The fight to rethink (and reinvent) nuclear power

[@danielcuevas5899]

Update:TransAtomics declared bankruptcy. They made there technology open sourced. So that some one else may pick up the torch.

[@egregius9314]

Thanks for the update. Sad/good news I guess.

[@myroseaccount]

Good News they're the wrong solutions LIQUID FUELED THORIUM REACTOR Build a working LFTR and the world is saved.

[@MarioHernandez-zc7dv]

@@myroseaccount agreed

[@chadhayag9171]

Where is elon musk when you need him? I think he has to hear about this, oh, and obama too.

[@BosonCollider]

And pick up the employees. The people are generally more important than the design documents.

[@michaelh4227]

The irony is that everyone's worried about a nuclear apocalypse but we're currently already heading towards an apocalypse as a result of fossil fuels because of that very mindset.

[@DarkestKnightshade]

Exactly smh

[@anoniconoclast2030]

No such thing as "fossil fuels".

[@michaelh4227]

@@unknownrr-cy6jm No, it's called listening to the vast majority of scientific experts. The oppose of that (what you're doing) is extreme ignorance.

[@DarkestKnightshade]

@@unknownrr-cy6jm Fossil fuels, particularly coal, are a problem. Could you provide evidence that they aren't? As far as I can tell, all data points to fossil fuels being dangerous if we continue to use them for much longer, as well as pointing to the fact that nuclear power is the only viable answer. To deny either of these is to ignore the facts of the situation.

[@DarkestKnightshade]

@@unknownrr-cy6jm I understand I should consider viewpoints outside my own. Can you give me some articles to read or videos to watch?

[@paulchatal]

Meanwhile in France 80% of the energy produced is nuclear with the bill being the cheapest in Europe

[@640A]

But that's not what they want, they want scares expensive energy for everyone not cheap abundant energy!

[@errons1]

I think Norway have cheaper prices cause everything is made from waterenergy

[@johnwayne6647]

No Norway has lots petroleum that’s why it’s cheeped

[@johnwayne6647]

They do use those 2 but they also use lots of petroleum aswell as they have large reserves

[@dbclass4075]

@@johnwayne6647 Norway exports oil, not for energy use. They consume as little oil as possible.

[@mage1over137]

Everyone bring up Thorium reactors and asking why they didn't talk about them. They did, when they were talking about the liquid fuel reactors, they were referring to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, LFTR.

[@puncheex2]

Actually, it is possible to have liquid salt reactors using uranium, and its possible to have thorium reactors in solid fuel form. Each aspect brings its own advantages to the table. IMHO neither brings enough by itself but together they are a hell of a good bet.

[@puncheex2]

Uhhh, no. Reactors are essentially designed to use a particular fuel. Uranium and putonium are very close to the same, so MOX can be used in uranium reactors, but uranium and thorium are so completely different that the designs aren't anything like each other. I didn't say above they use the same reactors, but that reactors purpose designed can use thorium or uranium, be liquid or solid fueled. Thorium is almost as physically well known as uranium. The difference today is in experience using them in reactors.

[@DriveCarToBar]

Transatomic's MSR design is Uranium fueled, not Thorium just like the original MSRE at Oak Ridge. Flibe energy, who wasn't mentioned, is really the leader in Thorium fueled MSRs. But with Uranium being readily available, it's hard to advocate for Thorium.

[@MrXxHunter]

@@DriveCarToBar Thorium is three times more common than Uranium.

[@DriveCarToBar]

@@MrXxHunter yeah it is, but we're not exactly short on Uranium. And if we start reprocessing waste and building 4th generation reactors like MSRs and LMFBRs, we don't even need to bother mining new Uranium for decades or even a century, depending on whose numbers you believe. The upside though is that with MSRs, they'll happily run on Uranium or Thorium or a mix of both. They're kind of like the garbage disposals of the nuclear reactor world. They'll eat anything.

[@DynamicUnreal]

Nuclear energy as it is right now is already the safest and cleanest form of energy known to man but the general public is way too uninformed.

[@garret1930]

It's the second best form of power generation we have, hydro power is cheaper (when the people involved are competent) but isn't as flexible since you need to have good location

[@KlausBahnhof]

The radioactive waste is not safe.

[@garret1930]

KlausBahnhof the vast majority of the waste from nuclear plants is low or medium grade radioactive and is relatively easy to dispose of safely since the radioactivity is so low and it becomes stable pretty quickly. Also, the majority of highly radioactive waste from first and second generation reactors could be reused in later generation reactors, reducing the amount of highly radioactive material wasted. If we wanted to we could definitely make safe, and affordable, energy using new nuclear reactors. The problem with nuclear power isn't so much that it's unsafe tech, it's the fact that the majority of reactors in use are very old and many are way past their original retirement age increasing the cost of maintenance.

[@lubb213]

Tom Mass You're the misinformed here. Nuclear power produces exactly 0 amount of CO2 it only emits H2O.

[@lubb213]

Tom Mass THE EXACT same thing can be said about wind or solar - and they kill ALOT more people then Nuclear does even accounting for tragedies

[@speedydraw]

Let's not leave out the fact that some European countries such as France simply recycle the spent fuel to be used again.

[@bat_bro1lewis491]

speedydraw And the uk. We are building a new nuclear plant capable of powering 5% of our power demand(3,000mw. We are also building a new highly efficient nuclear plant in north wales. We are also

[@musaran2]

It's not a shining achievement. It's expensive, it pollutes a lot, it is not that effective, and they lie a lot.

[@bat_bro1lewis491]

Bruno Mailly Rubish, a fast rector is very clean pollutes next to nothing and we also recycle the waste back into fuel so thats basically no pollutants. They are also incredibly Efficient and the one in north wales which is a fast reactor is not that expensive

[@MakovskiyRodion]

Hmmm I think only Russia have reactors what can use spent fuel like fuel...

[@DriveCarToBar]

The CANDU reactors from Canada can run on spent fuel from other reactors. The CANDU only requires physical reprocessing, meaning you would chop up the spent fuel pellets, shape them into the correct size for the CANDU core and reclad them. No special, expensive treatment needed. They just have to be made to fit. Actually, most light water reactors can run on spent fuel, but it must be reprocessed first. Reprocessing tends to be expensive compared to natural uranium, which is why it simply isn't done in the USA.

[@sdozer1990]

I worry that even if fusion is developed, people will still wonder "Oh, like a sun on earth? Sounds dangerous..." ...Sheesh.... All that potential for energy generation and they say "Sounds dangerous".

[@muzero2642]

*We should be scared about NOT using nuclear.*

[@mrrolandlawrence]

fusion is always "about 30 years away" from commercialisation. dont need to worry just yet. just groan when you find out that old tricky dicky was the one to put the spanner in the works in the nuclear industry in the early 70s....

[@matteste]

The biggest obstacle would probably be the gas and oil industry instead. They would lobby to make sure it never got off the ground. After all, they knew of the dangers of fossil fuels way before anyone else, but instead of doing anything about it, they actually doubled down on their practices while launching a smear campaign against anything bringing forth criticisms against them or that they could be globally harmful.

[@doomakarn]

@@mrrolandlawrence Fusion is coming, literally this time.

[@doomakarn]

Little do they know that fusion will probably be the safest energy source in the history of mankind ever.

[@ryand8406]

These nuclear engineers are the hero’s we actually need. Imagine the technological advancements we could make if we finally embraced nuclear power.

[@anthonyfrias5533]

I do and we need it now more than ever

[@k.ferenc2107]

But there isnt an infinite supply of uranium. It will run out. The question is: will we be ready, when it does? Nuclear energy is just helping us cross a bridge to renewable energy.

[@rgddydshevchenko2448]

@@k.ferenc2107 saying uranium is finite is like saying dirt or iron is finite lol

[@thatbeefman8042]

@@k.ferenc2107 there’s helium 3 we can used as nuclear fusion. However it’s very limited on earth and it’s going to run out soon. But the good thing is there’s a bunch of it on the moon and we’re planning to go back there very soon. The bad news? There will be so many problems regarding space mining policies.

[@k.ferenc2107]

@@thatbeefman8042 And they would have to make it profitable too by a large margin

[@anonunknown933]

When Prager U and Vox agrees on something it kinda gives a large hint.

[@Ioanides001]

hahaha, good point!

[@ohedd]

Lol for real

[@movax20h]

If the nuclear power plant was build around my city, I would be positively excited. It is cool!

[@mansoorahmed1256]

Have fun when radiation affects you and they have no space for storing the spent fuels

[@darkwolf1739]

@@mansoorahmed1256 you're one of those. A single google searches would make a mockery of you

[@squidbuck9209]

@@mansoorahmed1256 lol stoopid

[@dieabsolutegluckskuche5174]

@@mansoorahmed1256 You know, the funny thing is, you get more radiation from a coal plant or a single flight in a plane. Simple physics.

[@anactualfingbottleofranch747]

@@mansoorahmed1256 Radiation doesn't affect people near the plant. In fact, coal and gas plants affect their environment around them horribly.

[@KyleLi]

Honestly, as the older generations die out from the nuclear eras and the baby boom eras - newer ideas and innovations will begin to arise due to the lack of stagnated and deeply rooted ideals. Its likely that our generation today will be seen in the future as a stubborn generation like how we see those from the 40's-80's, unless of course our entire mindset changes to become more flexible to new changes and ideas.

[@kapildeshmukh7878]

Kyle Li Big words. No real suggestion or solution.

[@apprenticeb8r8r93]

*knocks on wood

[@PandaA1257]

Are you talking about opinion of nuclear power? Are you saying that once the older generations die out opinion of nuclear power will improve? Because let me remind you that those were the generations who built all of the nuclear power plants… This is the first year since Gallup has started polling that they recorded a majority of Americans are against nuclear power. I really don't think baby boomers are the problem.

[@sbaromski]

he's right, we just need all the dinosaurs to die already. they are the bigots, racist hateful old bastards.

[@ThomsonVisual]

Agreed mate!

[@lucybaars4460]

"And most recently: Fukushima." Where only one person died of radiation. Not really a big disaster.

[@billanliao1004]

Yes, and even Chernobyl was caused mostly by incompetence by the workers.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

@@billanliao1004 And the USSR unresponsability.

[@moosemilk8956]

I believe the disaster is the environmental one. Thousands of people removed from their homes never to return and thousands of acres unusable.

[@mathewlloyd9717]

@@billanliao1004 And poor Russian reactor design

[@saifjalal3841]

@@billanliao1004 it was run by the USSR who were one of the most incompetent governments ever.

[@Camaro6460]

I like this new guy, I've enjoyed every single one of his videos.

[@Dregoro]

I don't.

[@toasteroven8341]

i hate this guy, his voice in every video is starting to piss me off

[@LookzA]

he's great

[@annalawlz]

+Brad Feng He speaks so clearly and I find him so easy to understand. What is your issue? Is it literally just that he's not speaking with a full American accent? Get used to it buddy.

[@annalawlz]

I was going to write a comment saying something similar :) He's so concise. He speaks in a way that's really accessible.

[@wweoolofsson]

Feels good that the swedish politicians finally start talking about more nuclear power plants in Sweden! Gen4 rocks

[@zhaow4832]

meanwhile the us watches everyone else advance :(

[@jeppep95]

lol the consensus in Sweden is to scrap nuclear

[@Th33Xx]

@@jeppep95 a consensus? no its a slim majority driven by the rabid "green" party

[@PM-ft1sr]

Zhao W the us will expand in nuclear, we already produce the most nuclear energy in the world.

[@jakeb526]

I would love to have more Nuclear power plants in the U.S, just ones that are well built and well staffed.

[@Songbird645]

And what do you think about nuclear waste? What do you think about uranium mining?

[@jakeb526]

Both are not a problem WHEN done CORRECTLY. Waste can be stored or reprocessed and mines can be staffed with Hazmat suits iodine pills, and automated in more radioactive sectors.

[@Songbird645]

@@jakeb526 I don't think that hazmat suits are good for radon gas emission. Also I don't think that hazmat suits are good for the people who live nearby.

[@Songbird645]

@@Paonporteur Renewables cost much less money per TWh and they have a lower death rate than nuclear power.

[@desertsoldier41]

@@Songbird645 1. Yes they are 2. What are you talking about?

[@emi_mono]

The explanation on the subsequent nuclear waste of reactors is disingenuous. First try comparing the nuclear waste output per coulomb of charge produced by coal in comparison to a nuclear reactor; just a heads up, coal produces 100x more nuclear waste.

[@DurzoBlunts]

Pimpenbat2 Coal ash ponds littering NC . Coal railways with veeery fine coal dust that causes immediate effect on the lungs. Gosh I think the list could go on about this black stuff haha. Meanwhile nuclear gets a bad rep because beurocrats during the cold war wanted weapons and didnt care about clean safe proper ways to create power.

[@arunjohnson1162]

For starters: www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

[@emi_mono]

For sure

[@seamuscallaghan8851]

Pretty sure this comment is a joke. lol

[@Midnight_Lumberjack]

Huh, never knew about this, interesting. Another reason to push for coal phase out. Also to add, nuclear waste is an overblown issue to start with, mostly due to public perception of all things "nuclear."

[@TheSpacemanYT]

Doesn't nibbler poop these out?

[@jefferybrown6473]

illya bates That's dark matter

[@ottoros]

Dark matter hasn't been found on other planets and certainly hasn't been produced in particle accelerators. You're probably confusing it with antimatter. Dark matter is called dark because it doesn't interact with light or electromagnetism in any way and the only way we're aware of its existence is because of the gravitational pull it exerts to celestial bodies.

[@philipjohansson3949]

N00B SAIBOT, Everything beyond the first sentence was nonsense.

[@marios1861]

Philip Johansson he said a dark matter and matter isnt countable so even the first sentence is incorrect.

[@jacobfinch9563]

Thank you for saying what I was thinking

[@AlejandroFlores-vi8tl]

Environmentalists: The world will burn in a century Me: Lets bulid nuclear reactors Environmentalists: Yeah but

[@felixnuwahid9879]

Start remind us about nuclear weapon

[@zeitGGeist]

Can the government be trusted to take care of accidents when they happen? NO NUCLEAR

[@AlejandroFlores-vi8tl]

@@zeitGGeist America should go Atomic

[@Skankhunt-mv4vd]

@@zeitGGeist but nuclear is more reliable and at the end of the day, better than solar and wind energy with our current technological and geographical constraints.

[@meh23p]

It takes at least 10 years to commission a nuclear power plant. Nice try, though.

[@Oscar-ng1ue]

WHY AREN'T WE FUNDING THIS!!!

[@klaidas7409]

ppl = dumb

[@marc6089]

Hostilian no people = scared

[@umnikos]

They told you in the video. You don't get a second chance to do a first impression. Nuclear reactors need to be rebranded...

[@klaidas7409]

There is very little to be scared off, they are safer and do less damage to the environment, the only reason Chernobyl happened was because of stupid human error

[@FarrFromPerfect]

Can't build bombs out of it - same thing happened to Thorium 70 years ago.

[@zhaow4832]

Its actaully estimated that nuclear power has saved about 2 million lives simply by it reallocating plants from other fields like oil, coal, petro etc. Even renewable energies are attributed to more deaths.

[@RyanFilmMaker]

thank you for educating me on this. you have helped my fears over Nuclear power.

[@Caktusdud.]

fear the nuclear weapons not the reactors my friend they make the mushroom clouds we all think of

[@bryan-cu2vq]

Please do fear nuclear power read my other comment on this video.

[@chrisnotpratt1903]

​@@bryan-cu2vq no

[@leifharmsen]

CANDU reactors use heavy water that if it drains out, the reaction just stops. Canada had it right in the 1970s already.

[@paulanderson79]

Exactly. Without the water acting as a moderator the free neutrons are moving too rapidly and thus very few are captured by other U235 nuclei. Reaction grinds to a halt.

[@olivierb9716]

@@paulanderson79 ithink it's the same with normal water in classicals reactors

[@killman369547]

+Oliver B. Light water is less effective at moderating neutrons than heavy water, Thus the fuel for light water reactors has to be enriched somewhat. Heavy water reactors like our CANDU design are able to use natural non-enriched uranium which means the spent fuel coming out is not quite as radioactive.

[@tomshackell]

CANDU is a cool technology, although as I understand it, the problem is that it has low power density requiring a much bigger and more expensive core for the same power output.

[@Boborbot]

One thing they fail to mention: The need for the improvement of nuclear safety is far from immediate. The entirety of nuclear energy related deaths is in the thousands, from the only 4 nuclear disasters in history (almost entirely from Chernobyl). Every year, in the US alone, over 13,000 people die directly from CO2 emissions of coal powered plants. More people have been killed by cows since the manhattan project than by nuclear disasters. Nuclear safety is such a non-issue it's comical we're still talking about it. EDIT: I rechecked my sources, and apparently I was way off. There have been seven lethal nuclear power plant disasters. All but chernobyl have less than five deaths attributed to them, and Chernobyl with 64 direct and indirect. More people have died from snack machines falling on to them this century than did from all nuclear disasters.

[@magtonex7388]

Pretty sure they still went over how they are making nuclear safer (atmospheric pressure reactors and ceramic fuel canisters). They didn't argue that nuclear has to be safer because they are describing how technology is making strides to eliminate all the fears about nuclear energy.

[@paulswanee5855]

whats the 4th nuclear disaster?

[@Boborbot]

But making a show of how safe it is *now* makes it seem like it was a danger. Show people the numbers and they'll change their minds.

[@benshore9407]

HI, i want to use your information for a school assignment, can you give me some of your references, in particular the direct deaths from CO2 emissions of coal powered plants.

[@Boborbot]

My sources are the same as everyone's, kid, the first trust-worthy Google result.

[@AdityaMishra-xc7us]

This genre of videos really make you think and change your perspective towards things we are made to conceive as dangerous from our childhood.Good work!!

[@euniceajayi3987]

I can't believe this video just changed my whole perspective on nuclear energy. Thanks Vox!

[@Ryukachoo]

5:40 solar and wind don't come close to the heavy hitting baseload power output of nuclear though. solar/wind have to turn to grid battery backups and smart grids and those are viciously expensive still

[@howardbaxter2514]

Solar and wind will never be sustainable because of this. The problem with “renewables” (air quotes since they never include nuclear or geothermal), is that they have a very low uptime. This means that there is heavy reliance on the minimal amount of energy stored by batteries and the power grid. Honestly, as great as it would be to have the batteries capable of sustaining solar and wind, the production of these two energy sources will increase drastically, and the pollution created would be immense.

[@tomkelly8827]

When you say batteries are viciously expensive, you don't mean that they cost half as much as a nuclear power plant, do you? That would be astronomically expensive! If they were half the cost of a nuclear power plant that is

[@baderalaraimi6519]

1:07 for a moment I thought Bill Nye is talking 😂😂

[@Mrabrnrd56]

I really love watching Sanjayan Vox, have him keep making videos!

[@ethankaram683]

If u nuke a power plant, is it considered a nuclear power plant?

[@carbon4676]

XDDDDD!!!!!!!!!

[@umnikos]

XDDDDDDDD

[@thewitheringproduction1761]

asking the real questions here

[@HaloMG]

why do people say 'XDDDDDDDD' he only needs one mouth. stop giving it like 20

[@Guuy]

zarif are you assuming xD's gender?

[@Blaze6108]

Solar and Wind are cheaper than Nuclear* *assuming that they are always working at 100% power and that night or windless periods do not exist.

[@slimerewoods5766]

The_Blazer that can be solved by making better batteries but nuclear is a much better bet

[@__nog642]

No, it's not about operating costs, it's about initial building costs.

[@BilguunsparKO]

people in my country will never promote or stand behind nuclear power all they know about nuclear power is chernobyl and fukushima , so sad

[@pnyam1u]

Australia? ?

[@Afgnwrlrd]

Nuclear power has never been cost effective without government subsidies. www.quora.com/What-fraction-of-nuclear-power-plants-operate-profitably-without-government-subsidies-or-special-support

[@ksthebest]

Nicholas Garcia Every single energy source is at leat partly funded by government subsidies.

[@MeetAlexChannel]

Taiwan?

[@christopherg2347]

Some questions: a) How much waste is this still producing? (What is the fuel efficiency) b) Where are you going to store the Waste Fuel? c) How much of the Nuclear Raw Material is refineable to these new forms? d) Do you want that plant in your town? +Mark Smed: How many of those other Energy Sources are have been subsidzed for the entire 100% of their use?

[@cmeves]

If you close your eyes and listen to that Nuclear Engineer guy, his voice sounds EXACTLY like Bill Nye

[@SAKTHITech]

Christopher Eves yeap.. it's kinda creepy.

[@marko.rankovic]

I was so confident it would be Bill Nye myself, only to realise it wasn't him LOL

[@cheydinal5401]

Christopher Eves Oh, right, that makes more sense :D I thought Bill Clinton at first

[@abdulrahmanamir8497]

I thought Donald trump-_-

[@josgeerink9434]

IKKR!!!! That's the first thing I thought of at kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqCzfYadl7iCbM0m8s

[@rogerledgister7913]

I feel like the economic piece here is badly missed. It was mentioned that solar and wind are currently cheaper, which are pushing out the nuclear market, but it is important to understand what the nuclear marketplace IS in the first place. It is run by insanely large companies that spent the mid-late 20th century extracting billions of tax payer dollars by stumping for quick, dirty reactor construction without regard to the waste produced by those power-plants. This is the crux of the matter. Because of the nature of the US economy, you have to bring in massive corporate structures to build these plants and those corporate structures will glom onto their revenue source and do their utmost to preserve it. That means that if you try to change the arrangement, add regulations, modify safety protocols, demand redesigns, etc., the very people who you must rely on to build your plant or deconstruct it are the ones who will resist you. The latest reactors currently being built are seeing massive cost over-runs, making them potentially not worth the investment for the megawatts they'll produce over their lifetime. And ultimately, the price of nuclear, with respect to both the dollar value and the carbon produced in their construction may be what dooms the current nuclear industry. The trouble, ultimately, is the corrosive influence of capital. Investment with the expectation of returns. A proponent of capitalism might suggest that such a structure will tend toward minimum cost with maximum value, but that would only matter in a flexible marketplace. With nuclear energy, as with healthcare, the players are not individual consumers but governments and massive corporate firms. There is nowhere near the level of competition or activity in the market for the corporations making the investments to actually provide maximum value. They can always say to the government footing the bill, "it cost more than we expected, please pay more." And the government can only choose between paying more or getting nothing for all the money they've paid already. That's not a free market, and that is why nuclear power can't work in our economy.

[@the_bottomfragger]

Might I add that Nuclear power plants are extremely hard in terms of regulation. If all other energy sources would have to go through the same obstacles, the situation would look a lot different.

[@infantjones]

The cost of wind and solar increases exponentially as their share of the grid increases due to energy storage requirements.

[@randomperson8157]

This can be all be solved if the government built nuclear power plants. I'm a capitalist but i understand some industries NEED to be controlled by the government so you don't get giant monopolies over necessary utilities such as the Internet where they slow down the internet but increase the price of it due to lack of competition. Imagine if Corporations where the ones who you were paying your water bills to i guarantee you everybody would be broke.

[@killman369547]

+Roger Ledgister. The ONLY reason solar and wind are cheaper is due to government subsidies. FACT.

[@innosam123]

Roger Ledgister Yep, and there’s no competition because NO ONE IS BUILDING THEM. Same reason why NY subways are so expensive vs everywhere else.

[@kuunib7325]

Go for Thorium or Fusion dope energy sources for dipe people. In Switzerland about one third of all the energy I charge my cellphone with is made in a reactor. I visited my local powerplant and convinced myself about the safety of that thing. But we really should built a new and better reactor.

[@FortuitusVideo]

Kuunib But you wont. All your plants are due to close by 2034.

[@carval51]

Thorium still need alot of research and expensive . But it's a good idea that this given to arab state with huge money if they ever want to develop nuclear plant.

[@0Fidel0]

how did you convince yourself about the security? did the guy doing the tour tell you how safe it is?

[@MrToradragon]

But we still know that we can make conventional PWR to run on Thorium, it was tested in one of first power stations, perhaps Shippingport.

[@tunehknott9045]

Kuunib cool i'm also swiss

[@Outerparadox]

Wind energy and solar energy isn't the main power source, but a sideline power source. Have nuclear energy be the main power source with solar and wind energy use for backup. There are other sources of fuel that has high potential to produce more energy and safe to use like algae. Like the lady at the end said is that we should use everything to combat climate change. Lets not narrow ourselves to using certain ways and be stubborn to embrace nor be naive to using it but understand how to efficiently use it.

[@bosonichadron1]

The reality is that if we switched to nuclear power tomorrow 100%, it would last about 20 years, and is fantastically expensive. Especially now, given the current shortage of concrete. It's not a viable long-term solution and never will be.

[@javonfair]

IMO the nature of wind and solar basically are the opposite of "backup." It's really hard to use their energy efficiently. Nuclear is much more reliable

[@javonfair]

@@bosonichadron1 Nuclear generates cheap electricity. The problem is that the safety systems are so expensive (and usually will never be used over the lifetime of the plant)

[@LFTRnow]

"the spent fuel must be stored for 1000s of years underground" - not really. Plants today take fuel that has cooled (thermally and radioactively) about 10 years and then stores them outside in a "cask". You can stand right next to it and it is basically background level radiation. It contains some (~1%) plutonium - half-life about 24,000 years, but the emissions are fairly weak, and most of the radiation is easily shielded by the cask.

[@howardbaxter2514]

Not to mention, there are already reactor designs that use spent fuel.

[@__nog642]

Well the cask does have to be stored for thousands of years though.

[@collinhennessy1521]

This is a vox video? Wow, I am impressed.

[@uhohhotdog]

Collin Hennessy why?

[@collinhennessy1521]

+Uhohhotdog Gaming Most of the Vox videos I've seen have been SJW nonsense, anti-Trump rage, and Democratic Party propaganda, which is boring as hell. This video provided useful info, and a side to the climate change debate that is not often heard.

[@ImworriedImgettingspyedon]

They use to do a lot of this type videos but then they started doing politics :/

[@thomasmackelly7685]

Collin Hennessy trump is an anti-American, its time to grow up.

[@thomaskn1012]

Why no mention of Thorium molten salt reactors? They have the same attributes.

[@jmitterii2]

They're trying to explain it in simple terms I think. They're afraid of peoples' eyes rolling to the back of their heads by explaining the various fuels and processes. It's sad. People are morons. Carl Sagan said it's a ticking time bomb to have the mass of people being further unaware, ignorant about basic science and how their various technological devices work.

[@oliverwilson11]

they don't exist yet so they're irrelevant

[@thomaskn1012]

If Mark Smed's comment above is correct, it is relevant because this video is about TransAtomic's nuclear reactor.

[@grandsome1]

Nuclear power plants are like planes, they're pretty safe, but when they fail, they fail catastrophically. But also, that failure leaves long term traces.

[@sinan720]

except the new nuclear power plants... they're pretty safe and when they fail, they fail safe.

[@destroyer2496]

*Nuclear power plants like planes, they're pretty safe, but when they fail, they get a lot of media attention.

[@zeitGGeist]

@Cybercraft gaming If you think companies will suddenly stop cutting corners, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[@hpedw]

Thorium??? No one mentions this?

[@odioaleman]

Idea Hartanto liquid fuel is thorium

[@eitkoml]

This is another example of new nuclear reactors. There is more out there than thorium LFTR reactors.

[@glitchysoup6322]

Freaking solar thorium roadways!

[@EvlEgle]

Because thorium and LFTR are never gonna happen with the current state of Washington and the defense contracting industry. If we reverse laws passed in the name of ecomentalism then all the sudden there are bunch of DOD contractors that are guilty of treason for sourcing rare earth components from overseas. I mean they already are guilty of treason for doing so, but they can't have these things built here because the ecomentalist muh climate change libtards don't want us digging up thorium.

[@jrjon738]

I'm for thorium for Sure!

[@seanm7445]

E-fission-tly.

[@TheNinetySecond]

*The* Sean M?

[@AdvanceAU]

+Clemens Stubbe Whoosh

[@pixarfilmz4769]

GG

[@KingNxt]

Fusion is better!

[@shemshem9998]

“It can not melt” if it’s already a liquid

[@tigre2236]

A good quick run down. Although he's wrong about the cost comparison to wind and solar. Sure the initial build cost is more. But if that's how we figured the cost of large planed projects then we'd never know how things compare in the long run, just which one is cheaper initially. The correct metric is how much energy you get per dollar for the cost of building and maintaining the plant or farm. When looked at this way you begin to see the advantage of nuclear. South Korea's KEPCO is currently building four APR-1400s (1,400 megawatts) in the United Arab Emirates for about $4.40 an average watt. Utility Photovoltaic ends up at $3.15 per watt. But that's not counting the cost of acquiring the land(which varies)(and the social cost of re-purposing huge tracts of our land), and recycling the panels, or a battery storage system to give you the power when you need it instead of mostly at noon in the none winter months. Wind is a whole other equation. If you want to get nerdy with it check out www.roadmaptonowhere.com/

[@wino0000006]

Nuclear power - the safiest, cleanest and effective power source. Thorium based nuclear reactors should be developed.

[@austinpeterson1045]

How is nuclear safer than solar or wind?

[@austinpeterson1045]

How is nuclear safer than solar or wind?

[@wino0000006]

@@austinpeterson1045 More people died from hurricanes and droughts than from nuclear reactors.

[@austinpeterson1045]

@@wino0000006 Lol you still didn't answer my question.

[@wino0000006]

@@austinpeterson1045 Look my previous comment.

[@andrewwong7617]

Met Leslie Dewan at a Canadian Nuclear Energy Conference a couple years back, she's absolutely brilliant! Has it all

[@Helicees]

Vox should talk to Kirk Sorensen and his work into thorium as a nuclear fuel.

[@stressballer]

So stop calling it nuclear power? Call it...I don't know...a fission reactor power plant?

[@PauaP]

MMm... that actually might work.

[@1224chrisng]

+Hat _ Thorium Thermo-Electrical Portable Generator , T-TEP Generator this might very well work , guys

[@doktarr]

At 5:39 you kind of give up the argument. I spent most of my life arguing that we should transition to nuclear on a large scale, but the economics just don't make sense any more. The capital costs are staggeringly high and solar and wind have caught up and passed nuclear in net present value. That said, I think as a matter of public policy we should support the creation of a relatively small number of next-generation reactors that use liquid fuel or reprocessing, as using one of these to consume existing "spent" fuel is a far better solution to the nuclear waste problem than throwing it in a pit in the desert.

[@8789spartan]

It's expensive due to all the licencing, red tape, and time to build the reactor. the NRC has exacting standards, and building a power plant takes years. When the NRC decides to change the standards, it leaves firms blowing millions of dollars going back to the drawing board with a half built plant. A future of completely green energy requires nuclear energy.

[@doktarr]

@@8789spartan Licencing and red tape are certainly a factor, but the primary issue is the enormous capital costs and time involved. Also, the next gen plants are still relatively immature technology and represent a titanic financial risk. As I said above I support continued research and building a small number of next-gen reactors, but that's not the same as widespread adoption. A future of completely green energy requires EITHER nuclear energy OR significantly increased grid storage. Renewables (particularly solar) are becoming steadily more efficient.

[@8789spartan]

@@doktarr While all that is true, at present, our next gen reactors are further along in development than any kind of mass energy storage like the ones needed to make Solar and Wind a static base energy source.

[@jakexd5524]

Waste isn’t a big problem. Sending it underground is fine imo. No one will ever get to the waste. Uranium is very energy dense. A chunk can power many homes for years. The problem with solar is that it takes up tons of space and isn’t very efficient.

[@amplitudeelec]

And after the 30-year lifespan of the solar panels no one is sure where we're going to dispose of them. And waste like that is not contained in sealed containers that keeps it separate from its environment; its dumped into landfills where it contaminates everything it touches

[@phillip1519]

Not really a fan of Vox but props for making this video. Stossel and other conservative outlets have also made the argument for a return to nuclear power. I think both sides of the isle could find common ground here.

[@mariosantiagovaleroabad4424]

So educative. Incredible heartwarming. Thanks

[@thearisen7301]

Thorium is another alternative. Liquid salt reactors would be quite safe.

[@DriveCarToBar]

Transatomic, who was mentioned in the video is trying to build a Molten Salt Reactor. Theirs uses Uranium though.

[@TheJosephPrice]

I was very skeptical opening this video, but after watching it, I'm more open minded.

[@marcokester8082]

Good on you

[@_d.v.b_]

this is by far my favourite segment on vox

[@johnspinelli9396]

This is the best way to go, Democrats and Republicans can see how beneficial this is to both sides

[@KingBobXVI]

Like everything else that's sensible though, I'm sure it'll be exclusively supported by fringe groups on the left and completely opposed by the Republicans out of "principle".

[@__nog642]

@@KingBobXVI Republicans are often more in favor of nuclear energy than democrats.

[@siimulacrum]

small, modular reactors? is this Fallout?

[@Sara3346]

Fallout was a pretty nice universe before the chinesenuked everyone.

[@SuperDiamond210]

Sara3346 if everything was pretty nice, then why did America go to war with China Yes I know, the resource wars

[@vvMathematicalvv]

The very reason an MRI at a hospital is called that, instead of NMR(Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), which is the actual technology, is only because those in charge knew the term "nuclear" would make it hard to get people to agree to put them inside hospitals and inside every town. The perception of that word alone would have kept us from making the world a better place. The Nuclear Energy industry just needs a strong marketing campaign, lobbyists at every level, and a plan to construct plants.

[@GameMasterofPC]

Hypothesis: No Cold War->No massive atom rocket storage/testing -> More Nuclear Civic Research -> More Nuclear Plant -> Global Warming reduced

[@stevenborck1279]

I have to admit, there are quite a few Vox videos I disagree with. However, this is such an informative and well thought out video. The U.S. really needs to start getting into nuclear power. Solar power is great, but needs tons of batteries to replace coal power plants. This is expensive and will cause tons of pollution mining for lithium for the batteries. Wind power can be difficult because it can damage the environment in some ways and we also can't control the wind. One thing to consider with nuclear power is that it's already extremely safe and effective, even without all the new technology listed in this video. New nuclear plants have so many fail safes that you pretty much need to be trying to get it to meltdown. Even then, newer plants will normally contain all of the radiation within the plant where it can be safely decontaminated. There is far too much ignorance when it comes to nuclear energy. I just find it so hard to believe that we aren't producing tons of nuclear power plants with just how much of a difference they can make.

[@caseyjensen1733]

I’m impressed that vox is showing nuclear power in a positive light here. I think that nuclear is the best path for bulk clean power. This is power that can be used to charge electric cars to further promote clean transportation. Currently, electric cars have zero emissions themselves, but use power supplied mostly by coal and natural gas. And unlike solar and wind, nuclear produces a lot of power and can produce power around the clock and during any month.

[@trippedbreaker]

A video about "reinventing nuclear power", that doesn't even mention thorium, let alone discuss it?

[@ausintune9014]

thorium is already used

[@TheGrimatic]

Ausintune he means liquid throium reactors presumably

[@ausintune9014]

trippedbreaker ...

[@DriveCarToBar]

Transatomic is looking at making a molten salt reactor although theirs uses Uranium like the original MSRE in Oak Ridge. It could use Thorium though.

[@maggieo]

Nuclear power: Oh hai, here to help save world! General public: NIMBY!!! NIMBY!!! NIMBY!!! HBO miniseries!!! Stellan Skårsgard!!!!

[@mlovmo]

From a power-generating perspective you can't argue with 200 million electron volts of energy released with a SINGLE act of fission. Now, how much power does wind and solar generate in comparison? (crickets) Exactly.

[@jrjon738]

I'm starting to really dig VOX, very good documentary, especially if you want to curb green house gasses!

[@mysteryman7877]

Thorium LFTR, bring us energy, By using liquid to power our lively- Hoods without explosions! Thorium LFTR bring us power!

[@HenningColin]

What a great narrator/presenter. So passionate and engaging!

[@muha0644]

nuclear is and always has been the safest and best power source.

[@thegman8]

2:06 Very unfortunate but Transatomic Power shut down operations in 2018

[@specialkwithmilk2645]

Video was made 3 years ago lol

[@crakeET5]

Well made video! this is very exciting!

[@mercyt6431]

Thank for that piece, I had no idea nuclear could actually be a good thing!

[@LEFT4BASS]

The irony that we make a lot more nuclear waste than necessary because people afraid of nuclear waste won’t allow new reactors that produce less nuclear waste. Also, the only nuclear power disaster with recorded deaths was Chernobyl. 3-mile Island and Fukushima, had no deaths.

[@shmenged]

There have been simply nuclear "accidents" that have killed people. Plus the effects of radiation poisoning on people have only been studied with any vigour recently.

[@ezeppelin1]

Just like the studies on air poisoning

[@TheSkipAd]

I just don't understand why we have to use radioactive material to heat up water, use the steam to turn a turbine, create electricity with wires and magnets. Isn't this some seriously outdated tech? Why can't we simply transform radioactive decay directly to electricity? ....seriously, anyone please explain.

[@Redtooth75]

Nuclear fision generates heat Using that heat to turn water into steam to turn a turbine is the most efficient way we have to convert heat to electricity.

[@crimsonbear22]

Nuclear, wind, and solar would be a fantastic combination for us. It would be great to eventually see fusion being harnessed, and to get there, we need to research and fund current nuclear programs.

[@howardbaxter2514]

What we need to focus on is nuclear, fusion, and large batteries that can store lots of energy (for solar, nuclear, and fission). If we do that, our energy crisis is over. In the meantime, we should still use coal and gas plants, just in small amounts because we need to diversify our source of electricity. Using every source of electricity available decreases blackouts due to lack of sources of electricity.

[@ericmoore5021]

Any new updates on these nuclear energy innovations? Maybe a new video is in order if there are major updates since May 2017? I would love to know more about how these projects are going.

[@caav56]

NuScale was given a go at SMR this year.

[@drizzlingrose]

This is my Favorite Vox Host :D

[@PandaA1257]

Oh, data centers, how you consume. The increased demand for electricity for data centers has increased faster than power companies can keep up with. This could be solved by nuclear power (of which I am a strong advocate) or by doing what Google's doing and putting solar panels across their large, unused roof. I don't know how well this would supply the data center, but I know it's not nothing. This is one of the few cases I DON'T want nuclear power. Nuclear reactors are hard to build, and you have to build them right. This would make building data centers harder and more expensive because data center-builders don't built nuclear reactors, so they'd have to partner with another company and go through all those difficulties of building a reactor. I wouldn't trust whoever's building the data center to be involved in building a reactor. I personally think those people are kind of careless, especially when it comes to construction waste.

[@BioHazardCL4]

Not modular reactors. A company makes them on a production line like they would a car and transport them whole. You just plug in and turn on the power.

[@PandaA1257]

Biohazard 001 Really? That's cool. Can you give me the name of such a company? I still would be worried about the people who build the data center interacting with it, along with needing people to run it (which isn't so bad job wise, but is more expensive). They still need water to cool it, which complicates where you build the center. You would not have to worry about security for such a thing - that is something data centers have covered.

[@BioHazardCL4]

A number of companies and the department of energy have been trying to kick start the industry but there needs to be demand for the reactors before they can start building them profitably. 30-50 reactors, with 25 - 50 Mega Watts of uninterruptible power, need to be ordered. The modular reactor could be built quite a distance away in order to ensure safety and could also generate the power the data centre would need in DC power if it wanted. The problems with buying one is the licencing for the modular reactor to be installed. As always, the NRC has decided the best way to make nuclear reactors safe is to stop newer, safer reactors ever being built. www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx smrstart.org/

[@guillermoamat8540]

These is the real green new deal

[@JacquelineKeeler]

Update on Transatomic: "In 2018, the company announced that it would be winding down and open source its intellectual property. The company discovered that in 2016 it had made errors in its early analysis and realized that the design couldn't consume nuclear waste. Transatomic Power ceased operation on September 25, 2018."

[@DesertedCreationsTucson]

I really wish more would have been said about waste. Who really thinks its OK to bury nuclear waste for "thousands of years" so our ancestors can stumble across it later? I understand that climate change is more pressing, but that doesn't mean waste isn't an issue.

[@DesertedCreationsTucson]

No, of course I don't think that. What about transporting the nuclear waste or the numerous things that can go wrong when trying to get that waste 3000 feet under the ground? You might have nuclear waste rolling through your city right now.

[@paulswanee5855]

+Anthony Morales "What about transporting the nuclear waste or the numerous things that can go wrong when trying to get that waste 3000 feet under the ground?" Good point, but what are the problems that you are basing this on?

[@bat_bro1lewis491]

You're wrong as in my country(Britain) we reprocess our waste back into fuel so we don't have to bury waste. We are expanding our nuclear power with a 3,000mw plant and 2,700mw plant in the coming years

[@Juggernaut-bz1pt]

We all know about days where something has gone wrong in couple from hundreds of power plants in the world, however we don't count the days where everything has gone right with no problems. in 30+ years theres been 3 major nuclear disasters that I know of and thats 3 from 30+ years from hundreds of working power plants. Not bad right?

[@tezz_27_]

That's super easy to say on youtube less easy to say to the millions of people affected by those 3 disasters. Especially the dead ones. There are so many problems with nuclear fission isn't it time we moved on completely as a species.

[@denethweerasinghe4523]

Deaths from energy sources per TeraWatt Hours: www.edouardstenger.com/2011/03/25/a-look-at-deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source/ Nuclear is the least deadly energy source.

[@Juggernaut-bz1pt]

well yeah lots of people die but they die mostly when an accident happens look at coal power plants thousands probably million of people get sick every year from air pollution china is perfect example people have to walk around with masks because of all the factories and coal power plants

[@tezz_27_]

I like how they only count rooftop solar. It really makes their bias shine. On top of this all the energy sources I would encourage movement to (solar wind and to a slightly lesser extent hydro) are also very low on the deaths per terawatt hour scale but these sources share one thing in common, no one has ever needed to be relocated or evacuated when they go wrong.

[@tezz_27_]

The last reply (the one that starts "I like how they only count rooftop solar") was supposed to be in reply to "Deneth Weerasinghe" and his link

[@tcironbear21]

I love Vox. You guys do your research

[@FELENATOR]

that per peterson sounds exactly like bill nye

[@teethgrinder83]

David F or bill nye sounds like him........spooooooky

[@thomoky]

I thought it was bill for a second haha

[@Cartman_69_04]

I Iive less than 15 minutes away from a nuclear power plant, in california, on the beach, and would feel safer if it was like the one theyre proposing.

[@gadva356]

What about no nuclear reactor at all? Wouldn't that be far better?

[@Zealotux]

What are you proposing to power a world with 10 billions people by 2050? Note: your solution must work day and night.

[@gadva356]

Why do you think we are heavily depending on nuclear power? You need storage solutions like pumped storage hydro power stations and highly efficient storage batteries, support energy saving, improve energy efficiency ... but it's possible. In fact there is a paper of the Fraunhofer Institute how to realize the transformation to renewable energies until 2050 (at least for Germany). It's in German though :/ www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Fraunhofer-ISE-Studie-Was-kostet-die-Energiewende.pdf

[@nedisahonkey]

Well it would help if Diablo Canyon wasn't the sketchiest nuclear power plant in the US.

[@axnjack5]

Your problem will go away in 2025 when PG&E closes it down for good.

[@zachjones6944]

Wow Vox, I'm pleasantly surprised!

[@DaveShevy]

The interviewee sounds like Bill Nye and Bill Gates combined lol

[@Steven-og8jj]

Could you guys do an episode on Thorium Energy(Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor(LFTR)). It's a new and exciting up and coming source of energy and I believe if you do just a little bit of research you will love it.

[@gunnarkaestle]

2:34 Old (spent) fuel is surely not touched with bare hands. You can only do this with new fresh fuel pellets, which are only a little bit radioactive due to the decay rate of uranium with a half time of several billions years.

[@zeidlerei3906]

Speaking of Space X, doesn't it sound much better to invest in a solar roof plus power wall by Tesla? In the long run every household would be autonomous which I believe to be very handy in case of a zombie apocalypse… come on… you know we are all still worried about that!

[@paulswanee5855]

Ok you can do that, but the reality is that every single home in the USA fitted with solar does not meet the USA's electrical consumption demand. We use electricity for far more than just our homes.

[@zeidlerei3906]

Having a small solar roof (carport) we are able to power one household and a small Design Studio during the day. We don't have an Energy storage system yet but we also have the whole roof available for solar panels. Each house would actually produce way more than it needs and could put that spare energy into the grid.

[@DriveCarToBar]

And then someone builds an apartment building that crams more people into a small footprint and the whole solar homes idea fails. Oh, and then the sun sets.

[@amplitudeelec]

Solar panels have a lifespan of 20-30 years and then need to be disposed of. To scale solar power usage to the level you're speaking of would require a massive amount of materials to be mined from the earth along with the energy required to build the systems- far, far more than would be required to build an energy-producing equivalent network of nuclear power plants like the ones talked about in this video

[@Zunzingar]

Interesting, but there has to be more to it then just trust? If it was viable, cost efficient and safe surely someone would invest in the tech?

[@meepmeep516]

You'd think...

[@ottoros]

It's not really a viable investment target even if the technology is solid because the public opposition can delay or cancel construction which increases risks.

[@somerandomer654]

Eric Bliding It takes 20 years to get these things fully operational. By then, Science will have moved on leaps and bounds, making the plant a liability. Hence nobody invests

[@japzone]

You'd think so, but sadly humans aren't logical creatures. Plus there's plenty of greedy people that see nuclear as an enemy.

[@jmitterii2]

Such plants are expensive. Huge economies to scale. It's almost cheaper to build dams because the state subsidies those. So you're barking up the wrong tree to expect private business from building these power plants. It's why you don't see many interstates being built on private money alone, even toll roads have subsidies by state/federal government. Energy sector not a competitive sector naturally, violates every competitive market principle. Ultimately a natural monopoly. So profit motive fails to deliver the goods. Even Edison's and Westinghouse's first plants to produce grids and electricity required various city and state subsidies. It requires the people to get involved to get the funding that will be repaid by citizens in terms of extremely cheap energy, abundant supply of energy which opens the doors to even more advanced technology.

[@StillOnTrack]

Yeah I wish people would understand that the three big nuclear plant disasters that everybody thinks of are the exception, not the rule. They're not a "not if but when" scenario like oil pipeline spills. We need get over our fear of nuclear and the only way we'll do that is through education and spreading the word. So educate each other and spread the word. To discount Nuclear while addressing climate change is a serious loss.

[@rsp9238]

I swear uranium is finite - eventually it will run out. But that's for like 200-300 years or so ... So overal we need an even more sustainable way later on. No point investing if it's gonna go to waste. I think, im not sure how abundant U-235 is....

[@MrYishaiShields]

Anonymous Killer Destroyer We have a billion years of thorium. we don't need uranium for power.

[@ottoros]

The figures that go around for how long uranium is going to last are flawed because those include just the known deposits. It's simply not worth the investment to search for more uranium with the current price. But this is a balancing system, and when mines get depleted and close the price will go up and new deposits will be searched. Of course there's a limited amount of uranium in the Earth's crust but that's such a high number that it would take thousands and thousands of years to get to that point.

[@patcrane7938]

Yes uranium is finite technically, but including seawater extraction we have thousands of years of uranium available. Also if we use reactors like the Canadian Candu we can use natural uranium which is 99.3% U238. Additionally breeder reactors are designed to produce more fuel than they consume, so for the forsseable future nuclear power has fuel.

[@kolaignad6495]

Anonymous Killer Destroyer Uranium is as common as Tin and Zinc. Furthermore, small amounts of uranium will provide loads of energy. That means we don't need much to begin with. Our Uranium will last a very, very long time.

[@somerandomer654]

Alok Dangi I'm sure thats what our forefathers thought about coal.

[@mrwz626]

3:38 M&M new flavor uranium!..Mmmm looks delicious...

[@anticharacter]

Please keep up the series Vox, it's really really good

[@LarlemMagic]

What is the fuel usage increase? 5%?10%?50%? All I learned is that it is more than 4%

[@ՀովսեփԽաշունի]

Wondering this too.

[@DavidKlausa]

I believe France gets upwards of 90%.

[@vdemetrio7663]

God I love intelligent women. Thank you for always starring them in your videos!

[@nanotech2080]

She prolly a PR lady tho hahaha

[@cobalius]

I liked the Baettr add. Inspiring adds are really nice. More of it please. And less of annoying game adds. I wanna see inspiring institutions and companies, to eventually wanna work there. (PS: please algorithm, i wanna have nice-music disturbances within my playlists D:)

[@footywooty2]

We don't need to rethink. We have gen 4s coming out in the next few decades which improve EVERY downside. Rethinking is not necessary - it's doing what we know we can -and have to- do.

[@MrToradragon]

Next few decades... Well we could switch to fusion by that time. They could be build even now, there is something in Chine, in Russia they run two BN reactors based on sodium, there was French Phenix and Superphenix, just put pressure on your politicians to invest into nuclear instead of renewable.

[@KyleWannaKookie]

Fusion may take much longer. Nobody knows when we'll get it to work.

[@emericaubineaumusic]

how much less waste?

[@miguellopez3392]

Emeric Aubineau I'm guessing is producing less high-level waste which is a minority of all nuclear waste and the deadliest form of it, most nuclear waste is low-level radiation witches safe to walk around with minor protection.

[@Lttlemoi]

Compared to all the radioactive waste produced by the medical sector, insignificant.

[@a.thales7641]

50%

[@leerman22]

Some reactors produce 200 times less waste, which can turn all of the uranium into energy. Most reactors produce about 250 tonnes of waste per gigawatt/year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density + 22,393,817.400 KWh thermal per kilo of Uranium * 1.000 Burnup (100% in MSR breeder) * 1,000.000 KWh thermal per tonne * 0.350 Turbine efficiency ---------------- +7,837,836,090.000 KWh of electric per tonne / 8,766.000 convert to KWy (year) ---------------- + 894,117.738 KWy per tonne + 1,000,000.000 KWy (1GW power plant in 1 year) / 894,117.738 ---------------- + 1.118 Approx tonnes of fuel per GWy

[@howardbaxter2514]

Emeric Aubineau produce next to no waste as certain reactors can be created from nuclear waste we already have. The nuclear waste facility in, I believe Alabama (not quite sure if that is the right state), has enough nuclear materials that it help us provide power for hundreds of years.

[@davidvenegasramirez6001]

Literally the only time I've agreed with Vox, good job covering this topic

[@shriramvenu]

safety isnt the only issue. Waste of nuclear fuel and storage of nuclear waste is a far bigger consideration. These newer designs that are more self contained and efficient will certainly be a big step forward. But if the end products are still plutonium, neptunium or uranium-234 that problem isnt going away

[@chapter4travels]

These liquid fueled reactors will be able to burn about 90% of our current waste and what's left is safe in about 300 years

[@DavidKlausa]

Seems a low estimate, but Steward Brand claims that the amount of waste generated by one person's entire lifetime of energy usage would fit in a soda can. If that's close to accurate, I think we have room for that.

[@drdewott9154]

@@DavidKlausa yeah but that's one person but you do realize that we're about 7 billion people living on this planet right? And that's still growing every day.

[@DavidKlausa]

Yes, I realize that. I figure a soda can is .0189 cubic feet. 7 billion of them is about 132 million cubic feet. A football stadium is around 100 million cubic feet by comparison. One point to consider is that America alone creates about 18 billion cubic feet of trash per year. Sure, it degrades more quickly, but we do have to find places to bury it, and nuclear waste is tiny in comparison. If we have room for 18 billion per year for a single country, we can handle 132 million per generation for the entire world.