What Is the Role of Nuclear Power in a Net Zero System?

[@jimgraham6722]

Excellent summary. Energy is absolutely essential for national survival. Nuclear will be a large part of that.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

Of the nuclear power plants shut down in the UK; which ones were shut down for political reasons and which ones were at the end of their lifespan?

[@antmancan6408]

The answer is 2. Any further questions let me know. :)

[@davidwilkie9551]

Yes please.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

What is a "nuclear battery"? And where does it fit in, in the grid ?

[@antmancan6408]

A nuclear battery is a battery powered by nuclear energy, it fits in the grid near the top. If you have any further questions let me know :)

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@antmancan6408 : So you think a Nuclear power plant is a battery, OKaayyy.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@antmancan6408 : BTW, that means a Coal Power Plant is a coal battery. Wow, you are really clever.

[@antmancan6408]

@@buildmotosykletist1987 Aww bless. A coal power plant is not a battery, silly billy. A block of coal is a battery. I have a big sack of coal batteries, which I use to run an internal combustion heating engine. It is behind the grid but not connected to it.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@antmancan6408 : So you don't know and are wasting my time. Bye." ???

[@mi4johns]

1% of global emissions but 0.1% of the global population

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

What is 1% ???

[@johnpowell9174]

Agreed, 'top shelf'!

[@mosslomas591]

Nuclear power is the safest form energy we have ever had (deaths per unit) and lowest life cycle carbon emissions (grams of CO2 per unit), so arguments against it are generaly based on a lack of understanding and irrational fear. Advanced molten salt reactors running on a thorium fuel cycle, such as technology being developed by Copenhagen atomics will be nice but well developed technology with recent build experience such Westinghouse's AP1000 will be the fastest and cheapest solution in the short turm.

[@christianfournier6862]

@haydock18= I too have been suprised that, in this otherwise excellent talk, safety issues have not been covered in depth. But it works both ways: Dame Sue Ion has mentioned that the EPR reactors are difficult to build, but she has not said why: three Safety Authorities (Chinese, Finnish, and French) have competed in zeal to incorporate in the EPR design the most advanced safety features allowed by existing technology! As a matter of fact, the authorities have now recognized that they have gone too far: a new design (the EPR2) has been simplified to eliminate the “overly redundant” (& ‘near-unbuildable’) safety features of the EPR while maintaining an excellent safety assurance. An interesting question is “What about the safety of the new small modular reactors designs ?“ The aim of these reactors being to achieve a more acceptable kind of plant (not so frightening power-wise) for the inhabitants nearby, as well as limiting the investment costs, I wonder how these two antagonistic aims will be treated safety-wise in the new designs…

[@robertwrites925]

Oh! I know the answer to solar being a high output carbon emitter. Solar cells can only be manufactured at extremely high temperatures. These conditions can only be achieved by burning coal, which is a high carbon emitter. Source - Economist

[@wolvolad25]

The costs though, Hinckley is a rip off

[@GavinM161]

Think how much cheaper it would have been if we didn't have to rely on France to build it.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Excellent review of a terrible mess made by fossil fuel ignorance of consequences and the failure to invest the profits made from supplying essential services back into ongoing nuclear research. Who should pay.

[@haydock18]

Wow an entire talk on nuclear power without one mention of safety problems (not even mentioning pros and cons or possible solutions to safety problems). Is safety unmentionable?

[@peter_smyth]

Nuclear power incidents are large and newsworthy, but rare. Coal (and similar) power is no more safe, but causes harm in many smaller incidents which don't make the news, such as toxic sludge leaks. Plus nuclear isn't going to lead to the earth being uninhabitably warm.

[@beback_]

What safety problem?

[@wolvolad25]

UK back of the queue theres a surprise

[@mawkernewek]

41:20 It's not rocket science? Rocket science is for billionaires who want some new toys, nuclear power is for serious thinkers.

[@simonleonard5431]

Why is the total cost so high?

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

It is NOT "so high". "Nuclear power brings down electricity prices by 75% in Finland."

[@danwylie-sears1134]

There is going to be very large growth in nuclear power over the coming years, even though it will be substantially more expensive than wind and solar plus storage. The disgracefully inadequate response by the West has proven that having nuclear weapons allows a would-be aggressor to attack with impunity, and that any country with aggressive neighbors needs nuclear weapons, not "security assurances". Nuclear power will be used almost exclusively in forms that can provide nuclear weapons material.

[@jimgraham6722]

You are very correct. Nuclear power is absolutely essential to future of mankind, initially fission but hopefully fusion as that tech matures. It is clear that short of a miracle fusion won't be widely available for at least five decades. Initial versions of fusion plants will likely be very expensive. Fission therefore must be the focus over the next five decades. Sadly you are correct wrt to nuclear weapons. Particularly for states facing the autocracies, nuclear weapons (declared or undeclared) will be essential to maintenance of their sovereignty). Non proliferation states will need to have a credible fast path to nuclear weapons should things deteriorate.

[@GavinM161]

I agree in general but I disagree with your last sentence.

[@donalddouglas5988]

In the US the cost of wind solar coal and gas is public knowledge. The total cost of the uranium fuel cycle is a closely guarded secret.

[@GavinM161]

Is it really? A quick Google search seems to throw up multiple documents from the likes of MIT.

[@robertocalibancove8245]

Nuclear energy has been a disaster

[@GavinM161]

I strongly disagree. It currently provides a large proportion of the energy for the developed world. If it was a much larger proprtion of our energy generation capacity from much earlier on, we would not be staring at the climate change issue we have now.

[@robertocalibancove8245]

@@GavinM161 nuclear provides a MINOR proportion of the energy, it is highly toxic and doesn't help at all for climate change and pollution. It is exacly the opposite of what the eu says.

[@stl1321]

​@GavinM161 you can volunteer to get the 880 tons of highly radioactive waste out of the broken Fukushima reactors. 7 billion USD a year to boil and contaminate salt water with no end in sight. Nuclear will be a very costly disaster compounder in climate collapse.

[@bennichols1113]

Net zero what? If you want zero carbon you are insane.

[@stevekristoff4365]

Completely agree, anyone who advocates this is insane as it's a FACT that life itself is not net zero carbon. Or are people suggesting that we destroy all life in the universe?

[@juvenalsdad4175]

You could google 'what does net zero carbon emissions mean?' Just a suggestion.

[@stevekristoff4365]

@@juvenalsdad4175 LOL, thanks and yes I know the intent and disagree completely. Though I find it very funny that your comment is coming from an account called 'Juvenal's Dad' , i.e. the father of the Satirist. :) Cheers.

[@stevekristoff4365]

@@fullmontyuk that's not proof that's correlation but not causation. IF that's a true fact which I haven't seen the data on, all that would imply is that there was an equilibrium. life (biological life that is) burns fuel for it's energy. That is and never will be a net zero. If you think otherwise you probably need to read up some more on basic life sciences and processes. Cheers.