid to be +250 and because wind turbine output varies as low as near zero and these winters can last two months you wpupd also need +250 GW or gas fired power stations Is this feasible for the UK to build 250 additional gas fired power stations and upgrade the grid to handle another 250GW of eletricity to meet the once a generation cold winters? 🥶 Probably not So what are the options to avoid the once a generation cold snaps from causing blackouts and probably 500,000+ deaths as a result? Well there are only two options A massive hydrogen infrastructure It would work but be very costly and below 50% efficient plus burning hydrogen doesn't produce carbon emissions but it does produce other local waste products Or a 200GW nuclear distributed heating infrastructure Or we can just keep using natural gas which is the most likely outcome I just hope the recent texas situation has woken up the government and grid operator about the risks of electrifying most heating. And their cold snap was just one week our cold winters can literally last 2-3 months like the winter of 1962 If we are going to electrify heating we better start building the 250 new gas fired stations and massively upgrade the grid to be ready

[@edgehodl4832]

Renewable energy has even bigger c02 footprint if u calculate manufacturing and maintenining solar panels and wind turbines etc. Much more than nuclear plants

[@chapter4travels]

Are you a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

There wouldn't even me an anti-nuclear energy movement if people were educated.