Why Nuclear Power Could Solve the Energy Crisis - TLDR News

Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
With the recent record high gas prices across the world, countries have had to look to other sources of power to supply their energy. So in this video, we look at why more Nuclear Power could be Britain's answer to the energy crisis rather than relying solely on renewables like wind and solar.
Submit Your Video Topics: forms.gle/R8UveukxAGGGCqPX8
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-sum...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!

[@brickbastardly]

People constantly cite the chance of nuclear accident and ignore the certainty of millions of people dying every year through Air Pollution.

[@olsenfernandes3634]

And the amount of deaths can only rise exponentially...

[@rmsgrey]

My personal favourite statistic is that coal-fired plants output more radiation than nuclear plants, never mind the soot, CO2 and other pollution they output.

[@danjager6200]

@@rmsgrey I did not know that. Thank you! I'm reading academic papers on the subject now thanks to your comment.

[@theMoporter]

Thankfully, there are plenty of renewable sources that don't create air pollution.

[@gartenzwerg44795]

Why not be against both?

[@rowlandsAable]

I can't imagine how much better off at least Western countries would be if Chernobyl didn't scare people off nuclear power.

[@op4000exe]

Especially considering how most of the nuclear disasters that have happened, did so not because nuclear was unsafe, but due to stupid human errors. In Chernobyl those were vastly underestimating the danger of what a nuclear power plant could be, and in Fukushima it was saving money on the design of the safety backup for the reactor itself.

[@Patrick-jj5nh]

I can't imagine how much worse off future generations (not just in Western countries) would be if we had mindlessly expanded in nuclear fission energy generation instead of investing in developing and expanding true renewables. I grew up near a nuclear waste processing facility so please don't lecture me on "its just a tiny bit of dangerous leftovers".

[@Taurmin]

Probably not as much as you think. Public opinion on nuclear power had started to sour already in the 60's and 70's, long before Chernobyl or any other major incident, because it was connected to nuclear weapons in the public consciousness. My dad grew up in the 70's and up until a few years ago he still had a stubborn belief that nuclear powerplants could explode like an atom bomb.

[@rowlandsAable]

@@op4000exe Exactly, not to mention that in the case of Fukushima it took one of the worst natural disasters in Japanese history to discover those safety problems.

[@lukash2155]

Or if they invested in thorium instead of uranium

[@rickybojangles162]

Nuclear would absolutely save us. It's constant, safe, well regulated, and produces a ridiculous amount of energy. British energy independence would be amazing!

[@jeffsterling2809]

Yeah I love this, nuclear is so underrated

[@aaroncousins4750]

"Safe"

[@Nasherrrzzz]

@@aaroncousins4750 Relatively yes, there have been 2 accidents in how many years. One was die to poor maintenance with Chernobyl and the other was due to a natural disaster which is unlikely in our area of the world, whereas Japan is next to where tectonic plates join. On the former, safety standards have come a long way since

[@Emsworth377]

@@Nasherrrzzz yep. A modern reactor is very safe (especially in the uk) and also very carbon neutral

[@aaroncousins4750]

@@Nasherrrzzz Chernobyl still has an exclusion zone today. Regardless of it being a low chance, its still a chance

[@emildavidsen1404]

I need to write this. Thank you France for not being, in this particular case, as hysterical as the rest of Europe back in the 80's. I'm pretty sure your nuclear agency and supply chain is going to get a much deserved renaissance over the next decade.

[@tavorliman9286]

Amen

[@M.M.83-U]

I hope so

[@manup1931]

Their reactors are feared by neighboring countries.

[@pcuimac]

Just watch Nuclear reactors in France being shut down, because they can't get rid of heat during summer heat with ever increasing heat extremes. To every problem there is an easy and wrong solution!

[@emildavidsen1404]

@@pcuimac … this... this half-truth nonsense is what I'm happy the French population don't/didn't take seriously. You are clueless and have no idea as to the real reason why they shut down some plants during the summer period. Its pretty easy to google actually - not that that will change your mind nor improve upon your critical thinking skills - just saying it for anyone out there who wants to find out the specifics as to the half-truth nonsense you are spewing.

[@maciejlato2369]

The problem with the Office of Nuclear Regulation in the UK is that there are no set guidelines for the nuclear energy companies. They just say "Prove it" and EDF scramble to bring enough evidence to the ONR to try to satisfy this. It's far too subjective as the requirements vary depending on the day and ONR regulator in charge at the time. The French equivalent just sets out specific requirements which makes the whole safety case and risk avoidance so much easier.

[@Calum_S]

That's the normal approach to safety in the UK. Setting objectives allows for more flexibility in achieving them, and allows for technological progress. The prescriptive approach to H&S is generally seen as too rigid and hard to adapt when circumstances or technology changes.

[@bishton]

until the French go on strike

[@macsmith6216]

That’s not true

[@J069FIX]

While this video concerns the British option for nuclear power, in Finland the Green Party has finally realized the foolishness of their previous antinuclear stance, and the Government is now investigating the possibility of building one more large nuclear power plant in addition to an indetermined number of smaller nuclear reactors.

[@patriarch7237]

Finland is also leading the way in a solution for disposing of nuclear waste, providing a model for others to follow.

[@nwickstead]

The UK green party are against nuclear. It's literally the only part on the manifesto I disagreed with.

[@pcuimac]

May be possible in Finnland with cooler summers, but in England you will have to shut them down during hot summer spells. Otherwise they will explode like Fukushima. No primary heat sink means BOOM from overheating.

[@gilian2587]

And Germany is still doggedly anti nuclear.

[@JamesRoyceDawson]

If only the world hadn’t been so scared of nuclear in the 20th century. We might not be in such shit with global warming if we’d transitioned to nuclear for a lot of our power

[@intranix]

The future was always Nuclear. Just need leadership to push it through.

[@lucacoccioli9244]

Very glad to see a shift in nuclear's reputation lately, hope more environmentalists will come around to nuclear energy especially thorium.

[@eksortso]

I'm glad for this change of heart as well. If demonstrated to be safer, newer nuclear technologies would alleviate many people's fears. Environmentalists are realizing this now, but regulators and the public at large still need to be convinced in order to get these new plants built.

[@wernerviehhauser94]

Irrelevant, actually. None of the new designs are proven to work at the moment, and for the next 20 years, it is unlikely any of them will be built outside of China. EPR-type reactors could be built, but no private company would since they are so expensive and take pretty long to build that the turnover time would be about 30-40 years on a 60 years reactor lifespan. Additionally, the nuclear waste problem would have to be solved first. I do support nuclear research and the developement of new reactor types, but I don't see nuclear power being a big part in future energy supply. What I see, though, is some companies creaming off subsidies and government funding with claims that turn out non-functional after some time. This won't help in the developement of hassle-free nuclear power.

[@eksortso]

@@wernerviehhauser94 This is why I don't discount small-scale efforts to produce power for essential facilities and regions with less than optimal capacity. No place should experience regular blackouts, so let there be non-subsidized entrepreneurs ready to show off the potentials of their technologies. As you said, waste management is not yet fully realized, so there are business opportunities, not yet fully fleshed out, to fulfill those needs as well. Don't ever expect perfection from the start, and don't start big. That is the entrepreneur's responsibility. Government's responsibility is to encourage the exploration of the energy market, not by picking winners and losers, but by focusing only on infrastructure surrounding potential solutions, i.e. interconnection, transmission, waste containment, and accident contingency planning. Regulations should not smother innovations. Let thousands try. And if they can prove their success, let them scale up.

[@TheMessiahOfThe99Percent]

“Environment” Caveman who only believes in windmills and solar panels: oonga boonga Me, with nuclear power: HAIL OPPENHEIMER!

[@ejbh3160]

For the full lifetime cost of Hinkley C they could give 20 million homes 4kW of solar PV which would generate 4000kwh of electricity a year each - worth £1000 a year at today's prices. 20 million homes X 4kW = 80GW Hinkley C is 3.2GW. A PV kit now pays for itself within 5 years... and it's FREE energy from then onwards. Add batteries for the cost of ONE more nuke and we would be exporting massive amounts of electricity for most of the year. And that's without even considering the massive potential to expand offshore wind power which already exceeds all our nukes combined. Nukes are a massive waste of resources and will be stranded assets before they're even built. Thorium was abandoned in the 60s because it was so expensive compared to Uranium - to try and re-develop it now would take way too much time and cost even more. Nuclear power is simply too expensive compared to wind and solar with batteries.

[@Knapweed]

Modular reactors would not only resolve the energy crisis, they would also solve a lot of the problems with distribution and expense.

[@CHALETARCADE]

Which is why the French are going all in and expect to sell even more energy in the future, but other countries could follow suit.

[@CHALETARCADE]

@Patrick Swan "plenty of radioactive waste" No, it actually doesn't, it generates some waste, not plenty, and the technology to stock said waste is very efficient and very secure.

[@Alche_mist]

@Patrick Swan Renewable energies are intermittent and, thus, they are masked fossil fuels (most of the times, natural gas).

[@mr.p215]

@Patrick Swan well we did, and look the mess we are in right now. Nuclear can produce 24/7, renewables depend on uncontrollable outside factors.

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

@Patrick Swan Would you rather a couple of tons of Radioactive waste or several tons of CO2 which will cause massive problems to the climate and our health.

[@pineappleshoe]

You mentioned hydro power alongside nuclear power earlier on. Yet no further comparisons were done. It would be interesting to have a similar video on that as well.

[@sampfrost]

hydro is fairly situational and takes a lot of land and can fuck environmental stuff, if we don't care about the environment as much hydro would be extremely useful but it mainly shines as a form of battery the mian bugger with hydro is finding places to put it - though there's some tidal based power gen methods which might eb interesting but, again, requires the right geography

[@Pegaroo_]

Hydro is great where its easily feasible but hydro plants only produce Megawatts of power not enough for base load, they are good as peaker plants as they can be spun up on demand Unfortunately we need Gigawatts for base load power

[@pineappleshoe]

@@Pegaroo_ but they gave it as an example for base power. Just seems weird they say that when it's ineffective.

[@andwhatdoiwritehere]

I belive a large reason for hydro not being a feasible alternative is topography. Only a select few countries can build hydro with any cost effectiveness (Norway, Sweden etc) and those countries are already maxed out. Then there’s the biological impact someone mentioned, hydro is becoming more controversial just these last few years for that reason.

[@crimfan]

Hydro has the problem that it's fine where there's a lot of flowing water but much harder where there isn't. It's also got a pretty big environmental footprint.

[@richardthompson7779]

Heard this so many times. 20 years to approve. Huge increases in budget. All sorts of HSE issues. It needs a completely different design - smaller, faster to approve and build, dissolved salts not water cooled. The technology is there - just nobody can be arsed to put money into it when they can go with the old designs and cream off millions.

[@bigbuilder10]

Molten salts aren’t yet viable for long term use. While they have been tested many times going back to the 50’s, there’s still major corrosion issues where the salt touches metal (aka, everywhere). Advancements are being made with increasing the purity of the salt which has lowered corrosion development from being within hours to weeks / months, but still not ready for commercial use. The biggest issue being, getting a large enough amount of highly pure salt is extremely expensive

[@dougaltolan3017]

Molten salt eats shit out of reactors. STUF about bloody thorium.

[@ipsyofab5870]

It would be great to do it with molten salt, but even with water I will be satisfied, It is even now quite productive, safe and not very expensive, and clean. Although, as you said, we need people to invest in them.

[@saminglis3857]

I think the government needs to push on educating the public about how safe nuclear power is these days. We have a big problem of the public not trusting it.

[@joshlikescola]

It's not just an issue with regulation, there is a lack of standardisation. France created a set of standardised reactor designs and built a ton of them, allowing them to share spares, skills and construction methods - making the whole thing a lot cheaper. Plus, getting private financial support for something like Hinkley Point C has been very costly because of the risks (not accidents, but rather it not getting built, having to shutdown early, etc.) Getting private finance for something like nuclear is always going to be far more expensive than if the government simply leant the money through state-backed loans and took on the risk itself.

[@vinniechan]

Yup I don't mind going that route just to get a bit of scale going to drive down the cost The Anglo way of doing things is we let many different designs and ideas to compete but I don't think we quite have the scale of the Americans to get the initial investment down especially compared to the Americans and the French we are just starting out

[@LetsTakeWalk]

I am all for it. This is an issue beyond Brexit and I support the UK for investing in it.

[@guardianangel6926]

Recently a leading advocate of nuclear power in the Netherlands claimed that 1) nuclear power is the cheapest and most reliable energy source, and 2) the cost of building a nuclear power station is defined as 8:8:8 meaning: building a nuclear power plant takes 8 years, it cost €8 billion, and its lifespan is 80 years. Reality, however, is very different: 1) A nuclear power plant is only efficient when used at full capacity. Scaling down production during times of high solar or wind yield is not an option, because it would result in an explosive growth of the cost of nuclear energy production. 2) In reality, building a nuclear power plant takes 16 years (from planning to production), it costs €16 billion and it reaches the end of its economic lifespan within 40 years.

[@MDP1702]

I think 60-80 years lifespan is actually correct for new plants, though the rest you said is correct.

[@jamesfletcher9032]

@@MDP1702 people thought the powerplants being deconstructed would last almost this long however they were incorrect, we can only see with time and tech advancements

[@MDP1702]

@@jamesfletcher9032 I didn't said anything about the deconstruction time, however if you want to talk about it, that is fine. I don't really get what your point is though. At this moment around half or more decomissioned reactors just get/are left encased for several decades (usually 4-5) untill they eventually get dismantled in a way that is easier and thus cheaper than if done directly (ofcourse you can't use the land for anything else/new reactors during this period.

[@Jay...777]

Waste is the elephant that's ignored in the nuclear debate. It's a complete nightmare. A spent fuel pool fire would contaminate an area 30 times larger than Chernobyl's fire, with radiation hundreds of times more lethal, lasting hundreds of years longer. The containments around the world are all rusting away and show every sign of being forgotten about.

[@clayw1996]

@@Jay...777 how much do you really know about nuclear waste? Do you know that the amount of nuclear fuel to power your entire life could be held in your hands? Also, how much do you know about waste from wind and solar (e-waste in particular)? Radioactive waste can be reprocessed into new fuel and the minimal waste of this process is only dangerous for ~300 years. Chemical waste from solar panels is dangerous indefinitely. Do you know that nuclear power uses 400 times less space per unit energy generated? I think you need to do some more reading on the subject. Your facebook mom-esk quotes are ridiculous

[@yonislegrand7280]

I am apprehensive of when you said nuclear being "overregulated" is the problem behind the costs. It has more to do with the lack of experience in project management and the inconsistency of regulation (for example regulations being changed during a project, or multiple regulators requesting slightly different calculations). There is a lot of "security theater" which doesn't increase the safety. But it's not like our safety expectations are too high. The main problem for cost increases in the west is bad project management, a lack of economies of scale and standardized designs.

[@lesvalernipi9871]

Clearly Nuclear is neither easy nor cheap. France was smart to start in a time where more land was available and the Government could more easily impose stuff. I'm for Nuclear but in a transparent manner.

[@looseycanon]

You're not exactly right... You are close, but not there. Security these days isn't about reactor going critical as a result of some miscalculation. There are redundancies for that. No, these days, it's about who can make it reliable in a sense, that some nation/corporation can't blackmail other governments and companies, by threatening to shut off the safeties built in... That is exactly why China (can't remember the company now) and Russia (Rosatom) have been banned from construction of new blocks in Dukovany nuclear powerplant in Czechia, and why it will be more expensive... But lack of economies of scale and standardization are pretty much spot on.

[@yonislegrand7280]

@@looseycanon That could definitely be a factor. However I had the issues of constructing EPR's in th UK, France and Finland in mind. Because it was a consortium of different European companies (including Areva and Siemens), these EPRs had to get licensed multiple times (once in France, UK and Germany). They had issues with internal law suits between partners etc... Perhaps Rosatom could've done it cheaper, but they may as well have experienced the same issues as EDF.

[@yonislegrand7280]

@@lesvalernipi9871 Of course it is not easy nor cheap. Land use is one of the factors in favor of nuclear energy. But yes, the French expansion was done as an infrastructural project. I agree that the costs of nuclear should be transparent. I just don't agree with the suggestion that we need to relax safety requirements to make nuclear construction cheaper. There are so many other ways to do that.

[@looseycanon]

@@yonislegrand7280 That would have experienced the same issues as EDF. Basically all major scale projects do, be it EIA or some other certification, you have to get, when things get big enough. Problem of nuclear is, that it's always big enough.

[@tz2499]

Love the Minecraft coal being put in there!

[@Pegaroo_]

If only we could nip over to the nether and get a couple of buckets of lava

[@jeffgilmour1107]

So what are France's costs per gigawatt and risk levels? Seems odd to elevate them earlier in the video and then to ignore them when you get down cost/risk analysis

[@InTaco7]

It's pretty high, and they didn't escape the energy crisis because they rely on gas for grid stabilization

[@MDP1702]

France's costs were in 2019/20 (don't remember which one) around 2 cent/kWh cheaper than Germany's in regards to the actual production. You need to take into account that Germany started the transition when renewables were still more expensive. In regards to the overall price ignoring only taxes (thus generation+transmission+distribution), the cost difference was around 3-4 cents/kWh.

[@Pegaroo_]

@@InTaco7 we're relying on fossil fuels for base load 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@InTaco7]

@@Pegaroo_ base load is an obsolete term. The grid supply doesn't work like that anymore. When it is used, it's derogatory for plants that can't do load follow, and this does include older nuclear plants. In essense, any plants not required to do load follow are inherently being subsidized at the cost of all plants that can do load follow.

[@jeffgilmour1107]

@@InTaco7 This is regarding their Nuclear power plant builds, which compared US UK vs RoK & PRC built plants

[@BZAKether]

Some interesting numbers. In the USA the yearly release limit for a nuclear power plant is 260 microsieverts a year acording to EPA. The yearly dose from natural potassium in the body is 390 microsieverts per year.

[@rocco3937]

I wouldn’t say renewable energy is right or left because I’m socially and economically conservative but I 100% agree we need to do something, perhaps not as extreme as many but still agree with the basics, the idea that climate change related issues are right or left is just media propaganda.

[@alexpotts6520]

It shouldn't be a right or left issue. I am actually quite angry at left-wingers who try to "own" the issue, or turn climate change into an opportunity to fundamentally re-evaluate to the social contract, because such behaviour puts off much-needed allies (like yourself) in a fight that the whole of humanity needs to get behind.

[@Aethelos]

I'd imagine the division was deliberately constructed to make it political rather than purely scientific, likely by fossil fuel-backed politicians and pundits.

[@SocialDownclimber]

In my country, climate change issues are extremely political. The right wing media and politicians regularly denounce climate change as "fake" whereas the left wing media and politicians try to make policies to address climate change. Political bias is a powerful predictor of belief in climate change. Some right wing media outlets have recently come around to admitting that climate change might be real, to a large backlash from their readership.

[@domm1341]

We should have been building a new fleet of nuclear power stations years ago. Now is the time to just get it done. Quite like the look of the smaller modular designs.

[@mab9614]

Britain is finally making a correct choice: choosing pressurized water reactors (some 40 years late than most other countries). We should never have chosen advanced gas cooled reactors. Instead of operating 60 or even 80s years like the PWR, AGRs must be shuttered in just 45 years or even earlier. Great Britain had two costly but failed projects back in the 20th-Century: Concorde supersonic jet and our advanced gas cooled reactors.

[@metarus208]

well said but no potshots at the Concorde pls.

[@mab9614]

@@metarus208 I think you do know that only 20, TWENTY, were ever built. Compare that with 1,500 747s and more than 1000 777s delivered. When Concorde was first designed it was “revolutionary” for sure. Twenty Concorde jets at the expense of billions of design works and test flights?

[@metarus208]

@@mab9614 It's time will come. Like for all good things. The Paris disaster was not its fault. But 20 is an atrocious number. Concorde was not built as a mass transport unit but as a ferry across the Pond for the rich and famous like Blair and the Royals.

[@metarus208]

@@user-op8fg3ny3j true. I loved them when I was a kid. Want them back

[@mab9614]

@@metarus208 Concorde was designed as a passenger jet, but Concorde’s range and fuel efficiency are the decisive factors in her demise in the aviation industry. From JFK to Heathrow, Concorde needed a full tank to fly. A330-200 or 777-200ER could easily fly cross the Atlantic with a fuel tank that’s only filled up to 80 or even 75% capacity. Plus, the two could carry more passenger than Concorde. Back in the 60s, Concorde was perceived as a serious contender against 747. We know what happened to the fate of Concorde and 747.

[@ThomasDRobinson]

I think the analysis with road speed limits was perfect for this issue. Nuclear is not risk free and disasters can be more than catastrophic yet they also hold the key to unlocking human potential. With an advanced, ever evolving nuclear sector we could save this planet and power the world.

[@ejbh3160]

But we can do that with wind solar and batteries - and it would be cheaper... so why go the nuclear route when we can do it without creating even more toxic waste for future generations?

[@andrewtaylor9759]

Why does no one talk about hyrdo/wave power? We're surrounded by water! Tides are constant, coupled with nuclear energy the UK would have really solid energy sources.

[@jamesfletcher9032]

I agree, idk why no one has mentioned the massive costs with disassembling nuclear reactors, problems with storing the material created and the emissions of mining materials to create them, its not a miracle solution.

[@emeric3793]

Because hydro cannot be deployed everywhere (you need big height differences, mainly works in mountains to make enough energy to make a difference), and all the other you talk about (wave, tidal, etc), they are currently anecdotic and wishful thinking. What I mean by that is they are really no proven scalable wave or tidal energy, that can be deployed everywhere, without enormous negative effects on the local marine life. So yea, it's not a thing when making policy to bet your money on technologies that don't really exist yet. It's the reason that wind and solar are being deployed massively, because they are relatively easy to deploy, virtually anywhere, with the constraint that they have (being intermittent, and only producing when it's either sunny or windy, and sometimes large periods of no production). The best proof is 2021 was the worst year for Wind and Solar combined since the beginning of the 2000's.

[@andrewtaylor9759]

@@emeric3793 ah okay that's really interesting thank you. I was aware about the height needed for hydro, think we have some in Wales and I suppose Scotland too, but didn't know wave or tidal wasn't really viable at the moment. Hopefully something can be innovated to fix those issues one day, for now though, nuclear it is (with some wind and solar).

[@dougaltolan3017]

@@emeric3793 large scale tidal flow systems are not wishful or anecdotal, they are being rolled out now! Fun fact, due to staggered high tide times around UK there would be no need for storage. Fun fact tide times are predictable 100 years in advance.

[@checkxp]

@@dougaltolan3017 Do you have any specific proof of this? I mean I've never seen a significant share in any country grenerating tidal. Also it might be predictable, but it's also about 50% of the times unavailable (high and low tide), and every now and then (in a predictable cycle), you have also periods of very weak tides. So unsure why you say there is no need for storage, but there very much is!

[@auto_revolt]

Just two things to say on this video: A couple of times you said "fossil fuels will eventually run out" and while that's true we can't afford to let that happen, the number of oil reserves we already know about, without further exploration, would smash the 2°C target, so waiting for them to run out is a terrible idea. Secondly there are a lot more ways to store energy than just expensive batteries. Such as simply hanging a massive weight, attached to a generator, down a vertical shaft. It's unsurprising though about the view of nuclear around Europe given our history of it.

[@Jake-oz5mg]

a massive magnet suspended over a shaft is probably going to have less potential energy than a series of batteries for the same cost. there are already examples of big infrastructure projects in the UK which use GPE. They're large, very costly and not very efficient and that's with favourable terrain that made it remotely viable to begin with. Energy density is probably less too.

[@auto_revolt]

@@Jake-oz5mg there are no magnets (except in the generator) it's just a massive suspended weight. I can't say I know the numbers but say you have an old vertical pit shaft, all you have to do is suspend a weight down it, I can't see how that is more expensive than batteries. Unless you're referring to water energy storage? In which case yes, there are very limited locations that works and there's a significant loss of energy when pumping it back uphill.

[@alvaroludolf]

Or simply pipe water upstream to a reservoir... no need to get fancy.

[@auto_revolt]

@@alvaroludolf yes, like the one in Wales, unfortunately they can't hold much energy, are relatively inefficient and can only be built in very specific places. Realistically a range of energy storage would be best as well as a decent base level of energy production (like this video is on about) water storage has the advantage of being able to power up very quickly when there's a surge in demand. Other storage could mean batteries or hydrogen, which could be produced when there's excess wind and solar and burned when needed. The infrastructure needs investment.

[@MDP1702]

Gravity storage is probably the least usefull storage option there is, even hydrogen is a better option than that. The available storage potential of gravity storage is just insanely low compared to the costs.

[@bill2893]

In physics class years ago we learned about using reservoirs to store energy - pump water uphill into a reservoir when energy demand is low and let it run back down through a generator when demand is high. This is already in use in some places and it seems like the perfect solution to the problem of unpredictable supply, but I've never heard this idea even be mentioned since that class.

[@Flutesrock8900]

It's mentioned in most videos related to the subject, it's called pumped hydroelectric. However there are several problems with it: a) It requires suitable geographic features (Norway/France are great, Denmark/The Netherlands are horrible) b) It either completely changes the ecology of huge areas, or requires the displacement of large amounts of people. In specific situations, it's a great idea, but it won't work everywhere unfortunately.

[@richardreed7677]

One of the downsides to this idea is efficiency. Each time energy changes form (e.g., electric -> potential), you lose a significant amount of energy to waste heat.

[@92Pyromaniac]

@@richardreed7677 This is true to a point, but pumped hyro actually has shockingly high efficiency. Around 80+% round-trip efficiency, which is very good.

[@92Pyromaniac]

As the below poster has said, hydro is amazing but it really depends on having the geography. In fact, hydro is so amazing that pretty much everywhere in developed countries that could be built, has already been built. The few remaining possible sites tend to have major environmental/ social costs.

[@joshlikescola]

This is done a fair amount in the UK - some massive installations in Wales. Unfortunately the sites are becoming increasingly marginal, so there is only so much capacity of this we can practically build.

[@OppoRancisis]

Nuclear, geothermal, and hydro are all way better than wind and solar. Let’s also not forget the development of fission power.

[@skylineuk1485]

I think you mean fusion maybe, we use fission currently.

[@StephenRayner]

DO IT! Ffs!! We haven’t got fusion yet so just use some of those excellent safety record fission designs. I want energy security

[@samlosco8441]

Yep, nuclear combined with renewables is an opportunity for a transitory stage of energy until fusion becomes widely available (or if it becomes available, if we're being cynical). At that point most of the world could coast along with renewables, nuclear, and fusion, and we could really start tackling other issues

[@Pegaroo_]

We ain't going to have fusion anytime soon as the saying goes its still at least 30 years away, France are building a huge fusion plant at its tipped to be the first reactor that might hit the breakeven point with regards to total energy in vs electrical energy out but even this plant is still a development / proof of concept plant Anybody got a Mr.Fusion going spare??

[@ash9259]

​@@Pegaroo_ That Iter Fusion Reactor's Q-Total does not break even, its Q-Plasma does. Meaning, the amount of energy in total that comes out of the process is perhaps 10% in comparison to the amount of energy that goes in in total, including maintenance, running the machine, all of that stuff. Fusion reactors are so, so far away, that 30, 30 and another 30 years later - it will most likely never be the solution to our energy problems unless we re-understand the physics.

[@crimfan]

@@ash9259 Agreed. Fusion is a LONG way off.

[@RedfishUK1964]

When we look back, I think not progressing with the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project - after all we can predict the tides. For an Island which experiences large tidal ranges it is an idea that needs to be progressed at least to Proof of Concept level

[@pointsnorth3924]

Yes Mark but the government doesn't want solutions it wants to create a society dependent on their energy supply no matter what it costs.

[@92Pyromaniac]

Unfortunately these sort of projects are derailed by nimbyism before they can even get off the ground.

[@KDLessAchievable]

I think the main problem the Conservatives had with the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is that it was in Wales. Had it been in South England the Tories would have approved it.

[@Tom-uy6te]

​@@92Pyromaniac That would be a problem to try and overcome/ find a way around. Don't have a defeatist attitude, it's not helpful.

[@Tom-uy6te]

another possibility I've seen put forward is having an agreement with neighbouring countries where we share energy with each other depending on where the wind is blowing, I think this should be explored too.

[@solmueliasanttila5221]

A few important, standard issues with nuclear power go unaddressed in the video: - Nuclear plants take a long time to build: a little under ten years on average, not including the planning time which can in fact be just as long. Even if we started planning and building plants immediately, this would still arguably be too late for the climate crisis. - Uranium ore mining is not unproblematic in terms of emissions, ecosystem disturbances, and worker health. - Broader availability of nuclear fuel risks nuclear proliferation (and, speculatively, national security as nuclear plants could become targets for terrorist attacks) - While the risk of accidents is low, it obviously increases as the number of plants go up. Accidents are extremely costly and may distribute risk unevenly and unfairly if local residents were unwilling to take the risk of living near a plant. Some studies show increased cancer risks for those who reside near nuclear plants as well. - Nuclear waste in the form of consumed fuel rods also creates a risk, and there isn't a completely safe, efficient, environmentally conscious method to deal with waste yet.

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

What nuclear power stations are you talking about? As if the radiation levels were high enough to cause an increase in cancer then the plant would be shut down with the area being evacuated. if that was the case then why haven't entire towns been evacuated.

[@tuxwurst5329]

problem with the baseload case is: nuclear power is way to slow to equalize the dynamicof the renewables. If power production and consumption are not equal at every second, the power grid will fail. To avoid this you then have to shut down the renewable production, which reduces the carbon free power in the grid. So if you want to maximze carbon free power you need a flexible baseload production - like gas. the good thing is you can gradually change the sytem from natural gas to organic gass or hydrogen and synthetic gas produced with renewable energy when there is plenty. the only mistake we made is, to go for short term contracts with GasProm. now we got the short term gas prices...it's that easy. Other cases to make, why nuclear power is not at all sustainable: - mining, enrichment, and disposal of nuclear material is not carbon free - cunstructing nurclear plants uses a LOT of carbon - caretaking of the nucear waist is a burden for thousends of generations - the risk of an accident in the plant can be calculated, the risk of a leakage over hundred thousand of years and their consequences can not. - ignoring and dumping the waist of our power production was the basic mistake we made with the oil and we should not repeat it with uranium

[@ikihaku]

True about baseload. Nuclear will provide basically static output to the grid. But it's better with nuclear offset, then without it. The point about mining and enrichment is questionable, as natural gas pumping, manufacturing of PVs and other "green" sources is also not carbon neutral. Sadly, yes, nuclear power plant construction is carbon intensive AF. Humongous amounts of concrete required, plus other activities. This is why smaller reactors may save the day, as they don't require so much reinforcement and security Also an issue with large reactors is that it takes ages to prepare the site and complete construction. Basically like to born and raise a child :) Renewables are great because it's very easy and fast installation. Nuclear waste issue is highly exaggerated. Surely, there is some process involved, but the amount of waste is manageable. Waste treatment is not carbon intensive, basically a very long term storage. There is a technology for that, plus some progress made towards closed fuel cycle. Totally sure this problem would have been solved now if nuclear topic was not oppressed for decades.

[@darkratoon5436]

i agree with your points but disagree on their range, during their lifespan nuclear energy is the most carbon efficient (less than renewable it is a 2 or 3 ratio compared to 30 with coal or gas but still less CO²) renewables like solar panels use different technique which will long term affect the environnment and the sources of contamination are more diverse than just radioactivity which may be less and less impactful as techniques develop; it is easier to fix 1 problem than 10 imo. RIght now, to fix the balance of energy and instant consumption issue, hydrogen/batteries/capacitor seems to be the way to go to smooth the curve.

[@jeffdingle9677]

Thorium reactors could be the answer as Thorium seems to be a safer alternative than just pure Uranium nuclear reactors. Thorium is classed as 'fertile' and acts like a catalyst and the small amounts of 'fissile' Uranium in the reactor are nearly used up completely and then it ends with a very low half life and as a result is easier and safer to dispose of when spent. Thorium reactors apparently can be turned off when running unlike purely Uranium reactors which cannot and are ideal to replace or upgrade existing reactors around the globe, particularly in or near earthquake or volcanic zones. Thorium is also easy to mine, in fact it is a waste by-product in Uranium mining and millions of tons of it is return to the soil as unrefined spoil. Thorium mining would cheaper than just Uranium mining and as such should equate to cheaper, safer and more sustainable energy in the future. It is said that a ball of processed Thorium 2cms in diameter would be the complete energy requirements of a person in their lifetime. Simply multiply that by the population of a country or the globe and we will still have tons of it left in the earth to mine as it isn't even rare.... Please check out the Ted X talks on KZbin and the Scandinavians who seem to extoll its virtue...

[@octavian8212]

The #1 problem with thorium to me is that this is all theoretically possible, but has no implementation in any country to my knowledge. Why would this technology which is so similar to other modern nuclear not be used? Modern Uranium reactors also can be turned off with nothing bad happening.

[@dougaltolan3017]

Molten salt eats shit out of reactors

[@gavinturnbull5646]

Two Questions: 1) Does reliance on nuclear power not have the same problems as coal for the UK. We have no uranium mines therefore if demand goes up we are at the mercy of international markets the same with the current oil and gas fiasco only oil and gas are more common than uranium ? 2) Out of interest why did you label one side of the argument "Left" and the other "climate sceptic" ? Thank you

[@vaclavdockal6272]

There is a lot of it in Australia :)

[@Alche_mist]

For the question 2, that's just some biases at work. Not particularly undeserved, but medially overblown. For 1, it comes to the energy density and ease of storage. Basically, the fissile material is SO energy dense and solid (i.e. easy to storage, unlike, say, gas) that it's quite easy to store several years worth of the fuel directly in the nuclear facility area with not much of costs to speak of. Thus, while gas takes several weeks and oil several months to become a problem once the markets go crazy, nuclear fuels takes multiple years - and if there's such a problem for multiple years in a row, the world is already f*cked for many different reasons anyway.

[@danwelterweight4137]

@@vaclavdockal6272 and Canada too.

[@samyockneyonclimatechange879]

I think when they talk about the 'modular mini reactor' they're referring to a thorium molten salt reactor. This is the future- thorium is safe, scalable and abundant.

[@jeremiahcutright81]

Not necessarily. There are a plethora of projects looking at SMR tech and a large amount of them do not use thorium for their fuel. There are pebble bed, sodium cooled (like the Natrium reactor being worked on by Bill Gates backed Terrapower), gas cooled, fast neutron and molten salt reactors, as well as smaller designs of the traditional light or heavy water reactors, like have been used for aircraft carriers and submarines for decades now. To my knowledge, thorium fueled reactors account for a small percent of these initiatives, but I agree in that thorium molten salt reactors are really great tech to be pursued. Seeker made a video recently about the progress of China's T-MSR program for anyone interested.

[@janaussiger4111]

Well yeah. Except the part where it's actually insanely expensive (to the point where it has to be subsidized by the state)

[@peacefuldawn6823]

I'm so happy the world is turning around on Nuclear Energy. There's straight up no valid argument against it since Nuclear Energy is objectively better to all other forms of energy on every single metric. I sincerely hope governments and markets follow through with embracing Nuclear Energy.

[@themightycat7238]

There is one though. Its massivly expansive to build one.

[@KhaalixD]

buuut what if it go boom, its scawwy :(

[@themightycat7238]

@@KhaalixD what if you step outsidd and somaone stabs you with a knife, mightaswell stay inside the rest of your life by that logic

[@KhaalixD]

@@themightycat7238 well yeah no shit, that's why I stay inside. Imagine unironically going outside in 2021 lmao

[@peacefuldawn6823]

@@themightycat7238 The initial cost to build is expensive, but thereafter NE is much cheaper to run

[@hakarthemage]

The UK is perfect for nuclear.

[@Edithae]

No earthquakes or tsunamis here, which are the biggest risks to Japan's nuclear power stations. Just need to not be stupid enough to build it on a flood plain. Oh who am I kidding our Government is that stupid.

[@curry117brine6]

@@Edithae i mean if he built it next to the Thames, noone would notice if the reactor started leaking

[@jasonree]

@@user-op8fg3ny3j your right about paranoia, anyone would think that the UK and US had watched too much Simpsons!!

[@bobmartin9918]

The UK has loads of Uranium under it's soil. We would not need to outsource fuel...

[@ronan_the_barbarian]

@@bobmartin9918 It has some but it makes more financial sense to import. The UK currently gets its uranium from Kazakhstan.

[@KhaalixD]

Great video!

[@jasonree]

Excellent explainer!

[@wiseass2149]

We need Thorium molten salt reactors.

[@berlindude75]

And yet nobody wants to live next to or near a nuclear power plant or nuclear waste repositories (which is a bigger problem in densely populated areas such as Europe), nor face the long-term effects (half-lives in the hundreds of years) of spent nuclear fuel and decommisioned NPP components.

[@billheughan637]

Real estate prices around my local nuclear plants are quite something to behold, actually. The local town by my nearest one is also way more vibrant than any of the surrounding towns, as unlike other clean energy sources you are surely thinking must be better, nuclear plants offer longer-term, highly unionized, well-paying jobs. Meanwhile, every day I drive past an empty solar field built by contract workers who don't live around here anymore, with materials with...shall we say...questionable ethical origins. I'm hopeful that governments will force solar to up its game, but right now it's a pretty stark contrast. All this while you go on about the effects of nuclear waste hundreds of years from now, despite a long history of power reactor waste being handled safely, leaving aside that we've got 30 years max to ditch oil and gas. I think you're letting your politics do the talking. Which makes sense, as germany is having a bit of a cataclysmic year when it comes to dependence on russian gas and german coal. I will only say to you that this year's electricity carbon emissions statistics will not be kind to your country - I hope that it will be a wakeup call.

[@ezeuzohakansson6149]

I'm just a layman researcher of carbon free energy but some of the guys who are experts in this field I follow have expressed that nuclear is more expensive than solar in the long run. Solar and wind is the way to go. To deal with the fluctuations you just need proper storage capacity.

[@Alche_mist]

And other experts hard disagree. You can find experts to support basically any stance, especially with such fuzzy topic as future predictions. I prefer using current data instead of future guesstimates and like energy security, so I'm all for nuclear. --- Also, one of the most common mistakes is to just take the amount of energy produced for X costs, but disregarding WHEN the energy is produced. Which is the key, because bulk energy storage is still quite far in the future (battery energy density is just not there and pumped hydro - currently the most probably best option - requires quite a massive local investment (you need to build two complete lakes)). And this disregard artificially makes intermittent sources (wind + solar) look better, while peaker plants (most often hydro or gas) look worse. For the "static-load" ones (typically coal and many nuclear types), it makes them look about the same as reality or slightly worse.

[@slickgamerhd1219]

I don't get why people are so against it. Its statistically safer than coal and oil 😂 and its clean energy

[@SplicedSerpents]

It's probably safer than solar if you include mining

[@susanpalmer4705]

Probably because for most over 60s the word nuclear usually comes before the word bomb.

[@mezmerya5130]

People are not against it, it's just a convenient agenda. Check france nuclear status.

[@AroAceGamer]

Maybe scared of a another Chernobyl?

[@thetowerfantasymusic]

People oppose it because,, if there's say an explosion, it would impact millions. But, with today's technology, an event of this scale is very unlikely, and those people have no answer when you ask them "so you want to keep using fossil fuels" ? Because that's what replaces nuclear when nuclear shuts down.

[@sweepingtime]

For the people who complain about nuclear energy, every method in the world comes with drawbacks, and nuclear is one of the less bad options. For all the fuss we make about coal and gas, the majority of energy production still relies on these resources. At this point, almost any alternative is still better than the norm.

[@Alche_mist]

The least bad option is geothermal, but 1) basically only Iceland has enough of its sources for its (rather small) population, and 2) it's basically nuclear with extra steps. Nuclear and hydro are about tied for the second least bad. And hydro is maxed out. Nuclear is decidedly not.

[@vlitz]

What are you even talking about?! What about the waste - radioactive for hundreds of thousand years. It doesn't matter at all if reactors could be operated Safe.

[@Alche_mist]

@@vlitz Things that are radioactive for long times are not radioactive strongly - that's just basic physics (namely first order reaction kinetics). Because that's so common, I guess I'll have to sit down some time and model the activity emitted after long time scales (most probably, a stationary state gets established after several hundred years at most, at which it will be "shining" about as much as natural uranium, but I haven't done the models yet). Also, it's far less waste than basically any other method of energy generation, virtue of nuclear's energy density. --- Also, humans will eventually come up with even better solutions for such a long-term issue, but only if they don't go extinct before due to burning our own planet by fossil fuels or by famine due to energy poverty.

[@jackerty]

Bit weird how political commentators were left or a climate sceptic. Is TLDR saying that if you right wind you are climate sceptic or that the right-wing does not have commentators? Anyway as left-leaning I'm being yelling about nuclear energy baseload for years now. Glad to hear that Finland is doing the right thing pushing the issue in the EU.

[@wwanimator]

Its not an inherent truth or something thats always the case, but its true that right wing people are more skeptic towards climate change than left wing people, so a generalization like this makes sense.

[@92Pyromaniac]

Yeah I felt a bit weird about left wingers being labelled as anti-nuclear. Maybe amoungst the uneducated virtue-signallers, who happily wave greenpeace flags and tout thier bamboo toothbrushes whilst protesting against the very projects that will have the greatest benefit for the environment. You'll struggle to find many engineers and scientists who hold such views.

[@guilhermeferrao5968]

I think the right just has a less consistent view on the topic than the left. While in the left most people seem to be anti-nuclear and fervently pro-sustainability, people on the right tend to have a more diverse range of views that would take more than the allocated time to explain properly. And while I get that there are always deviations, taking all of them into account prevents short, succinct videos like this to be made, so I understand their attitude here.

[@minhducnguyen9276]

@@92Pyromaniac And they thing renewable is the answer while ignoring that they still need to mine rare earth elements from third world countries and China to produce those "Green" solar panel, a process that's not exactly enviromental friendly especialy when transportaion is included. It's exactly virtual signaling when they export the eviromental burdens to poorer countries then blame them for that.

[@Alche_mist]

@@92Pyromaniac The problem is that those uneducated virtue-signallers are the ones on the left that get the media space because they are loud (and frankly stupid). And they are often gatekeepers to other approaches to the left, driving sane people away - leaving there alone, but still loud. Also, quite a lot of politicians either pander to them or are them directly (i.e. most of the Green parties).

[@redyau_]

Thank you, thank you!

[@gehrigornelas6317]

Nuclear power needs to be accepted as a part of the clean energy mix along with solar, wind, hydro, waste biomass/biogas, and geothermal, none of which are perfect but all of which need to be expanded. We also need to aggressively role out the half dozen or so energy storage technologies including batteries, pumped hydro, compressedair, cryo liquid air, stored heat, flywheels, gravity batteries, and the less efficient hydrogen for industry and manufacturing. The problem with nuclear isn't just the cost though, it's also that it's extremely slow to be built. So step one on that front is to stop shutting down nuclear plants, step 2 is to reopen all recently shut down plants that can be reopened, and step 3 is to expand the currently existing power plants by adding more reactors, that is the fastest, cheapest, and most popular way to add more nuclear to the grid. And yes, build some new ones, we will need some more to get to net zero by 2050, but we need to expand all of clean energies. Solar and wind get lots of attention for being so fast and cheap, but we need to capture as much biogas as possible from waste treatment, landfills, and agriculture especially livestock, which kills several birds with one stone. We need to expand and upgrade our hydropower. And we need to utilize every geothermal resource we can and start employing enhanced geothermal systems as much as possible. This is a complex multipronged effort, but we can do it. Energy on Earth is abundant once you build the collectors, containers, and distributors. It's the scarcity that is the artificially maintained illusion. And on the other side of this we will have a cleaner, healthier, more stable, sustainable, more convenient, less expensive, and more prosperous world.

[@tristanbeal261]

A solution that people miss is the second kind of wind energy. Airborne wind energy is close to being developed enough to deploy and unlike ground level wind energy it's much more consistent in it's power output.

[@gulliverdeboer5836]

2 billion per GW is still not as good as it sounds: it's comparable to what recently completed offshore wind energy projects have cost, so what exactly would be the reason to gamble on miraculous huge price decreases instead of going for proven renewables, other than that it makes Tory voters feel warm and fuzzy inside for how contrarian and tough "nuclear power" sounds? It's also by definition impossible in the UK to get the same price as the Koreans since Korean hourly wages are 50% lower and such price estimates for nuclear are very finicky anyway because they often don't account for things like decomissioning costs, waste storage costs, insurance guarantees, etc... Some do take all those things into account, but the point is you can't just copy-and-paste such numbers. I expected better research from this channel

[@macdodd]

In Scotland we have a huge Hydropower system to back up our wind & solar power, we also now have Tidal energy with many sites for wind & seapower along the coastlines.

[@stantorren4400]

England does not have that luxury. You’re well off with it, england have can nuclear

[@thetrainhopper8992]

One other solution that could become viable soon is geothermal power everywhere. Technologies currently in the testing phase could do that in the next few years. Also, liquid air energy storage is also undergoing live testing which coupled with solar or wind would be about as expensive to build as a gas plant assuming no penalties for climate change.

[@kasper7203]

Why should we take the risk of waiting and hoping? We have the solution right now.. It's not coal like the concervative in the US think.. It's not unreliable green energy like Europeans still insist despite the current catastrophe around the world.. The solution is (and has been for the last 50 years) nuclear power..

[@Lorre982]

underwater marine turbine or pawer wave energy, use the sea you are onna forking island, you have water all round you.

[@aussietom85]

attempts at this have proved disappointing so far

[@dougaltolan3017]

@@aussietom85 rubbish! Submerged large scale turbines are being rolled out already

[@LoveDoctorNL]

France is leading the way (..edit) ON THE SUBJECT OF HAVING AN ABUNDANCE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY (.. edit) , there’s no denying that evidence

[@lewis123417]

Not on technology in general, britiain wins more nobel prizes per population than any other country

[@herlescraft]

@@lewis123417 I feel like he was refering to nuclear technology, but what do I know, i'm no nobel winner

[@lewis123417]

@@herlescraft and I was referring to technology in general

[@herlescraft]

@@lewis123417 yes, you said so in your first reply.

[@KelticStingray]

@@lewis123417 is that not Iceland?

[@MrGonzonator]

You should mention the Xlinks project to supply baseload renewable energy from Morocco at half the Hinkley strike price.

[@julianatlas5172]

I'm for nuclear energy, but where is all the nuclear waste going to go? There is not enough permanent storage for nuclear waste, and some of it takes 1000s of years to decay

[@GreenJimll]

We need to be investing in nuclear technologies that can use the waste from previous generations of reactors as fuel, and hopefully reduce the volumes needing to be tucked away for 200,000 years.

[@ludwigkayser1236]

The main reason that nuclear waste is 'bad' is that it's radioactive. The reason that it's radioactive is that it's still FULL OF ENERGY. The vast majority of reactors are enriched uranium light water reactors that put the fuel rods through once, then dump them. The fuel rods are still 96% viable fuel for those same reactors, but now contaminated with some 4% Plutonium and actinides that interrupt the desired nuclear reaction. Digging up Uranium is currently really cheap, so most nuclear waste is just dumped rather than reprocessed. But France is already reprocessing increasing amounts of its waste for fuel, and is starting to look at its nuclear waste stockpiles as a national strategic reserve. Additionally, most of the remaining 4% contaminants (the Plutonium) can be used as nuclear fuel in other specialised reactors. Nuclear waste is dangerous because it is bursting with power. Clean power, if handled well.

[@ludwigkayser1236]

Also, even if nuclear waste weren't as much of an opportunity as a problem, worrying about 1000s of year half-lives on nuclear waste in the face of the climate catastrophe is a bit like worrying that you might get skin cancer because you haven't put on sunscreen while a lion is charging you. :)

[@drsnova7313]

There is plenty of storage space, all over the world, the problem is the nimby mentality everywhere.

[@lexslate2476]

Nuclear has its uses. But relying on it too heavily risks putting it in the position that oil is in now: worrying levels of influence belonging to the countries with the most deposits. There are a lot of renewable options, some of which are not especially dependent on the weather. Tidal systems, tower structures that eat the temperature differential between the ground and sky, geothermal. We have options. They're not even really zero-carbon, either. Huge amounts of concrete (which releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide), plus getting the fuel out of the ground and to the reactors in a usable form all takes energy. It's easier on the atmosphere than burning coal, certainly, but let's not call it zero-emissions. Also nuclear plants take along time to set up, especially compared with things like wind generators. They're very safe, provided they're well-regulated, but when they go wrong they can go catastrophically wrong. Like, you'd like to see the cost come down, but how to you feel about the phrase 'Yorkshire Exclusion Zone'? Personally I think we're going to need some nuclear plants, but if we want power available sooner and without worrying geopolitical impacts, we're definitely going to need to go ham on renewables.

[@Kevc00]

But the problem is that no renewable energy source other than nuclear can fill the gap of coal, gas and oil

[@marco21274]

@@Kevc00Why it can do it? The sun is the biggest fusion reactor we have. Building cheap collectors is much better and the supply is much higher and cheaper.

[@lexslate2476]

@@Kevc00 You mean a high base load production that can spin up relatively quickly and happens when we need it to? Hydroelectric and geothermal know that trick. Tidal's got reliability nailed. These work in a limited number of locations, but we can use them there to reduce the amount of fossil or nuclear plants that are required. Like I'm not saying we need zero nuclear plants, but let's not make them the bulk of our energy production. We should keep a few of them going, and build new ones when appropriate, but they take ages to build and the waste is A Problem. Also, nuclear isn't renewable, your phrasing seemed to imply that you thought it was.

[@Kevc00]

@@marco21274 have you ever tried using solar power in northern Europe? We have like 70% cloud cover, solar is practically useless in the north

[@Kevc00]

@@lexslate2476 it is legally classed as a renewable energy, hydroelectric is great except that they are very few places in Europe that can support hydroelectric production, tidal is great, unless you're a landlocked country then you're fucked, I'm not saying we shouldn't use all these, but nuclear is the most consistent renewable energy source

[@mrstevecox7]

Nuclear needs to be "NEW" nuclear: i.e MSR and Thorium based reactors. PWR/ Liquid Sodium reactors are still dangerous and wasteful. Change to new MSR/ Thorium designs in Europe is vital and urgent.

[@SparkysBarelyMusic]

Didn't the americans research thorium reactors for years and get nowhere, I agree thorium is a more ideal solution, but I don't think global warming is going to allow it in the short term at least.

[@bigbuilder10]

@@SparkysBarelyMusic the US did work on thorium designs back in the 50’s, along with uranium and plutonium designs. Issue with thorium is, it’s not fissionable. However it is fertile. Meaning, when Th232 (only naturally occurring isotope) is hit with an isotope, it forms Th233, which decays to U233 which is fissionable. That’s bad from a criticality stand point because instead of needing one neutron to fission U235 which will then produce 2.245 neutrons (an average of 2 or 3 neutrons being produced), you need multiple neutrons to produce and fission the fuel which will then yield about 2.48 neutrons (an average of 2 or 3 neutrons being produced). Uranium based fuels benefit from the fact U235 is fissionable and naturally occurring while U238 (the other main uranium isotope in uranium fuel) is not fissionable, it’s not considered a poison because it’s fertile and will decay to Pu239 when it absorbs a neutron. The Pu239 being fissionable means that over time, as U235 is used up, the Pu239 that was produced from breeding U238 is able to increase the fuel cycle life. Ergo, you produce more fuel from burning the initial fuel and extending the life and profitable of the initial fuel. Something thorium fuel lacks. As you decay thorium, the reactivity constantly decreases while Uranium based fuel decreases as well, it’s by a lot less.

[@BosonCollider]

Okay, but that would delay them by a lot. MSR resarch should be properly funded to get them out the door as early as possible, but modern LWR's should still be built in the meanwhile

[@BosonCollider]

@@SparkysBarelyMusic They researched it and got very far, then Nixon cancelled the program because it funneled money in the wrong district for his next election, and funded the fast sodium reactor project that was in a swing state instead

[@joefeely5291]

Install much more renewables and storage of such, fund research in these, and we should be covered.

[@doomking2874]

It would make a lot more sense to add thermal storage between the reactor and the turbine to nuclear from the base load to the variable load

[@faves2064]

Been saying this for years, outside if hydro and geothermal it's the most reliable source of power

[@crabbycrab9955]

Hydro isn't reliable at all. Look at Sweden! They're in massive shortage of power, and it's insanely expensive because Vänern have run dry the last 3-4 years and isn't producing as much as it used to be.

[@bigbuilder10]

Nuclear is more reliable then hydro or geothermal. Statically probability of decay / fission is always occurring. Droughts and flooding lower hydro output and geothermal output can vary due to the fact magma doesn’t always stay in one spot. Over years, areas once hot from magma flow can cool as the magma moves else where. Same reason volcanos aren’t always erupting. The magma isn’t always there, or even close to the surface. It moves around

[@dougaltolan3017]

Tidal!

[@user-nf9xc7ww7m]

I'm still trying to figure out why people concerned with nuclear meltdowns have no problem with a gas bomb underneath their homes that could blow up if the pilot light goes out. As far as nuclear goes: Chernobyl would be an example of grossly under regulated and corrupted. Fukushima is an example of multiple accidents leading to the meltdown. That and privatization in the aftermath. I think municipal or small region owned nuclear power would be best, as opposed to nationalised or privatized. With municipalized or regionalised, the shareholders are the residents of the area and vote for the board. Any profit is reinvested into the power plant or distributed back to the people in cheques or savings (lower costs)...in principle.

[@crimfan]

People overweight "charismatic" risks that are rare, spectacular, and feel out of control and underweight common risks that are actually markedly more likely. For instance, fatal accidents near home during the day are much more likely than at night when traffic is lighter. Yet people feel much more danger in the latter situation. There are many other examples ranging all over: Food, power, health risks, etc.

[@benjones1717]

What we should learn from France is that you must invest in Nuclear power, if you cheap out, you pay more.

[@cooper3806]

I feel like you mentioned but didn’t offer the alternative of hydro power, could you possibly make a video talking more about the subject?

[@HexenzirkelZuluhed]

Germany has still to determine where we will store our nuclear waste. Naturally noone wants to put it in their "back yard". So this seems to be a real problem... what to do with the waste afterwards. I think they investments into fusion research where vastly to small. That might have saved us from many problems. But it would have soaked up a lot of money over a long period of time with uncertain outcome. I'm still hoping for fusion to become viable, but I'm afraid it will not solve the current problems.

[@Ascarion47]

Germany is not alone with that issue. Nobody actually knows how to store nuclear waste. And *that*, not accidents or whatever other strawman proponents come up with, is the real problem of atomic energy.

[@billheughan637]

@@Ascarion47 France has been comfortably reprocessing its waste to reuse it. And even if they did not, the amount of waste is so vanishingly small and straightforward to store technically (the idea that nobody knows how is a bald-faced lie) that we could conceivably leave the problem for the next century to solve. The issue is fighting decades of misinformation (such as the main assertion in your comment), in order to give political consensus to something which already has a significant technical consensus. Proponents largely haven't bothered because they understand quite well that the problem can sit for a hundred years while we, i dont know, deal with climate change first?

[@Ascarion47]

@@billheughan637 no, the issue is not at all that. Neither is it a bald faced lie that nobody really knows what to do with nuclear waste. Put in the earth? Fine. What kind of ground? What kind of containers? Can you actually make something that will guranteed prevent the ground or even worse the water from being contaminated? Hint, you cannot. Humans don't really thrive with irradiated food sources... The so called recycling of nuclear waste is quite the misnomer too. Mostly it's making mixed plutonium and uranium rods from the plutonium that's contained within the waste. That's pretty much it though. Almost everything else is not reusable. Im a physicist. Atomic power is fascinating, I'd love for it to be a reasonable solution, but right now, it isn't.

[@billheughan637]

@@Ascarion47 you're missing the forest for the trees, then. While we bicker about a problem that has some of the lowest actual measureable impacts on human and animal health and wellbeing in the pantheon of energy, countries like Finland have just about solved by turning the waste into glass, then putting it in granite formations. This is very much an actual project with real solutions to all these posed "issues". They're almost done making the tunnels. Processing the actinides (the so-called "unusable" remnants you are referring to, of course) is a step not taken by the french but entirely physically possible. Other companies are taking up this challenge. To reiterate, there's no fundamental physical or technical challenge you're citing here. I won't bother getting into the billion year old natural nuclear reactor found in a uranium mine that shows beyond a doubt that the waste is containable over a considerable time frame. Meanwhile, a bad wind year means that anti-nuclear Germany gets to scramble to burn Russian gas and German lignite to keep the lights on in the winter. That's thousands of peoples whose lives are cut short by fossil pollution over a mere few months. Putting that against the pessimistic estimate of a few thousand deaths from Chernobyl accident radiation, which consistutes nearly all deaths as a result of nuclear power from the last 60 years, and I just cannot fathom how a physicist decides the former choice is the correct one given the circumstances. Unfortunately, you don't get the luxury of choosing neither, as the default is gas to back up the renewables, no matter how many you can feasibly build. Many have wished this fundamental technical challenge away over the years, many have struggled against it, but as they say reality bats last, and this winter of exploding gas prices is no exception to that grim truth.

[@Ascarion47]

@@billheughan637 Turning liquid radioactive waste into glass is nothing new, nor does it change anything. It makes the waste easier to handle, but it's not any less radioactive. And as you've said yourself, you still have to store it somewhere. Likely underground. And then you have to hope. So in the end, nothing is solved and all we have, once again, is window dressing.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

We dam the Baltic Sea!

[@gilian2587]

For energy storage? That's the ticket!

[@DeusBlackheart]

They should use LFTR reactors. They run on high temp/low pressure thorium salt, and you can't make weapons from them.

[@Critizens]

They are man unsolved problems with molten salt reactors, even though decades and billions were already invested.

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

IFR reactors had so much progress, Why did the US stop funding its research as it could have made the American people prosper from an unmelt able nuclear reactor.

[@DeusBlackheart]

@@FowlorTheRooster1990 Long story short, Nixon and the head of the Energy Secretary wanted to make jobs in California over Tennessee. Also LFTR doesn't make weapons like the Fast-Breeder reactors can.

[@DeusBlackheart]

@@Critizens What are you talking about? University of Tennessee had one running for a decade. It was so stable they used to turn it off at the weekends. China and India are looking into them.

[@Critizens]

@@DeusBlackheart They are several reactors at Universities or other scientific facilities, but that doesn't mean it's running without problems or is ready for real-world (grid-level sized) production. For instance, maintenance is tricky, corrosion (hot, radioactive salt isn't that nice for most materials), long-term storage of radioactive fluorite salts isn't possible yet and a lot of 233U as a byproduct under certain conditions (which is almost perfect for nuclear weapons).

[@chrisr3570]

After watching a video on nuclear energy by Knowing Better, I realised it is much better than it's usually thought of. It's worth going down that road to subsidise the renewable energy.

[@generalsteam1120]

I'm off to look at that video

[@flo83t]

The lack of research and bias towards nuclear really baffles me. I would have expected more. It would be great to look at real costs for new powerplants and the timeframe it takes to build them. Moreover, if you start building one today you will build it with today's technology, not with the so far unproven fancy mini reactors that only are cheap when mass produced and the technology actually becomes proven... So yeah we might be able to mass build amazing reactors we can feed with old nuclear fuel in 2035-2040 but where will battery and grid tech be then, will we be able to get much more energy out of the sun light that lands on earth anyway? Will mass produced offshore windmills be much cheaper than too? Think overall you jump to early on a too shaky basis to your conclusion which you form in absolute form. I wish you would have used more research and a broader comparison. It may have said the same but who knows. Also would have been great to add the increased electricity demand for decarbonisation...

[@luisgutierrez8047]

We ALREADY have mini reactors: nuclear subs. And they WORK. the only problem is regulation... Battery's: 1. Create A LOT of e waste. 2. Require A LOT of precious metals. "Grid technology": still requires A LOT of manpower (high costs) to run power cables from the middle of nowhere to the grid...

[@SocialDownclimber]

@@luisgutierrez8047 Regulation isn't the problem, construction time and capital is. Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long for it to be useful to stopping climate change. It might seem great when it gets running, but renewables and storage have at least a six year head start and much lower construction costs. Nuclear is a tortoise, and it ain't going to win this race.

[@luisgutierrez8047]

@@SocialDownclimber France has manage to lower the costs due to standardization. So once microreactors become a thing, they'll be competitive. And.....y'all never address the MASSIVE AMOUNT of E-waste from renewables. Out of sight out of mind tho right. Just dump it into a third world country and problem solved 🤡 In proper waste management and responsibility, nuclear is LIGHTYEARS ahead of renewables.

[@SocialDownclimber]

@@luisgutierrez8047 lol ,that is a huge joke, and you are the butt of it. There is exactly one permanent storage facility for high level nuclear waste, and it only accepts waste from the country that it is located in. There are already many recycling facilities for solar panels, the majority of wind turbines are easily recyclable and there is rapid progress in the rest that so far is not easily recycled. Microreactors are less economically viable than large nuclear reactors, as they have higher costs per energy generated. What world will they be competitive in, when large nuclear is already struggling? Won't matter though, they will never get off the drawing board.

[@CentreMetre]

Thats what i was thinkng aswell, they never mentioned any downsides, like how it isnt renewable becuase the fuel used, (uranium mostly) is not infinite

[@tomduke1297]

standardised low pressure reactors are fine with me. just keep the explosive highpressure reactors where they belong. in the past.

[@sk8899]

If UK wants to remain significant in the 21st Century then it needs to invest in these areas:- (1) Nuclear-Energy => PWRs & FBRs (2) Fracking => Shale Oil & Gas (3) Space-Technology => Launch Vehicles (4) Ballistic Missiles => ICBMs & SLBMs (5) Strategic Uranium Reserves

[@Simonsvids]

For the UK, there is an energy source which is always guaranteed, does not need to be imported from elsewhere and does not produce any waste products. It does not depend on the availability of sunshine or wind. Tidal power, and the Bristol channel has the second highest tides in the world. Tidal lagoons please in Swansea and Cardiff. These were planned a few years ago but the London government refused to provide the funding. Nuclear power is just kicking the can down the road as it will also run out sometime.

[@KelticStingray]

Efficient generation, transmition, storage and usage. Nuclear is definitely the top contender for generation (for constant baseload but should be mixed with other renewable for diversification of energy stock). The grid distribution network needs updating, see example of cable in English channel. Pumped hydrostorage is great for putting surplus energy to use compared to batteries. The UK aging housing stock needs insulated for efficient energy usage.

[@Dondiggler1]

Having worked in the energy industry for the last 18 yrs i can say that we HAVE to accept nuclear as part of a safe a viable energy mix...how we get there is another question?

[@silverhawk923]

How long would it take to upgrade uks nuclear power?

[@pegarrecio5644]

What nobody has considered is the fact that a nuclear plant generates a quantity of heat similar to the energy produced. That heat goes to the surroundings as a pollutant. The homework hasn't been properly done.

[@jesseberg3271]

If either the American work on fusion or the Chinese thorium reactors come through, it will be a game changer. If Europe wants in on that action, the more the merrier.

[@angusryan4596]

Europe is already working on fusion. Theyve been doing it for years. "ITER Reactor" in france.

[@olsenfernandes3634]

Damn, makes me realise how far we have come even without Nuclear Fusion and how much farther we can go if we get Nuclear Fusion.

[@pierrereynaud784]

Also you have to take into consideration that most battery and solar panel materials pollute more than you think, they are not that green even when you take into consideration that it's really hard to recycle them after, they don't last forever. AND we are getting closer to Fusion reactors, which would mean UNLIMITED power and almost 100% green energy as they can use the nuclear waste from our nuclear plants as fuel, making it a full cycle and recyclable.

[@Poctyk]

> pollute more than you think Yeah, but they don't pollute in my backyard, so not my problem /s

[@Poctyk]

@@pierrereynaud784 Next time I'll write: *Disclaimer. Post is clearly meant in humorous/sarcastic way and doesn't reflect authors political, economical or social views.* Maybe this will help make it more clear

[@easyfencing]

pv and wind power are intermittent and shouldn't even be considered purely for technical reason as they need back up power

[@texasred5665]

This has been a long time bloody coming

[@guilhermeferrao5968]

The one thing that worries me about nuclear is nuclear waste and I don't really ever see people mentioning that. I'm not the most literate person on this matter, though, so if any pro-nuclear somebody could enlighten me I'd be thankful.

[@SlenderSeb]

The amount of nuclear waste is INCREDIBLY SMALL in proportion to the absurd amounts of energy that it provides

[@guilhermeferrao5968]

​@@SlenderSeb I've seen rough statistics confirming that, and there is great reuse potential, but I'm still skeptical. What I would like would be some sort of article, lecture or whatever about this topic, the technologies available, and the research being made, but I can't seem to find that.

[@njipods]

iv been saying nuclear is too safe for a long time but never really looked that deep into the regs. nice to know i was on the right track

[@val1511]

Very interesting video but you didn’t mention another solution that is sobriety (i.e. use less energy). One precise instance: if we rehabilitate the railway system and make it possible for a bigger share of the population to take the train instead of their cars we’ll need less energy and we’ll rely less on both fossil fuels or electricity nuclear energy! (Taking you car uses a lot more energy than trains). This works in almost any field like insulate buildings = less energy or produce food locally and avoid needless importation = less energy. Despite being very efficient and neutral in carbon emissions, nuclear is not a silver bullet, we should rethink our energy system to the very root so that we can rely less on any energy in general. This would reduce disasters like nuclear explosion (though very rare if we’ll handled) or natural catastrophe due to climate change and make us independent on many fronts. Let’s give it a thought …

[@92Pyromaniac]

This is very important, especially when you consider that energy generation is only a small part of fossil fuel usage, with transportation making up a larger share.

[@mcziggydelamcmuffin5016]

I fully agree and have been saying this for a few years now but this video is considerably more subjective than I've come to expect from you guys. Great here but maybe not next time you know?

[@kyqg2606]

In theory, yes, in practice in the U.S., whole different story. We have a long history of corporations putting short term profits before everything else. Over-regulated? Maybe, but then you probably haven't seen the lengths to which a U.S. Corporation will go just to save $1. I have no doubt 90% of those regulation are because of someone trying to pull a fast one.

[@poetpinch1396]

THis is actually one of the major problems with nuc'. You cannot run it as a conventional business.

[@NeutronStream]

Nuclear would be a brilliant for base load power along with solar, wind and battery storage. If decentralised battery storage grows, excess power during off peak periods can be stored in surplus battery capacity and used during peak hours. This would solve the energy crisis and provide long-term stability.

[@Stefan-jk5gx]

Well it wouldn't solve the energy crisis because eventually the charge in battery storage will run out, especially when there is a long term deficit in energy generation from renewable sources.

[@NeutronStream]

@@Stefan-jk5gx Hence you need Nuclear power for base load. That is a reliable constant source of power which can charge the batteries (or whatever storage medium) during off-peak hours especially when renewable sources aren't cutting it. If there is enough storage capacity on the grid, this will work. The problem is the scale and economics, not the physics.

[@joshimitsu666]

Really great video, I learnt alot on a subject I know very little about. Do have one observation/criticism though, I was really expecting you to talk about the Nuclear Waste problem, (ie, if it even is still a problem, what's the current tech like, what would we need going forward). Can anyone shed light on this?

[@92Pyromaniac]

It's still a concern, and we do need to invest more in researching better solutions (and hopefully now that will actually be funded). But whenever anyone mentions the safety of nuclear waste, I always ask them what they think about fossil waste storage (aka, pumping it out into the atmosphere, killing around 2 million people every year). People would never tolerate radiation leakages from nuclear plants, but because fossil plants were doing it before anyone knew to care they have maintained a free pass. And when people try to make a distinction between radioactive waste and fossil waste, it's important to remind them that fossil waste is actually radioactive too.

[@joshimitsu666]

@@92Pyromaniac wow, that's a great point, didnt even think of that, thanks for replying. Yeah even if nothing improves in nuclear waste disposal, it's still killing less and causing fewer problems than current fossil fuel usage! Like you say they've been given a free pass!

[@karmakarl6673]

It takes a good ten years to build a Nuclear Plant. Thats a LOT of carbon emissions during construction!

[@tamberlame27]

Any discussion of climate change solutions without nuclear power is a joke.

[@12kenbutsuri]

I wouldn't say a joke, but impractical.

[@geetarwanabe]

It's frustrating how we need to educate the uneducated about how good nuclear can be. I do believe liquid thorium reactors should be the investment in the future. Cheaper & safer with usable byproducts in other industries.

[@brianarmstrong3731]

Does this analysis include the costs of both building nuclear power stations AND the cost of decommissioning them? Oh and the costs of storing or disposing of spent fuel rods?

[@tommydplayskeys]

Yeah I wonder about the carbon footprint of all the decommissioning etc too. Maybe the newer types of reactor as opposed to uranium would be different?

[@brianarmstrong3731]

@@tommydplayskeys can't see how they'd be any different, Nuclear fission of any isotope would produce many radioactive isotopes as direct fission products and the neutron flux required to start and maintain a chain reaction will create radioactive isotopes in the surrounding materials come what may. Sellafield is a massive repository of spent fuel rods awaiting processing, stored under water and constantly monitored. Many with half-lives of hundreds of years. All sorts of ideas for disposal have been investigated and ruled out.

[@alexanderkollmann4984]

Watching from Czechia :)

[@cristoux]

Correction at 3:24 Nuclear is not renewable, it is clean energy source

[@AllPileup]

The Achilles’ Heel is nuclear fuel waste. You can’t just bury them deeper and deeper and expect them to not leak forever.

[@4vesta255]

High-level nuclear waste and spent fuel is almost always stored in solid form, I’m not sure how it would leak?

[@lukacsnemeth1652]

Why not? The finns did it. Deep geological deposition. The UK has some of the best geological structures for this.

[@Jay...777]

Waste is the elephant that's ignored in the nuclear debate. It's a complete nightmare. A spent fuel pool fire would contaminate an area 30 times larger than Chernobyl's fire, with radiation hundreds of times more lethal, lasting hundreds of years longer. The containments around the world are all rusting away and show every sign of being forgotten about.

[@winnetou9706]

What scientific data have you read on nuclear waste management?

[@Jay...777]

@@winnetou9706 If you want to know a lot about nuclear waste then old experienced lifelong nuclear engineers have been interviewed at length on many topics including waste storage on the YT channel Facing Future over the last year. Complete with the full engineering specifications on the construction of containment vessels, photographic and video evidence of their current status in USA and Europe. And a whole host more on spent fuel pools, etc, etc, etc. Take a look at the dark and religiously ignored side of nuclear power.

[@winnetou9706]

@@Jay...777 I see, so you have an opinion without really having studied this. Thanks. Well, we are either going to pay with nuclear risk and get serious about reducing CO2 emissions. Or we'll screw the environment with certainty really badly without it.

[@Jay...777]

@@winnetou9706 Well we could do something about all these waste storage facilities rather than just letting them rot, and have a real plan, rather that racing off to the next round of technology. And don't be so snooty, most nuclear scientist don't know the true state of decrepitude these containments have fallen into. After all, it is from neglect, so by definition it is consistently overlooked. The Chinese are developing Thorium - leaving the old world behind. But these new modular reactors are promising but they still produce waste. We will probable all die in the end, all suffocated and poisoned by our prolific waste. Humanities tombstone will read - The human race went extinct. They just couldn't be bothered to tidy up their mess.

[@winnetou9706]

@@Jay...777 The nuclear waste storage facilities are tiny, tiny compared to all other waste which we produce, because nuclear energy is many, many orders of magnitude denser than every other source that we have available. Unlike every other waste (including the plastic bags we throw out with our daily garbage), they are not harmful because they're being isolated from the environment. Nuclear is the only energy that manages its own waste, and does so successfully. Any fear about what "could hypothetically happen" is a risk we take to avoid much worse energy solutions - like everything else. I've read a lot on energy, specifically nuclear and have two family members who are nuclear engineers and worked in power plants. They think this is, by far, the best and safest form of energy we've got. And even after all this, I don't consider myself expert. I just find it interesting how many people know very, very little, watched some video somewhere, and are so opinionated and seem to know what the right thing to do is. Energy is a complex problem that is unfortunately very politicized and poorly resolved by uninformed public opinion. That, imo, includes thorium.

[@alphamikeomega5728]

Simon Clark has a good video on nuclear power and renewables. Would recommend.

[@theuglykwan]

What is the lead time? Does it not take decades to build? Long term solution but doesn't help us now.

[@simeonbradstock4214]

Aiming for 75/80% energy from nuclear 10% fossil fuels (cars/transport) and 10/15% renewables (unreliable but for diversification) is perfect. Nuclear power can literally use nuclear waste as well. Also nuclear waste is tiny, about a first full for one person's lifetime supply of energy. As long as the plants are safe from cyber, physical and natural disaster attacks and there's no corruption. Also standardising the plants would make this perfect

[@TheLukass71]

France made such a good move realising this 50 years before seemingly everyone else and not being deterred by the Chernobyl accident after. On the other hand, Germany's stance is absolutely awful where their ban on building new ones and the dismantling of old ones just forced them to build more ancient and dirty coal ones. Renewables-only investments are only good for out-of-touch-with-reality climate extremists.

[@simeonbradstock4214]

@@TheLukass71 yeah spot on! Renewables can and are good but only in a limited way l, they simply cannot be a bedrock of a power grid

[@Shire_Sam]

We need to start looking at Thorium Reactors and hydro on all major rivers. Battery backup in all houses and solar on roofs. Basically turn all houses into micro power generators. Its a large cost but that could be added to mortgages/ government loans.

[@aaronevans3656]

Hydro on major rivers is a great idea. Until you get some hippy eco nut job protesting because a fish can’t swim as far upstream

[@Shire_Sam]

@@aaronevans3656 there is a company called turbulent that make micro hydro systems that seem quite ingenious, they don’t block main river flow and are fish safe.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

Thorium Reactors are a fantasy project. They are breeder reactors generating very low levels of usable excess energy and have massive problems with salt corrosion. plus they generate shitloads of highly toxic, highly radioactive and highly reactive nuclear waste, that has to be watercooled for the next 500 years, unless you want a nuclear meltdown of waste material (what happend in Fukushima Block 4).

[@user-wi3yx3gy2o]

They should just try thorium molton salt. The reason traditional water and water-graphite moderated reactors fail is primarily because of the physical properties of water (and graphite).