The Truth About China’s Revolutionary Small Nuclear Reactor

[@ZirothTech]

What do you think is the future for SMRs? Thanks again to Uranium Royalty Corp (UROY) for sponsoring a portion of this video. Check out their website at www.uraniumroyalty.com/ !

[@kaiying74]

I'm sure pumping chemicals into the ground to dissolve radioactive metals is absolutely fine...no environmental concerns there whatsoever... 🤔

[@QMasterChief]

I was a bit surprised that you didn’t mention molten salt SMR’s which could partially avoid some Uranium mining and has potential benefits with waste. Especially since China reportedly has a MS-SMR test reactor in operation and have announced plans to use the design for commercial production.

[@Zendukai]

​@@kaiying74they pump down weak acid to do that I've been told, and suck it back up. Yes I'd hate it to get into the water table.

[@martinmurer4954]

While PV and Battery are material science and so price drop is simply achievable. SMR is mainly heavy industry, piping, pumps and turbines. All technologies more than a century old. Where should the price decrease come from? It is exactly the same problem why the price for green hydrogen will not drop significantly. So don't hold your breath.

[@mickparkinson207]

Alas your knowledge is severely affected by our empire of feminine lies propaganda. China is NOT the world’s leader in nuclear power and neither are any of the western nations.. it’s Russia.. the Russians have ALWAYS had certain technologies where they simply are far superior. Most being military and space applications.. think R7 ICBM, Sputnik, lasers, electronic warfare, SAM’s, tanks, fighter radar… 1981 mig31 in service vs took the west until 2001 in the licence built by Mitsubishi F16 fighting falcon copy.. network linking missiles, high supersonic missiles, autonomous space rovers (mars) space probes (Venus) Vastly superior in certain technologies. The USSR went into miniaturisation Vs the west semi conductor integrated circuits.. They soviets won the Cold War arms race EASILY in mid-late 1970’s. We in our fraudulent ways we won the cold wars luxury domestic goods race .. microwaves, tvs, watches, phones..etc etc… Alas we are propagandised from early with such Russophobia we tend to be highly ignorant of reality. The Chinese signed in 1982’ from memory for Soviet (Russian) technical, design, education for Chinese engineers, the actual NPP Taiowan nuclear body was formed with literal assistance from Russia.. to my knowledge the ONLY indigenous part of any of the Chinese nuclear reactors was phase 3 of 5. Like commercial turbines, missile techs, military turbine etc etc these high end technologies cannot be short cuts to gaining competence.. you require generational engineering expertise.. the only fully self sufficient in totality is Russia, the chinese are world leaders in some techs for sure as are Japan, South Korea, USA the unfortunate thing is the USA is slowing its expertise to atrophy as we are witnessing with Boeing, etc.. The wests has ALWAYS post ww2 had inferior education compared to the ussr/Russia, the average Russian 14 year old boy has equivalent skills in math to stem applicants to MIT.. the technical institutes in Russia are easily world leading but for our Empire of feminine lies we continue our consistent fraudulent thinking Russia is primitive and the USA are exceptional .. we are liars, cowards and morons basically (in general.. )

[@derloos]

So many videos on SMRs, so few charts on how a steam turbine's efficiency depends on its size.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Efficiency isn't really important when you're using nuclear fuel.

[@derloos]

@ hilarious.

[@zantrua]

That doesn't seem that related, if you need more heat, add more reactors until you can generate the required heat

[@derloos]

@@zantrua oh my god.

[@TanyaLairdCivil]

@@derloos I'm generally skeptical of nuclear due to cost issues, but it's true that efficiency may not really be the most important thing for nuclear in general. You need to think economics, not physics. Fuel is only 1-2% of the cost to operate a fission plant, most of the costs are in building the plant. If you can cut the CAPEX cost in half at the expense of a 50% reduction in energy efficiency, that would actually be economically worth it. Yes, the giant boilers and steam systems of a full-sized plant will be far more efficient; you'll get more joules out of every kg of uranium. But with fission, the bottleneck is the huge cost of the plant. Trading lower efficiency for much lower plant construction cost would absolutely be worth it. For fission, it is literally true that efficiency isn't everything.

[@WallaceHerbert-fl1ve]

*People dont understand that the prices of things are never going back down. This inflation is deeper than we think. Those buying groceries are well aware that the real inflation is much over 10%. The increments dont match our income, yet certain investors still earn over $365,000 in stocks and assets. Wish I could accomplish that.*

[@GeorgeFrancis-pm3rb]

Well I engage in nice side hustles like inves'ting, and the good thing is I do it with one of the best(Shabz Evelyn, she's really good!

[@OliviaSamanthaRodriguez]

No doubts, this Shabz must be an icon; how good is she and how safe is "profit making" with she.?

[@MathesonMcDavid]

*with over 10 years of tra ding experience, Mrs Shabz has gained herself a good reputation by helping a lot of persons build their finances' through inves'tments.* ??

[@KaylaAlbert-rp5jg]

I'm surprised that you just mentioned and recommend Mrs Shabz Evelyn. I met her at a conference in 2018 and we have been working together ever since.

[@EdwardCoblah]

From NY city, I have a lot to say about her; but I'll only say "no regrets for inves'ting with Shabz Evelyn"

[@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt]

We've had SMRs in the US since 1954. I spent several years as a nuclear engineer and chemist operating a few between 1978 and 1982. The first SMR I have experience with, interestingly enough was a prototypical variant of the Navy's then-standard reactor S3G. It was called "MARF" for Modifications and Additions to Reactor Facilities. What made it special? It *used water as the control mechanism.* Pump water in to thermalize neutrons, thereby starting and sustaining nuclear fission. Pump water out to slow and control fission. It worked just fine. Before making it to the fleet on a Ballistic Missile Submarine that used the standard S3G reactor design, I participated in bringing another first online: the S8G reactor, which used natural circulation/convection for cooling during operation without the use of main coolant pumps; one of the noisiest components on SSBNs. Every naval propulsion reactor (surface and submarine) fits the definition of an SMR. Variants were serially produced, on time and within budget. They also fit the power ratings associated with SMRs. Current S1B reactors are "life-of-ship" designs, meant to power the submarine for its entire expected lifespan without refueling (~43 years). There's no reason that SMRs of advanced designs can't be mass-produced in factories, then transported to operational sites around the country where they'll economically produce safe, reliable, carbon-free electricity and process heat. When it's time to refuel them (every 4 to 7 years depending on the design), they're simply brought back to the factory and a new/refreshed reactor takes its place, all with minimal downtime.

[@evo-labs]

Wait...wait...so you think an energy source that only has to be refueled every 4 to 7 years is going to maximize profit for energy companies? * insert insane laugh here* No, no sir. We need an energy source that has to be paid for weekly or monthly otherwise our shareholders will get upset. Cash flow baby! That's what matters. Do you not know how capitalism works!?

[@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt]

@@evo-labs Yes, that's exactly what I know (not feel, believe or think). What you have backwards is that "energy companies" are behind SMRs. A quick perusal of SMR companies' business models will disavow you of that notion. SMRs companies intend to design, build, deploy, operate, maintain and ultimately decommission these units, with business consumers entering into power purchase agreements (PPAs). This is precisely what Microsoft is doing with the Three Mile Island unit #1 restart. This also precisely what the likes of Amazon, Oracle and others are doing in order to secure power for their data centers. The same will be true for aluminum, concrete and steel producers, in addition to all manner of other industrial sectors that with high energy demands in the form of electricity and/or process heat. Cynical viewpoints such as that which you express accomplishes nothing other than further delaying the energy transition. Here's one that you're sure to choke on: A single, golf ball-sized sphere of Thorium contains the total amount of energy one person in a developed economy such as the US needs their entire lifetime. That's not just electricity. That's the energy needed for everything from the cost of shelter, clothing, food...everything. The technology exists to use Thorium as a feedstock for nuclear fission reactors. Reactors that can also burn down the existing stockpile of spent nuclear fuel, creating a fraction of the waste of traditional reactors. Waste that also only toxic for hundreds, not thousands, of years. This too shall come to pass.

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

@@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt .. Norway here. I have read your comments, and I am 100% (+) agreeing with you. 🙂 The Navy connection makes me interested in talking to you. Norway has a huge maritime industry, and nuclear power for ships are very interesting. So I decided to fire away one question to you; What are your opinion on the use of Westinghouse eVinci in ship applications? This is so interesting that I can hardly sit still 🤠

[@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt]

@@oddvardmyrnes9040 To directly answer your query regarding marine applications for Westinghouse's eVinci microreactor, no. Part of the answer is in the rating: Only 5MWe/15MWt. That's tiny for marine applications such as cargo ships, tankers, etc. The longer answer to nuclear for marine applications is a lot more complex. Not only does a reactor have to be capable of supporting the electrical and thermal loads of a vessel, it must also be affordable and robust, as well as be able to operate over timescales measured in decades before needing refueling. This requires highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is limited to only ultra-secure military applications due to all kinds of reasons, proliferation being a chief concern. Another reason that nuclear isn't a fit for civil marine applications is manpower. Put simply, countries operating nuclear military vessels, such as the US, struggle to attract, train and retain the personnel needed to man the fleet. Don't get me wrong. In an ideal world, I'd be all for SMRs for greenfield marine applications. There the reactor could be located in the vessel in an area that's totally separated from the machine/propulsion section. In these builds, everything would be electric, so it'd just be a matter of running cabling from the nuclear section to the machine/propulsion section. After 3 or 4 years, the SMR could simply be completely replaced with a new unit, good for another 3 to 4 years. With passive safety measures and low proliferation/accident/terrorism risk, these easy-to-operate units could completely replace the millions of tons of bunker fuel these vessels burn each year.

[@oddvardmyrnes9040]

@@ARepublicIfYouCanKeepIt .. Yes. As the U.S. has tried this in the Savanah vessel, these concerns are well known. The eVinci reactor uses UO2 LEU TRISO pellets fuel, is gas cooled (heat pipes), & is load following. Westinghouse says that it should be extremely low maintenance with operator free design in mind. The power issue can be addressed by a dual installation, but this is only me dreaming 😟. If I am out of scope, so be it. If you think it is worth a second look, please let me know. If not, thanks for your answer, Sir.

[@royh6526]

This is actually a SMR hit piece, with many false statements like claiming that Thorium fuel is the same price as conventional uranium powered LWR's. Thorium is easily and cheaply refined and basically free as there are stockpiles around the world as a result of rare-earth mines that have no market for the left over thorium. Uranium has to undergo a very expensive enrichment process and then encapsulated into pellets. Only about 5% of uranium is used, the rest goes to waste. LFTR uses almost 100% of the thorium with no waste problem.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

There is no advantage to Thorium over Uranium. What the Nuclear Bros are to renewables, Thorium bros are to Nuclear.

[@tonysu8860]

Almost no waste (by mass or volume?) is not good enough because its extreme radioactivity is still a problem

[@royh6526]

@@tonysu8860 Clearly you have no concept. Not only is waste from LFTRs almost zero, the waste products produced decay to safe levels in a few hundred years as apposed to 10,000 years for uranium.

[@ABa-os6wm]

SMR is economic suicide.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

@@royh6526 wow 10,000 years for Uranium? Wowwww!

[@TrangleC]

Sabine Hossenfelder just released a video on why SMRs are not the future of energy.

[@andreycham4797]

They both do not know what they are talking about. Small reactors require HALEU fuel which is produced on mass scale only in Russia. Russia is under sanctions so only China can get that fuel. This is the main reason why SMRs will not be produced in the West. Then his stupid commercial about mining Uranium. The world is not lacking Uranium but enriched Uranium 50 percent of which is supplied to the West from Russia. As I mentioned Russian Uranium is under sanctions this is the reason for Uranium price to go up

[@MehdiTirguit]

she's nuts

[@rogtallbloke]

@@MehdiTirguit Fact check: True.

[@jimmylam9846]

China has tested SMR prototype modules in a desert for many years and the site can power 35000 households in Xinjiang. The small TSMRs had been installed in two ice breakers without problem and the next project would be put in two new PLA aircraft carriers...China is always believed...there is well there's way !

[@DragonKingGaav]

I SO love how Sabine Hossenfelder released a video about SMR's problems just yesterday!

[@fteoOpty64]

I am shock at the prices Sabine quoted in her video. Billions of dollars to $500m. That is NOT SMALL. I am of the impression $25M a piece. The numbers in Sabine's video do not add up if they were true. Then again, none can be bought just yet, so we have a pricing stalemate...

[@khalidpeer6766]

I just watched that video and in the last 2 months..I have seen so many videos about china's progress...I mean China just this in 2024..launched the world's first pbmr..a pebble bed modular reactor...we in south africa gave up on this in 2009....we could have been first but iur govermernt called it quits

[@valerievankerckhove9325]

@@fteoOpty64 The thing is, solar also used to be 'too expensive.' Anything the Chinese bite their teeth into, they can and will massively drag down the prices.

[@ennergie]

Idk man. You might personaly belive every sentence you say in this video. But still. If your whole video is basically promoting the thing your sponsor is selling. I think the whole thing should be marked as advertisement. I would not feel confortable, using this video as a source for any information, if the people who payed for it, had a vested interrest in the contend.

[@ZirothTech]

Thanks for the feedback - I definitely take this feedback seriously. The sponsor had no say over any portion of the video apart from where explicitly stated, and I was really interested in covering SMRs. I don't want to undermine the science in the video by too closely integrating the sponsor into a video so I will do better next time.

[@UbyTuesday]

@@ZirothTech Humility - such a powerful and underrated trait

[@CraftyF0X]

Tbh the value of uranium is not necessarily tied to the succes or failure of SMR's.

[@dijikstra8]

Completely in agreement here. Making a video benefiting the sponsor is definitely an advertisement. KZbin really should have stricter rules regarding stuff like this, in many countries stuff like this would by law be required to be clearly marked as advertising.

[@mikeharrington5593]

What happened with Thorium powered (& molten-salt cooled) SMRs ??

[@simonbarrett9568]

China build one get it up and running do safety checks and get 90% of all the products in house and they go into production they do this with everything yes thorium and SMR this is how they do it OK

[@tonywilson4713]

Simple lack of investment because NOBODY controls the IP. There's a real issue with the free market approach to energy because it simply does NOT work and almost nobody in the economics profession will admit that they got it wrong.

[@petermclaughlin120]

Cost of decommissioning has been significant for legacy reactors, is it for SMRs?

[@Soras_]

HTPR shouldn't need decommissioning in tradition sense. you just need to replace nuclear reactor by replace the fuel itself

[@mahdihosseini6361]

Getting sponsored by uranium company is crazy

[@Walker956]

why, they sponsor everyone on youtube.

[@ABa-os6wm]

No, it's simple. Nuclear gets insane subventions, including from military. Nuclear power is economically obsolete, but the business model is to get the subventions. There's where SMS make sense. Not to produce power, but to get subventions, and produce plutonium.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

they should release Uranium cRYPTO coins as well..

[@dikshamen]

You leftout the thorium option smr reactors. Thorium is the key.

[@hschmidt79]

Nuclear Power has low CO2-Emissions? Only if you forget about where the nuclear fuel comes from, how it is processed and finally stored for long time. CO2-Footprint of Nuclear power is higher than solar or wind if everything is considered. But most the important thing about SMRs is the price: They can only be build with public money, else the electricity would be too expensive. We will se no more than 15 SMRs in the World. And none of them will run for the full planned lifespan. Let them burn their money...

[@riccardogalizzi3047]

The lifecycle GHG emissions of nuclear power are lower than the ones of PV , 28 vs 85 tonnes of CO2eq/GWh according to (H. S. Jamie McIntyre, Brent Berg and S. Borchardt. Comparison of Lifecycle Green- house Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources. Technical report, World Nuclear Association, 2011). What article do you refer to ? Also , even when higher CO2 emissions per GWh are considered, we should bear in mind that one of the main advantages of nuclear power is energy density and hence material intensity, considerably lower than the one of solar and wind. And what about the decarbonisation of the mining sector in remote and isolated areas , with no access to sunlight and wind ? SMRs could play an essential role there. The technology is still expensive for sure(also because of the excessive safety measures in my opinion, nourished by decades of antinuclearism, but this is another story) but , from a purely technological point of view, nuclear energy is the way to go, a sort of miracle in the energy world , considering the staggering amount of energy produced by the fission of a single atom . I hope that AI , requiring a costant source of energy to run his servers(nuclear is perfect for that ), will help to guide a nuclear renaissance worldwide .

[@YSKWatch]

I believe after china master the mass production, they will build many for themselves, then export them.

[@ChessMasterNate]

What is going to take off is new geothermal tech with horizontal drilling and fracking. It is going to be cheaper than anything. Well, hydro could still be cheaper but is limited. There are only so many rivers. The new geothermal can be put just about anywhere, resulting in shorter power line runs. It also has a small footprint. Reactors because of regulations, require a large chunk of land, usually prime lad next to the ocean or rivers. And when the reactors are low output, that makes costs hard to recover. The only reason SMRs got investment was because there was the promise that construction could be accelerated. That has yet to be demonstrated. Better in my opinion would have been scaling up to larger reactors that produce absurd amounts of energy, and put them near high energy requiring processes like titanium, and aluminum refining. Just make millions of tons of these metals and other high energy materials production. They can still power nearby cities or more distant cities where the power lines are already present, but producing a lot of iron, steel, aluminum, titanium, cement, glass...

[@peters972]

Id love to know why thorium is not taking off. LFTR's are safer since they are at high temperature iso high pressure. They produce a tiny fraction of the waste, and the feed stock is a tiny fraction of the price.

[@chrisk8208]

They are, but it's an uphill battle against regulators, public perception of the hazards and, of course, the big businesses that have vested interests in maintaining the status quo with the plants they currently run and the uranium they currently provide. Best in class, IMHO, is Flibe Energy.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

​@@chrisk8208Flibe energy has no expertise in manufacturing nor construction. They've never built anything, never broke any ground, never poured any concrete, never filed any patents. All the have is the world's most expensive PowerPoint presentation.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

they need depleted uranium to make killing munitions i guess..

[@valerievankerckhove9325]

It's a whole different energy branch that needs to be set up nearly from scratch: safety checks, regulatory checks, supply chain, etc.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

@@peters972 The US has never built a LFTR. The US did build an MSR in the 50s. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment which operated for less than a year, and the Oak Ridge Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, which ran for about 5 years before decommissioning. Neither used Thorium as a fuel, though the MSRE briefly used U233 as a fuel. Apparently the Chinese have built an experimental LFTR. At least 10 more years and several more prototypes would be required to build a safe reliable commercial Reactor. They produce long lived fission wastes in about the same proportions as today's commercial reactors. As for cheaper and safer, well that's what the Soviets said about the RBMK reactors.

[@loiskimberleyplayer]

Super interesting - thank you!!

[@Awaken2067833758]

Changing a non renewable source for another non renewable source is only a short term patch. That's my problem with fission, Uranium production is going down and demand is going up, so we end burning it up a couple more decades at the cost of thousands of years dealing with the waste

[@maloukemallouke9735]

good work, Thank you for share

[@antonnym214]

I'm autistic, and I think you have a nice voice for narration. Unfortunately, the music? that you have tinkling away is hyper-distracting. To you, it may seem like background music, but to an autistic person, it is very foreground and tends to drown you out while you speak. May I gently recommend you do away with music while you speak and keep intro and outro music if you like. All good wishes.

[@marwanmaxwell9024]

Smr Stock been Blowing up!

[@johnconrad5487]

Small Nuclear Reactor = SNR. Why is it called SMR? Why do so many comments say SMR? "What is SMR? The small modular reactor (SMR) is a class of small nuclear fission reactor....." OK. I got my answer. Russia made 4 SMRs, 62 MW each. They decommissioned 3 and extended the license to operate the 4th. China's SMR is 200 megawatts. I was hoping it would be possible to make something in the order of a few hundred KW, or even smaller to operate cars. Even those in US Navy ships are about 104MW. The French Rubis-class submarines have a 48 MW reactor that needs no refueling for 30 years. Brrrrppppppp. So my dream is shattered. "small" is very relative. So it looks like 48MW is the smallest(?)

[@nickoppen]

Sorry, did you say that the nuclear power industry is growing? On pretty much every metric it is shrinking. The number of reactors in production and the number planned is shrinking. The things that are growing is the amount of hype, the time to completion and the final costs are growing and that's about it.

[@ciro_costa]

Implying that economics and politics are decoupled in any capitalist country. Economics and politics are one thing. There isn't a separation.

[@Squigglydodah]

this is a commercial not content. stop integrating the sponsors into the content its sheisty as hell

[@ZirothTech]

Thanks for the feedback - I definitely take this feedback seriously. The sponsor had no say over any portion of the video apart from where explicitly stated, and I was really interested in covering SMRs. I don't want to undermine the science in the video by too closely integrating the sponsor into a video so I will do better next time.

[@ravenmad9225]

It was still a good video.Keep up the good work Ziroth.

[@physetermacrocephalus2209]

​@ZirothTech All I'm hearing is that since the sponser had no say over any portion of the video that also means you CHOSE to deceive us by not stating the commercial involvement in the episode sooner which is especially concerning given you are working with a rival and potentially hostile state juxtaposed against our own. You need to be more careful.

[@velcroman11]

I don’t like adverts but, I would prefer this bloke acknowledging the support they give him to KEEP THIS CHANNEL RUNNING. Duh!

[@mandrakejake]

It would've been more appropriate if you'd named the sponsor at start of the video

[@gotmilk91]

Western exceptionalists be like *"GAH! THEY STOLE THAT FROM US!!!"*

[@Peter-649]

Agree, the copied argument. But let the trolls enjoy their trolling, somehow it makes them feel superior and important. 😀

[@fidelcatsro6948]

Why call it SMR instead of SNR (small nuclear reactor)?

[@LibertyDankmeme]

thorium is the way to go

[@chrislambert-shiels5291]

Is this video actually legal in UK? It seems to be promoting an investment to retail investors without the required warnings?!?!

[@CycleWerkz]

All new reactor designs are failsafe, so please stop worrying about meltdowns. There a several methods to prevent thermal runaway, all new units will use a safe method. Stored Nuclear "Waste" is not waste at all, it is fuel. Ripe and ready for use in a modern Reactor. It's always best to select a reactor based upon the fuel type you can best acquire. All else is noise. The only delay is funding. Once a project is funded, you can start, until then, everything is irrelevant. The only metric that matters is, how much total nuke generation capacity is online. The sooner projects get started, the sooner energy supply issues fade away.

[@chrispfeifer7628]

Every time politics denies or refused to invest in green energy allows the US to fall farther behind the world and China in energy technology. Drilling oil isn't going to make us energy independent. The opposite is true. It's really disheartening to see the direction of the US and an American citizen. Hopefully, we can recoup these setbacks in the future

[@marlinmixon3004]

I'm almost with you there but as was mentioned earlier in the comments, efficient drilling technology gets us closer to geothermal energy.

[@rklauco]

The problem with nuclear is not the waste. The problem is uranium - getting again back to being dependent on fuel source does not sound very tempting to me...

[@RGD2k]

@5:58: There's a mistake. Video states "Natural Uranium is abdundant as the isotope U 238, but must be refined into U 235 for reactors." Totally wrong! No, Natural uranium (at least, in this solar system, all coming from the same supernova) is 0.72% U-235, and most of the rest U-238. You can't refine U238 into U235, the physics do not work that way. You can't even perfectly separate them. What you can do is gradually concentrate or 'enrich' the U235 in the mixture. Or you can make a big reactor able to start on natural U, and then use the neutron fire to cook U-238 into Plutonium-239. That Plutonium is also fissile, however running a reactor on it is much more difficult: It tends to be easier to make bombs out of it, however that too is (thankfully!) extremely difficult. So, even the "must be refined ... for reactors" part of the statement isn't right either. Note, that relative abundance is due to the age of the Uranium: The stuff WE have was formed in a particular supernova, apparently about 6.6 Billion years ago, and since U235 has a shorter halflife than does U238 there remains less of it today. As time passes, the relative % of U235 will further decrease, eventually making nuclear power entirely impossible. This will take millions of years however - other things are likely to be more of a problem much sooner than that. 1.7 Billion years ago, the concentration was higher: about 3.1%. High enough that making a reactor was easier then, so much so that we know for sure that at least one nuclear reactor naturally formed: We know this because it was found. Today, mother nature can no longer so easily manage to form naturally forming nuclear reactors, at least not on the surface crust of this planet. It needs a little help to be arranged to the point where a supercritical neutron chain reaction can happen (ie, a nuclear fission reaction can 'ignite'). Note that if you want to make a *smaller* reactor, you need more highly enriched U. The best to use for reliable small modular reactors with minimum size is mostly U-235. Above 90% is 'weapons grade', from which it becomes actually quite easy (at least, relative to the technical complexity of using plutonium) to make a nuclear bomb. The less pure the fissile material, the bigger you need to make the reactor in order to take advantage of the better physics: In this case, the 'surface area to volume ratio' scaling that effects how easy it is to keep the neutrons where you need them. This also means a larger reactor can, all else equal, use more of the fuel before it is no longer able to continue, and the fuel is 'spent' (for that reactor, anyway). Reactor's typically don't burn up 'most' of the U-235 they have in the fuel: Instead, solid-fuel gets increasingly contaminated with waste from splitting the atoms, until it has too much 'reactor poison' in it, and the fuel is considered spent. Think of it like a fire that instead of burning on the outside of the fuel, burns randomly throughout the fuel, and leaves hot waste everywhere microscopically mixed throughout: You might consider that it 'shits where it eats'. Eventually, the 'food' is too contaminated to be 'et'. The % of U-235 that is actually *used* in a once-through use of enriched reactor fuel, in a typical solid-fueled reactor, is only a pathetic 4% or so. There are reactor designs that both make the reactor 'passively safe melt-down shutdown compatible', as well as allow that 4% figure to be increased to close to 100%. That latter effectively would make nuclear power about 20x cheaper, again. And we haven't even discussed Thorium yet.... It can be 'bred' (transmuted using neutrons) into Uranium-233, which is also fissile. And there's about 3 to 4 x more Thorium-232 (all the one isotope) than there is Natural U. On top of that, Thorium is an industrial waste product available from anywhere in the world (eg, at any 'rare earth metal mine' that leeches those from crushed rock: The Th comes out whilst they're extracting other elements. They mostly just throw it back with the other wastes.

[@frederichominh3152]

France does NOT produce 75% of its energy (electricity, transport, industrial and domestic heat...) with nuclear. It produces 75% of its electricity with nuclear. The share of electricity in total energy is just 25% in France, meaning 75% of its energy comes from... fossil fuel. If you mix up "energy" and "electricity", all your reasonning is off.

[@danielstapler4315]

imo SMRs won't follow the cost reduction curve of solar or wind because to make a solar panel or a wind turbine blade is so much faster and more straight forward than making an SMR. So a faster rate of iteration means a faster decline in cost.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

You have failed to mention Moltex's SSR-W Stable Salt Reactor Wasteburner, which seems to be the only economic viable reactor design.

[@Jimmeh_B]

Fast breeder reactors are the only way forward in my opinion. (Waste burners) Really not interested in nuclear going forward, just to maintain the mining magnate status quo, who got us all to this "cost of generation" in the first place.

[@Rhotz-ix8ll]

Needs to be built and run for a while before it can truly be said to be viable. This industry is famous for almost invariably vastly underestimating cost and massively blowing budgets.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

We hear a lot about China building coal plants, but what isn't diacussed is the actual plants, which are very large and very efficient critical fluid designs. I think the plant is to hook up SMRs to the boilers in the future, amd turn the expensive capital investment into genertation and transmission equipment into nuclear power stations.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

brilliant idea!

[@maxheadroom2743]

Is IT really that important that humanity should burn so much energy (= valuable nuclear materials) on data centers?

[@durandalgmx7633]

Can I buy one?

[@fidelcatsro6948]

sure you can! china sells diesel generators for the price of an iphone on ebay!

[@charlesbeaudry3263]

The notion of SMR is misleading. Nuclear reactors are subject to the economy of scale. Got that? The real issue is that nuclear reactor size does not equate with the size of the reactor core. The reactor scales with power due to all the rest, ie the cooling, power transfer and safety systems that work together to allow the reactor to operate safely and efficiently. To double the power you don't double the size of the core but mostly double the transfer of heat to another medium. Light or heavy water reactor implies huge infrastructure like the concrete dome to absorb the expansion of steam in case of a breach accident like Chernobyl. Remember that Chernobyl did not have a containment structure but was directly exposed to ambient pressure in a hangar with no vault. Obviously this was compounded by known issues concerning the early model of reactor, that it could be unstable at low power. In the future we will see SMR's in isolated applications but for most applications we will continue to see optimal scaling of reactors to reduce cost. The bigger issue is technology because the nuclear space is a very engineering-rich environment that can and is benefiting from R&D. For example, take the molten salt reactor, just one class of machines that stand to reduce costs and improve safety of reactors. For skeptics, keep in mind that US military reactors are at 12th generation compared to 3rd or 4th generation in civilian applications. Recent ship and submarine reactors now operate for over a decade without refueling. This military tech needs to be transfered to the civilian economy so we can all benefit from these military innovations.

[@georgemathieson6097]

awesome video, but pls mix the audio to be louder 🙏🏼

[@patinsley]

Fracking for uranium sounds really stupid.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

is it because of the wastage of water used?

[@stickynorth]

Let a hundred reactors power up!

[@stargalacticfederation]

New technology has been developed that uses nuclear waste to generate electricity in a nuclear-powered batteries.

[@travismoore7849]

What if you had fuel salts in fuel rods that would expand and contract when melted and would be drained if the reactor was moving too fast while moderated by heavy water using stainless steel and haste alloy lining. With the fuel salt being a lower melting hallide.

[@CaptainManic2010]

the energy contained in current waste is 90% of the original energy values. The waste can be processed and reused in special reactors The left over waste then lasts hundreds of years only. This is more expensive that hiding it at the moment, but it should be an investment built into the costs of building the reactors in general. All of this should be re-examined post implementation of a carbon tax and fines for carbon and plastics pollution to all corporates involved, past and present. Like a Carbon Joint Lawsuit The Public VS Carbon Polluters of the world.

[@ristekostadinov2820]

so far we haven't seen any evidence of standardization, there is going to be also another problem big powers have always "gate kept" small reactor tech for military usage (aircraft carriers/submarines) it make me skeptical that we just going to see massive standardization and sharing of information

[@rhiantaylor3446]

Given the success and expected cost trends for Wind and Solar PV generation, what we need now (apart from batteries) is a generation solution where the cost scales with the MWh generated, hour by hour. No nuclear solution will fit this description - not even Fusion.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

But the cost of nuclear scales with MWhs generated?

[@jegog.]

I think you should stick to sponsors that have nothing to do with the topic of your video. You've lost your credibility with me.

[@0005yuki]

so when will we have nuclear powered vehicles?!

[@hamishfox]

Nuclear powered submarines already exist

[@0005yuki]

@ I meant like cars 😁

[@fidelcatsro6948]

too dangerous to have them moving around in thousands on the roads.....

[@licencetoswill]

nuclear was the most expensive way to make power until SMR came along and potentially tripled that cost.

[@simonpannett8810]

Water cooling has to be at a huge pressure to generate cooling and this leads to dangers on losing pressure in the system. Helium is more useful as Reactor does not need to be sited near water which tend to be close to populations!

[@larsnystrom6698]

Reactors with water are dangerous! When cooling stops and water becomes so hot that hydrogen is produced, it's just a matter of concentration before it explodes. No one should use water in nuclear reactors! The sane ones are those which turns of when cooling fails, not explodesp

[@personontheinternet2282]

boiiiii.. you sold out.. no way that uranium copany thing is reputable..

[@lemmingsoutside]

And is regulated by the SEC. You are going to be in hot water if what you said about demand isn't from a reputable source. I'd take this down ASAP.

[@kitemanmusic]

Why not build data centres in cities, and use the waste heat for district heating?

[@CycleWerkz]

The heat is too low a temperature to effectively transfer to anywhere useful.

[@hamishfox]

Yeah they MIGHT become economically viable in the future, but at the moment every single one is going double or triple over budget and costing around half a billion dollars each. I'd steak my claims on traditional gigaWatt realtors personally.

[@originalmossman]

But your last graph about falling cost of solar actually says it all... Even if SMR cost fell at a similar rate it will always be a magnitude greater than the cost of solar (and wind) which will continue to fall as well. We already have the solution and it's just going to get better and cheaper - no need for nuclear any more!

[@Paul-pj5qu]

Nuclear and solar power are two entirely different types of generation. Nuclear power can provide base power which solar cannot or which requires additional investment in storage technologies which reduces its efficiency. You can't dismiss any low greenhouse gas source of energy so easily. There are also other issues with various forms of renewable energy. In other words, the chart does not say it all.

[@originalmossman]

@@Paul-pj5qu base load is a bit of a dying myth, and existing pumped water storage etc. is rapidly being augmented by battery storage, home energy storage, bi-directional EV storage (this will be standard soon)... Peak loading is already flattening out and there are incentive schemes to smooth things out (I got another mail from my energy provider this morning offering me one day a month free power if I reduce peak consumption by a certain amount). Those with home storage and EVs will already be managing things to reduce cost, i.e. flatten load peaks.

[@Jimmeh_B]

The "cost" of solar and wind, never includes the carbon cost of freight and usually not production, let alone disposal and recycling (which has only very recently become a possibility). Nuclear power is literally the only viable answer. I however, am not very interested in nuclear going forward if we're only going to build more reactors that require enriched fuel. Not when there are better reactor designs that can only fail safe and be fuelled by the existing stockpiles of "nuclear waste".

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

I agree with the idea Solar will become the primary power source, but nuclear can certainly have a roll; industrial heat with co-generation being the main one. I don't think wind will see any significant declines in price and honestly by 2050 I think wind power will be declining globally.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

​@@Jimmeh_BI have to point out that it's obvious recycling could only have recently become a possibility, until recently there wasn't an Industry to recycle. The same is true of storage. There was never going to be commercial storage until Solar was over capacity during the day. And there won't be 12-16 hour over night storage until 2-4 hour evening/frequently modulation services are built out for the same reason. There just is no market.

[@zinny54]

US regulatory limitations mean most development will be outside the US. Asian economies need cleaner power and do not have the regulatory control. That is where the growth will come.

[@gator1984atcomcast]

UROY Looser Down 14% last 5 years.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

3.49 cad currently

[@SkipMichael]

The electricity produced is still transmitted over the Grid, which is the weak link.

[@CycleWerkz]

What do you base that on? The grid is dependent on generation capacity and operation. It's not the lines you imagine.

[@flamingstag2381]

goodbye world if we go down this path !

[@fidelcatsro6948]

enemy forces will target these conraptions first to inflict mass damage and radiation on civilian populations..

[@antoinedelaunay5706]

"the demand e for uranium is going to tripple in the next 3 years ??" 3 or 30y ?

[@hclau218]

The title is just shameless clickbait. I was hopi g to learn more about the the Chinese SMR that is already connected to the Grid, but was treated to a minute of by mention, followed by a smorgasboard of commercials.

[@JosephSilv4]

5 years ago I thought this technology would be much more widespread by now. Very cool 💪😎

[@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257]

Please check this video. Nuclear rector transferable on the track

[@komisiantikorupsikoruptord6257]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qnWyh4qNqpuVZ9ksi=t91EroLVhHXL4CPg

[@amyhart903]

We also need to build nuclear waste recycling facilities

[@dirkohlhausen7671]

These pellets are little black boxes where no one knows the integrity and current status of each one... I'm still not convinced... especially when China does something. They never talk about things that didn't go as planned. And why build something that is more expensive than what we can currently build.... Germany has over 60% renewables with no blackouts and that's with a poor electrical transport network. Huge batteries from electric cars in terra watt hours to stabilise solar and wind energy would be even cheaper than anything else. Did you know that France subsidises nuclear power to make it competitive in the EU market? And that France MUST shut down many power plants every summer because there is not enough water in the rivers for cooling. How far we could already be if we had simply invested all the research money from nuclear research in the expansion of PV and wind.... just sad....

[@hodanghau596]

China design has been review by IAEA so the design is not too stupid, and about Germany, where is deindustrializing that has different energy portfolio when compare to other.

[@gelinrefira]

China is far more trustworthy now on their high tech products. At least they won't blow up in your pocket.

[@michaelmcnally9737]

I used to be a big proponent for nuclear power but it made more sense to invest in it like 60 years ago when it was way better than anything available. Now renewables are cheaper, safer, easier to install and maintain, and cause fewer emissions in their construction. By the time new nuclear reactors become carbon neutral the earth will have warmed too much for them to matter.

[@marcoaorelio6409]

In 2023 germany produced 52% of its electricity with renewable but 2023 electricity production was down 11% compared to 2022 and down 15,4% compared to 2019. In fact renewable increased only of 26,2 TWh (from 241,6 to 267,8) but electricity production dropped of 93,6 TWh (from 608,2 to 514,6).

[@chaz4609]

Jai Hind. Indians BBBW and, countries like Peru could ask India to build port infrastructures without the usual Bad debts associated with BRI.

[@KBHeal]

No good for very dry countries with high bushfire occurrences

[@tonysu8860]

Nuclear vs fossil fuels is a false choice. It's nuclear vs Green, all the renewables sources including hydro, solar, wind, geo, ocean tides and more. The point is that unless and until nuclear waste is resolved nuclear should not be chosen because better alternatives that even make economical sense exist. Nuclear does have its place and purpose, but not as metropolitan power plants. It should be developed for medical devices, and other uses which must be self sufficient without maintenance or refueling for decades.

[@donalddouglas5988]

Simplistic sales pitch no real data.

[@null-u7e]

The waste material is usable by larger reactors. So there's no issue with waste. It'll just be shipped to larger reactors. So this waste issue with nuclear is hilarious because it produces next to no waste, and the waste that it does produce is usable as more fuel in other reactors designed to produce energy from waste fuel, so again there is no argument for nuclear waste being a problem, it's just another solution for later and it provides energy in a different process. So even saying any of this to appear objective is hilarious because burying your good fuel is incredibly stupid and storing it in shielded containers in a waste yard that takes 150 years to even fill half the fuel yard with nearly indestructible container and then complaining about it seems pretty much like humble bragging that it's the best possible situation to be in .

[@youcantata]

Your projection on cost of SMR coming down in 15 years is just wishful thinking. The cost of conventional nuclear power is only rising for the last 15 years, not going down, as shown in the video 7:17. Why should we believe that cost of nuclear SMR will going down, while cost of large nuclear power is rising rapidly? I think that SMR will never as economical or cost comparative as large nuclear power, due to inferior economy of the scale, plain and simple. 10 SMR of 100 MW each will cost way higher than one single 1,000 MW reactor, for any foreseeable future beyond 15 years.

[@YellowRambler]

Need MSR not SMR TMSR even better.

[@industrialmonk]

Surely fracking uranium is the worst idea ever with the greatest possible impact on the environment. This makes fossil fuel fracking the most environmentally friendly process.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

No, because uranium is not toxic without very high diesel, isn't a liquid that leaks, or a gas that leaks, and the amount of fracking would be like a percent of what we do now.

[@gator1984atcomcast]

Go SOLAR😊

[@simonbarrett9568]

The way China do things is get one up and running do all the safety checks get 90% of all the part produced in house before thay go in to production that how they work they can sell around the world like EV in the future

[@jokerace8227]

All the more reason to double our efforts with advancing and implementing nuclear power tech in the US.

[@lemmingsoutside]

Great video as always! Did UROY expressly tell you that uranium demand is expected to triple in the next 3 years? If so that is probably an SEC Marketing Rules Violation. You are promoting their stock by saying things that they can't legally say. Talk to a lawyer dude.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

SEC controls canadian stocks too?

[@kenyahawkins2472]

Subtle ..but not so subtle..advertising . Comments though tell more.

[@Walker956]

i was gonna like your vids but then you started chilling some random scam stock.

[@CompactFlesh]

unsuscribed

[@garethley66]

Glorified advert for the nuclear industry. Clearly not impartial.

[@kinguq4510791]

Your sponsorships make me distrust your content, therefore I have unsubscribed.

[@ravenmad9225]

Oh no! Say it ain't so.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

dont do that! he needs to pay bills too!

[@busterhyman103]

Stop breaking into the video with your hopeful screen shots. Keep your misaligned ego in your pocket. Hollywood talent agents are not going to call you for a tv series. Just report the news and keep the video unbroken. south Florida

[@MrDhalli6500]

Should you be registered as a "Foreign Agent" now that you work for China? You know like Tim pool is for Russia.

[@patrickmckowen2999]

Shirt👍

[@Connect1connect1]

Wind is still not viable or environmental friendly.It only looks like it because they calculate it in a advantages way.aca only when the blades are turning,when its not turning and gas centrals have to kick in to compensate the gas cost is not asigned under wind generation..giving you a fake total picture...nor does it include the cost of net upgrades or extra facilities battery or peak plants that are needit for low energy density toys..If wind was viable then surely Germany thaT whent all in 10 y ago should have the lowest energy price in Europe in practice its the highest in europe....you can fudge the numberx all you want the results dont lie.....Its burocrats manipulating the mases with. Methods used in psychology a analytical person would never choose for green but nuclear.

[@Scubongo]

It's not an interesting development. It's a ridiculous development. Enhanced geothermal will make them all go bankrupt. So stop promoting this ridiculously dangerous and expensive technology. It's time has passed.

[@fountainvalley100]

Unless you’re sitting on top of a thermal reservoir geothermal doesn’t work with current drilling methods. Plus geothermal relies on fracking.

[@Scubongo]

@@fountainvalley100 Those were the old days. Check out what Fervo Energy is doing in Utah right now. Enhanced geothermal will be available everywhere.

[@fountainvalley100]

@@Scubongo I guess you never heard of Ormat.

[@mikeprice5838]

An extremely bad idea!!!

[@thomasciarlariello]

China proves superiority of dictatorships able to say no to environmentalists compared to how elsewhere EPA would Walter Peck entrepreneurs.

[@10-OSwords]

The only "problem" w/nuclear is political will.