I like your videos, but I can't stay subscribed to someone who continues to promote Masterworks. Please listen to what your viewers are telling you and choose a better sponsor.
Ehm, Slovakia was never part of the USSR. It was part of the Eastern Bloc, which is by far not the same. Back then, it was Czechoslovakia, which split into Czechia and Slovakia in 1994.
While technically correct, I'd say it's splitting hairs. For all intents and purposes, the eastern block was governed by the USSR. Eastern Europe wasn't so much freed from Nazi Germany as put under new management at the end of WW2... I know it's probably taken in the same way as calling a Scottish or Welsh person English though.
@@himaro101 If that is splitting hairs then let me declare that th USA and Canada are the same country, or that the State of New York bekongs to Texas. See what I did there?
Bohunice 1 & 2 are WWER-440/230, the same type as Greifswald-1 to 4, so not that new, when the Bohunice units shut down, the Greifswald units were already 11 and 13 Years into their dismantlingprocess. Also Slovakia was never part of the sovietunion, Czechoslovakia was only member of the Warsaw Pact.
@@tz8785 depends... If talking generally, basically any nuclear powerplant reactor can be considered "giant" as far as things go... I mean it is much bigger than a common washing machine or freezer. If comparing reactors to reactors, then you would be correct. And then the whole debate on the nature of Czechoslovakia... Fact is that while not technically integral part of USSR, it used to be a de facto vasal state with rather limited ability to govern itself.
I’m probably one of the few people who watched this video that actually has worked on nuclear power plants. I’ve been fortunate enough to work on the containment vessel at a nuclear power station, the refueling machinery and the sacrificial shield walls of a nuclear reactor. I really believe that nuclear power has a role to play in our energy production matrix. And that opinion isn’t based on my previous work in the field. I’ve worked in multiple coal power stations, biomass and municipal waste stations, natural gas cogeneration plants and hydroelectric energy systems.
There is a great video from a well known professor of energy resources, who proves with numbers, facts and graphs exactly the opposite. He shows that PV in Germany is even reducing the usage of nuclear in france. Nuclear is just too expensive and is too much of an economic risk. His video is called "droht das Atom-Aus in Frankreich"
@@BelaJuTe I’m a huge fan of hydroelectric power. I also think that tidal power has great potential promise for our future. The fact is that every type of power generation has its positive points as well as downsides. I believe we are going to need a BROAD mix of different types of power sources to serve our future needs. I am enthusiastic about small nuclear power generation systems, tidal, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy generation. Variety is the key for the future.
@@1968Christiaan And with the prices for Battery storage dropping fast right now cause of scaling up of the production will make it more and more a no brainer to have all houses with a PV and battery. So the storage close to the consumption and less usage of the grid.
@@toggleton6365what are you going to do with all those batteries at their end of life? Decommissioning is something required of nearly every power system, and batteries are some of the worst.
God sent His son Jesus to die for our sins on the cross. This was the ultimate expression of God's love for us. Then God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day. Please repent and turn to Jesus and receive Salvation now before it is too late. The end times written about in the Bible are already happening in the world. Jesus loves you with all His heart ❤️ but time is running out.
@@SchantaKlaus Put an underscore before and after the text you want to make _italic_ . You can also make the text *bold* or -strikethrough- by using asterisks or hyphens respectively
Have been waiting for an episode about Slovakia for so long and the absolutely wrong pronunciation of our towns did not disappoint lol. Gotta love that you just gave up on Jaslovské bohunice and just called it just Bohunice, which is a totally different village instead instead :D
God sent His son Jesus to die for our sins on the cross. This was the ultimate expression of God's love for us. Then God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day. Please repent and turn to Jesus and receive Salvation now before it is too late. The end times written about in the Bible are already happening in the world. Jesus loves you ❤️ but time is almost up.
If you're like me & not offering a dime for their show, I fail to see how your opinion has any relevance whatsoever. Even so, if you find their benefactors so distasteful (yet still not so bad as to replace them) and absolutely MUST make your feelings known, the best method is to unsub & move on. This Karen-esque moment has served only as pure entertainment... The very highest value to be mined from it. The rest is slag.
I once stood directly under a reactor pressure vessel, in the only nuclear power plant that was never put into operation and is now a kind of museum. It is located in Austria.
Bulgaria also shut down it"s VVER-400/WWER. They don't meet some requirements for safety and bioshield. VVER-1000 work fine. However ours were not disassembled. Interesting video
VVER 10%0 are newer design, with containment, which is missing in 440 design, or rather be using barborage instead, but that is not up to the EU standart, as there are no such type of reactor, construction philosophy in EU-15.
@@lukasvrabec5783 You can license reactors with the same containment type as the VVER-440/230 in the EU, like the AP1000, for example. The key point of the VVER-440/230 is, that the containment was not designed to withstand most of the expectable damages. It was only designed to withstand a slow gradual leakage of the reactor vessel, but no major failures, like a pipe rupturing or a corroded through RPV-head bursting or such. In those cases, the VVER-440/230's reactor building would just burst together with the primary loop.
Yes he did. Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia which was part of the Warsaw pact. USSR was something else and also part of the Warsaw pact. Did you expect accuracy on TH-cam?
@@Gecmajster123456 it WAS NOT, no matter how much you SHOUT. Czechoslovakia was under heavy influence of the USSR, but was never ruled by the Soviets, whoever that is in your understanding of the history.
Yeh the only company that actually got half way to making one went bankrupt with the explanation " it was just too expensive". Very honest, if a little late.
It's old news, but if you had to pick an old Soviet reactor decomissioning to cover, why not Ignalina? It has the additional fun fact of being only a small update to the Chernobyl design.
Ummm Slovakia was never a part of the USSR and I don't get how Chernobyl nuclear disaster is related to these, unlike RBMK reactors used in Chernobyl, VVER design used here is inherently safer so I have reasons to believe it was shut down due to stupid politics, not actual security concern
VVER is not as bad as RBMK (nothing is!) but there were serious issues in the early VVER designs, meaning they didn't meet European requirements any more. So it's not just silly politics.
@@xxwookey Ой, не надо! Просто ЕС не нужны были другие электростанции, им важно было держать Словакию на коротком поводке и при помощи дефицита ЭЭ это сделать очень просто.
@@WladimirGalkinVVER 440-230 is simply old design which missed many of nowadays important function and since these two units were on the end of the their lifespan, it was simpler to shut down them. VVER 440-213 (newer version) met security requirements. Slovakia operates 5 of this units and each unit has more power than each unit of VVER-440/230. One unit OF VVER-440/213 is underconstruction now. These day there should be some pre-operation tests done on these unit and by the end of this year it should start operations. But without that last unit, Slovakia is now energy exporter. Not to mention plans to build new units in Slovakia in near future.
My guess would be that you have different needs for other fuels. Cause of different temperatures and amount of power that you want to get out of it. For the same design with same characteristics maybe.
@@kingofthend The government is the primary cause of expenses in nuclear so if they decide not to be idiots it can be done pretty cheaply, like South Korea does it, but I doubt that is possible in Italy where they make a virtue out of being inefficient in everything they do...
@@spacecube8561 We no longer live in the 1970s, we have cheap solar, cheap wind and cheap batteries, and all are getting cheaper by the day. So get some actual facts and figures. Do you know what the cost per MWh of Germany's nuclear fleet was. Do you know the usual day ahead pricing per MWh in germany, and how often said pricing matches a price where nuclear power would have been profitable (hint: SMARD)? Do you know who pays for liability insurance for nuclear reactors (hint: Deutsche Kernreaktor-Versicherungsgemeinschaft), never mind dismantling or long term storage (belgium has some info: google for: "Ontmanteling kerncentrales kost minstens"). Do you know the construction cost of a modern nuclear reactor (hint: hinkley point C, and read up on "capacity factor"), compared to the cost of the most expensive renewable; offshore wind (hint: dogger bank) versus the cost of battery storage (hint: tesla mega pack). While you are at it, you can look up "strike price" and compare Hinkley versus Dogger. Please take the time to get some facts and figures and do some simple maths, and then you will quickly see that building new nuclear is economic suicide, and that inserting new uranium fuel rods in Germany's few remaining nuclear power plants by April 2023 would have been bad economics.
For a pressurized water reactor 30 years is as old as 5 years is for a car: not even half the life it has The design lifetime of 40 years for reactors from the 60s and 70s was based on extremely conservative estimates on neutron radiation embrittlement of steel. They chose an estimate that was sufficiently conservative to still meet or exceed the design life. The actual safe operational lifetime of pressurized and boiling water reactors is, so far, unknown, but definitely above 80 years.
Enjoyable video, also really happy to see the editing has gone back to visually pleasing smooth and bouncy transitions, and that horrible glitchy aesthetic has fallen out of fashion. I actually watched this one instead of just listening to it.
It is unlikely that “small” reactors will be adopted. They are still too expensive and take too long to be installed and permitted. Also to be taken into account are the hazards of mining and refining the fuel.
Wrong. They are affordable enough to be deployed now. Why aren't you asking to kill Coal when it kills WAY MORE PEOPLE??????? REALLY... Talk about misplaced priorities...
@@stickynorth Then ask NuScale what happened to their project in Ohio that already got quite a big Subsidy by the Inflation reduction act. And the likely hood of SMR projects going big overprice is not low. The fun part is that they are already overpriced when calculating with full load. But with so cheap Solar power pushing into the market the load will need to adjust and the price per kWh will rise even more. And we should have reached peak coal already where the worldwide consumption will go down. Battery storage prices already dropping quite a lot sooner than expected. The next years will mean big changes in the energy system.
1:55 Correction. Slovakia was never a part of the USSR, not even when in Czechoslovakia, which was also never part of the USSR. Check what you are saying!
Just curious why certain things like the cooling towers couldn’t be reused with a new power plant unless they were also in poor condition. Seems like certain things were destroyed just to destroy it.
My guess would be that different NPP designs need different cooling towers to operate optimal. And it seems unlikely that they rebuild a VVER design. And newer designs with a higher power output will likely be to much for a VVER 400 cooling tower.
It also depends on what technology is replacing them. For example, wind and solar (which is now cheaper than most nuclear power) doesn’t require cooling towers.
this is interesting... lesson to learn, when you design something that you are going to build, do it with the end in mind, to make decommissioning easier and cheaper...that complicates the design phase, but makes it better...but will it make the quality of the build better or worse? design better...thank you Fred, for yet another good one...
Im from Slovakia, and now new goverment is making a project for new Nuclear power plant on place where Bohunice were, and it should be similar small modular reactors like that one at the end of the video.
@@kpakaify The new block of the nuclear power plant should have an output of approximately 1,200 megawatts. Due to the lack of resources in the state budget, the government will have to proceed with the construction of the reactor in the form of a PPP project. According to him, a private investor in such cases demands a guaranteed purchase price of electricity for decades.
@@kpakaify According to Wikipedia : Decision made in May 2009 -manufacturer not yet decided.... "Four manufacturers have been mooted as possible suppliers: Mitsubishi, Atomenergoprojekt, Westinghouse and Areva"
@@1968Christiaan Westinghouse went bankrupt in 2017, which is why they cancelled the VC summers project. They recently got sold again for just 7.9B EUR, which is about a third of what it would cost to build one of their reactors... Areva and the nuclear part of Mitsubishi is now Framatom. Which would have been bankrupt for building an EPR in Olkiluoto if they had not been majority owned by EDF, aka the French state. So really good point.
It seems strange to smash the blocks of the containment walls into "rubble". It would seem easier to contain a radioactive block than a pile of powder. I guess powder is cheaper to deal with.
It sucks that they are fully tearing down the site. Obviously the reactor vessel itself needs replacing if it doesn't meet modern safety standards, but I don't understand why they didn't retrofit the plant to use a modern, safe reactor, and reuse a lot of the other infrastructure like the cooling towers, steam generators, and turbines, to generate power with a more modern reactor. It seems like that would be way cheaper, and would have less impact on their electrical grid and local economy. Also, if we're going to meet climate goals, we need more nuclear, not less. Including Chernobyl and all other nuclear disasters, nuclear has caused less deaths per kilowatt hour than any fossil fuel method of power generation, and even if you go really overboard and include the deaths caused by the nuclear bombings in WW2, nuclear still has less deaths per kilowatt hour than coal does. Coal power has even emmitted more radioactive debris into the atmosphere than nuclear, as the trace heavy metals in coal are released without any effort to mitigate it, while nuclear is highly regulated and emits virtually zero uncontained radioactive material. To put into perspective how incredibly safe modern nuclear power is, if you don't count Chernobyl, nuclear has the least deaths per kilowatt hour of any power generation method, including solar and wind, due to workplace accidents where people fall when installing panels on roofs or maintaining wind turbine.
In modern era, one disadvantage of nuclear reactors is their inability to rapidly adjust to demand/supply (for instance ramp down when solar/wind produce enough to supply the load and quickly ramp back up when wind dies down and the sun sets).
@@joshgardner4879 Easy, buy grid level battery storage. You can buy 88GWh worth of expensive tesla megapacks for the price of building one EDF EPR. And that's before that reactor has had uranium fuel loaded, with all the costs that entails. This is about a years worth of battery storage production today, but this production capacity increases by 2/3rds every year since 2017.
@@luc_libv_verhaegen the problem with that is that we don’t have batteries that are cheap enough and energy efficient enough to be used on an industrial scale… pumped hydro is working pretty well, but unless cheap solid state batteries become a thing they won’t be happening any time soon.
@@joshgardner4879 Hydro Québec is able to dynamically adjust its hydro electroc production based on how much solar/wind bring into the grid. By turning off turbines, it keeps water in the reservoir for later when it is used. The perverse: HQ normally exports to the USA. But when the USA has surpkus, because their "base load" can,t dynamically adjust (coal, nuclear, though natural gas can be adjusted quickly depending on design), the don't know what to do with surplus, so Hydro Québec buys the surplus for dirt cheap while tring off its own turbines and keep water in reservurs, Later, when tghe USa needs power, HQ will release that water to provide more power and sell it to USA. Where base load cannot be dynamically adjusted, it is useless to have renewables because you don't save anything as your base load continues to produce.
Interesting watch. Absolutely true, modern practices like digital twins, data analytics, and stakeholder engagement play pivotal roles in the effective design and management of modern nuclear power plants. They are essential for ensuring safe, sustainable, and economically efficient operations throughout the asset lifecycle-from initial design and construction to operational management, aging care, and eventual decommissioning.
We have non in my country. Saddness :( It's frustrating how demonised nuclear power is and how much of the anti nuclear stuff is misinformation and fear mongering
I'm obviously missing something: why is it not possible to re-use parts of these structures to house modern reactors? The buildings seem sound and the sites obviously are already linked to the grid. That said it seems strange to me to see what in the video look like blocks of flats a few dozen metres from the reactor building!
The blocks of flats are probably support buildings, NPPs need a lot of offices and other non-industrial working spaces, too. Some powerplants have in integrated directly to the powerplant itself, but not all/most. The reasons not to reuse the buildings are numerous, but probably the biggest once are safety and economics. While the building is in good condition most likely, it can easily be 40-50 years old which isn't new for any building. Most modern reactors are meant to be used up to 60-80 years and the building is hard to modernize once it's build. Also, every reactor is unique to some extent, and fitting a newer reactor to an old building would cost a ton, limit the design, and just building it inside the old building could be almost impossible due to how large (up to 500 ton components) and how complex it would be. Using an old building for a new reactor would probably force a slightly lower standard of safety in the new reactor, compared to using a new bulding. Also a more minor problem is the activation of materials by neutron radiation, outside the pressure vessel it's usually only minor, but depending on the reactor type, this could still be a large portion of the containment building. This isn't a problem as is, but does cause higher doses for workers. My knowledge isn't so much in the engineering, but in radiation protection.
0:55 "much cleaner than fossil fuels ... there's a drive to build more powerplants" Unfortunately no drive in World's 3rd economy: Germany 😢As far as I remember when they agreed to stop all nuclear powerplants, they started digging and consuming more coal, because green party wanted to stop nuclear power
are we talking about 2002 nuclear stop or fukushima based stop in 2009? 2009 was CDU and FDP. greens have been not in the government at that time. And the plan of the greens was to accelerate renewables a lot more than the CDU ruled government did in their 16years. The coal consumption in Germany was mostly steady since 2000 till 2018. With some heavy winters more and some years less. And is right now as low as it was in 1956. At the same time as the last nuclear reactors have been shut down and gas prices have been used as weapon by putin. Would it be better to get rid of coal first sure but this was a development that fueled a lot of discussions nearly every year. So it is what it is. Fokus now on getting the co2 emissions down of the country instead of repeating the discussion again. Enough work to do.
@@toggleton6365 shutting down coal power plants instead of nuclear power plants would've gotten germany's co2 emmisions preety low. i mean, just sayin'
Hopefully we see a sharp increase in nuclear power in the coming decades, hopefully a sharp decrease in dangerous reactor designs that produce nuclear fuel for weapons as well. Nuclear power can be safe, but if you want fuel for weapons, you need a dangerous reactor to do that.
it's not physics that negates nuclear power, it's economics. And that is unfortuantely evident when billions of dollars and a decade or two are required not just for construction but decommissioning. It is up to 400% more expensive than renewables plus storage, and has a lower up-time, thanks to frequent re-fuelling. we have a long way to go to make it cheap and safe, not to say we shouldn't be researching it.
@@lgarestrada Doesn't make any difference. It was still part of independent country of Czechoslovakia. Highly influenced by Soviets, but not part of USSR.
Small modular reactors are simply not cost effective on a per MW basis and unlikely to ever see widespread adaptation. The future is still large scale nuclear and renewables with battery storage.
Dismantling a nuclear reactor is a complex process: Shutdown: The reactor is powered down, and all nuclear fuel is removed. Cooling: The reactor and its components are allowed to cool down to reduce radioactivity levels. Decontamination: Radioactive surfaces are cleaned or removed to protect workers and the environment. Disassembly: The reactor is taken apart piece by piece. Highly radioactive parts are handled with special care. Waste Management: Radioactive materials are safely packaged and transported to storage or disposal facilities. Site Cleanup: The area is cleaned and restored for other uses once it’s free from radiological hazards. what do you think?!
how radio active was this waste? and how far away from it before it equals background radioactivity? I only ever hear that it is radioactive, so is my dads wrist watch.
Can you make video on, most difficult project of Indian railway in last 100 years, USBRL (udampur shrinagar baramula railway line) which includes 90% tracks on bridges and tunnel, and 2 record holder railway bridges in it, one is world tallest railway arc bridge.
I’m interested in your take on why most power plants continue to use the same old technology to generate power: steam to turn a turbine. What other technologies are available?
cause it is a proven design. We know how to make a stable power grid out of steam. heat source does not matter. In the future will it be interesting as Solar power and wind turbines usually follow the heartbeat of the grid with a high renewables grid you need to do grid forming a different way.
It's the most efficient method, and the simplest to set up. Make no mistake though, modern day steam turbines are immensely complex machines that hold and generate massive amounts of power, a single turbine unit can generate nearly a gigawatt alone in larger plants.
The EU was stupid - both WWER reactors in Bohunice were of much different design compared to Chernobyl design., which was reactor places in a deep pool of water. WWER reactrs are pressurized and concealed.
While that is true, the design of 230 version missing few features that EU "needed". Propably this 2 units could operate for several other years. 213 versions of VVER 440 are still in operation in Slovakia and Czechia.
It would be cool if the B1M team could do a video on the Transformational Challenge Reactor and its Yttrium Hydride moderator. This could be a real enabling technology for SMRs that do not use water as a moderator and coolant. For example Helium, heavy Nitrogen, Lead, or molten salt cooled reactors. Until now water cooled reactors had an advantage over these types as they had the best moderator, the hydrogen in the water. But Yttrium Hydride contains as much hydrogen and is stable as a solid to well over 1000 degrees Celsius.
If you look up Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Lancaster County Pennsylvania you will see that they have what we call open air reactors there are no cooling towers the reactors are actually submerged in the Susquehanna River and are the easiest reactors to decommission or replace if needed
The fact that the Bohunice NPP produced 95 billion euros in electric energy, during its short life of unde 36 years, should shut the mouthes of any critics of nuclear energy. And any waste is accounted for during operation and after the decommisioning of the NPP.
This is about a specific version of the VVER 400 that got removed. Newer version of VVER 400 and 1000 are fine. Guess this specific version has cut corners and has not the needed safety systems build in. And likely is not build to have the safety features added later.
Every commercial reactor design that was produced in numbers had a decommissioning plan when it was built, despite what it might seem like. This is universal across the world and maybe even more true for some earlier designs that were not of the quality that would instill the confidence they would not have to take the whole thing apart again. They messed a lot of things up back then, but they did make plans for what to do at the end of the working life of the reactor. Just under different standards and concerns compared to nowadays. Doesn't mean you couldn't still do it that way, heck some actually still do despite the protest of the IAEA.
Skip the 3:30 - 4:40 parts. They are just commercial for something else. B1M dude is coming too soave, pushing these over minute long adds in the middle. Not a fan.
WWERs are extremely safe, that is just politics taking action, these reactors are no RBMKs and they don't go boom, can work for many many many more than 30years
this it about the VVER 400 and only a specific version of it that got removed. Newer version of VVER 400 and 1000 are still running in the EU. Guess this specific version has cut corners and has not the needed safety systems build in.
Regarding safety concerns, another option would be to use the CANDU design. It is more expensive, mostly due to its heavy water moderator, but was designed to be a safer reactor design from the start. It has many other advantages, including the types of fuel that can be used with it and the fact it is almost impossible for a "meltdown" scenario if anything fails. It is also a design that could be used for countries that can benefit from the production of power without having access to weapons grade fissile materials.
It is more expensive When the current designs already struggle to produce electricity for a competitive price then building an even more expensive design in 10years will not survive on the market without big Government help.
@@toggleton6365 Right? Because all infrastructure is completely privately funded. We can't take money away from the next Sports Dome. Or from arms developers. Nah, it's too expensive, we can't be better. We love our shite sammiches.
The best solution is to go all in with fuel reprocessing and use the more energetic isotopes for useful industrial processes, for example the 137Cs can be used to purify biologically contaminated water, and the 90Sr can be used for space probe RTG modules. It emits stronger radiation than purpose made 238Pu but it is a lot hotter per gram and decays into harmless yttrium.
In Sweden, the lifetime of the nuclear power plants is extended from 40 years to 80 years without problems, so it is unnecessary to scrap these but continue to run them...
Disappointed on the execution of that advertisement; possibly it does meet you tubes standards and there is a small logo on the left hand side at the start of the video, however to work it into the script in such a way is very misleading. I would expect better from a channel with such high quality content.
A lot, but don't take this as a historical channel or anything else than construction channel. It doesn't really matter if he gets some fact wrong on a specific construction project, just look at it as entertainment.
Yes. Some very poor decisions have been taken in that country. They actually effectively replaced their nuclear with renewables, leaving most of the coal and gas in place, and thus still have quite high energy sector emissions. They are still making progress (the supply is 75% renewable/low-carbon right now, and thus 350gCO2e/kWh, for example), but it should have been so much better (the UK did a much better job of this overall, although right now it's only 60% low-carbon, 239gCO2e/kWh, because Germany has more solar).
Coal use in germany has been declining for years and is now the lowest it's been since reunification. 1GW of solar capacity added per month will do that.
@@xxwookey you can't compare UK with Germany and other countrys with big lignite brown coal mines. UK has nearly no coal mine jobs since the 90s when the chart on wikipedia is true. Germany has the lausitz and the one in NRW where a lot jobs are direct and indirect connected to the coal mine and the power plant next to it. If you make such a cut you need to be sure that there are enough other industry jobs in that regions that will keep the old coal regions alive. Ghost towns are never good. Stone coal is imported so easy to move that power plant to backup stage and get rid of it later. Poland and USA has the same problem with their coal regions that you need new good jobs there or you produce yourself a political problem in the near future.
@@toggleton6365 Yes you have to transition the people, but you have to do that anyway at some point - just get on with it 20 years ago instead of killing the nuclear plants first and only getting serious about the coal in the last 10 years. That choice has cost millions of tons of emissions, which in turn has cost real lives of people (including Germans in floods, but mostly poor people elsewhere). There is plenty of coal left in the UK to dig up. We didn't stop in the 1990s because there was none left. OK, we didn't stop because of great climate policy either - we stopped because it was cheaper to open-cast mine it elsewhere. So that was partly an accidental success, but dealing with that job transition early was the right thing to do (it could have been done a lot better - Germany _is_ doing a better job on that front I think) The UK kept its nuclear running till end-of-life, and Germany didn't. I think it's perfectly fair to said that Germany collectively screwed that decision up, causing great loss to us all. So yes, I think we can compare. Obviously circumstances differ, but there are comparisons to be made.
0:42 anyone that thinks nuclear power is a thing of the past… it should be our future! But some countries prefer to be dependent on another country instead of building nuclear power plants! I mean, look at Germany! Given the fact that oil isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. But billions are going into green technology not nuclear power just shows it has nothing to do with anything other than money!
Nuclear is generally not cost competitive compared to other alternatives. Nuclear still has uses (nuclear medicine, nuclear submarines etc) but otherwise it is old, very expensive, technology. Over the past 20 years, 107 reactors were retired as 100 (mostly in Asia) started operation.
The share of nuclear power in global electricity production has halved over the last 30 years. It will continue to shrink as so many old reactors will have to go offline. Only France and China plan to even build a substantial amount of new reactors. The others are just dabbling a bit.
Define substantial. France has 61GWp nuclear capacity. 56GWp of that will have been active for over 50ys in the next decade. Back in the summer of 2022, the french nuclear industry was in dire straits and less than half of the capacity was available for electricity generation. Partly due to the usual refuelling cycles, partly due to defects found, partly due to high water temperatures and low water levels in the rivers that most french nuclear power plants use for cooling. So Macron threw the french nuclear industry a bone and announced the intention to build 6 new reactors, for a grand total of 9.6GWp of new generation. Given that it takes 5+ys of planning, and 10-15ys of building, for new capacity to come online, i do not see anything real happening here. Especially since the economics of nuclear is suicidal, which is a few orders of magnitude worse than abysmal :)
Into an appropriate low-level or high-level nuclear waste store, as explained in the video. One useful feature of radioactive pollution is that it naturally decays so if you leave it for long enough it stops being harmful. Most other harmful waste does not have this 'self-improving' property. There is typically 100:1 ratio between low-level waste and high-level waste. Requirements for storing the latter are strict and most countries still only have temporary stores due to failing to chose sites for permanent ones. Finland is a notable exception.
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree You don't 'maintain' a permanent waste storage facility. You fill it up (over several decades), backfill it and leave it. So there is no attached cost once it's full/closed.
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree I'm only aware of one (Onkalo) and it's only just been opened so of course it's not full yet, so it's a long way from entering the 'completed and no longer maintained' state. Are we perhaps talking at cross purposes, and you are talking about temporary storage sites rather than permanent ones?
Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks 👉www.masterworks.art/theb1m
Why is there a waiting list if it's so easy to skip it ? I would like to meet the morons who are still waiting...
Any chance of an ethical sponsor ?
Ethical sponsors don't pay that good than the ones we see on nearly every channel on YT.
so many red flags with this one
I like your videos, but I can't stay subscribed to someone who continues to promote Masterworks. Please listen to what your viewers are telling you and choose a better sponsor.
Thank you for the instructions. I shall dismante my nuclear reactor tonight!
You better not be an American, then.
Don't be afraid < just what they want
I'm not touching mine until it's wheels fall off, or it explodes.😂
just expand the operation
😆😆
Ehm, Slovakia was never part of the USSR. It was part of the Eastern Bloc, which is by far not the same. Back then, it was Czechoslovakia, which split into Czechia and Slovakia in 1994.
While technically correct, I'd say it's splitting hairs. For all intents and purposes, the eastern block was governed by the USSR. Eastern Europe wasn't so much freed from Nazi Germany as put under new management at the end of WW2...
I know it's probably taken in the same way as calling a Scottish or Welsh person English though.
@@himaro101 They could not move freely between the Eastern Bloc and the USSR
There was a different language
@@himaro101 If that is splitting hairs then let me declare that th USA and Canada are the same country, or that the State of New York bekongs to Texas. See what I did there?
Czechoslovakia peacefully split in 1st January 1993, not 1994. When you want to correct someone, please do it right, not with other false, thanks.
@@bastisonnenkind that is not a good comparison
a better one would be Guam or one of those pacific islands and the US
Bohunice 1 & 2 are WWER-440/230, the same type as Greifswald-1 to 4, so not that new, when the Bohunice units shut down, the Greifswald units were already 11 and 13 Years into their dismantlingprocess. Also Slovakia was never part of the sovietunion, Czechoslovakia was only member of the Warsaw Pact.
And a WWER 440 isn't exactly a giant reactor.
@@tz8785 depends... If talking generally, basically any nuclear powerplant reactor can be considered "giant" as far as things go... I mean it is much bigger than a common washing machine or freezer. If comparing reactors to reactors, then you would be correct.
And then the whole debate on the nature of Czechoslovakia... Fact is that while not technically integral part of USSR, it used to be a de facto vasal state with rather limited ability to govern itself.
I’m probably one of the few people who watched this video that actually has worked on nuclear power plants. I’ve been fortunate enough to work on the containment vessel at a nuclear power station, the refueling machinery and the sacrificial shield walls of a nuclear reactor. I really believe that nuclear power has a role to play in our energy production matrix. And that opinion isn’t based on my previous work in the field. I’ve worked in multiple coal power stations, biomass and municipal waste stations, natural gas cogeneration plants and hydroelectric energy systems.
From your experience, what are the best forms of electricity generation?
There is a great video from a well known professor of energy resources, who proves with numbers, facts and graphs exactly the opposite. He shows that PV in Germany is even reducing the usage of nuclear in france. Nuclear is just too expensive and is too much of an economic risk. His video is called "droht das Atom-Aus in Frankreich"
@@BelaJuTe I’m a huge fan of hydroelectric power. I also think that tidal power has great potential promise for our future. The fact is that every type of power generation has its positive points as well as downsides. I believe we are going to need a BROAD mix of different types of power sources to serve our future needs. I am enthusiastic about small nuclear power generation systems, tidal, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy generation. Variety is the key for the future.
@@1968Christiaan And with the prices for Battery storage dropping fast right now cause of scaling up of the production will make it more and more a no brainer to have all houses with a PV and battery. So the storage close to the consumption and less usage of the grid.
@@toggleton6365what are you going to do with all those batteries at their end of life? Decommissioning is something required of nearly every power system, and batteries are some of the worst.
Now _this_ is a subject I wasn't expecting to learn about in this week's B1M video
God sent His son Jesus to die for our sins on the cross. This was the ultimate expression of God's love for us. Then God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day. Please repent and turn to Jesus and receive Salvation now before it is too late. The end times written about in the Bible are already happening in the world. Jesus loves you with all His heart ❤️ but time is running out.
How do you do italics in comments, pls?
@@SchantaKlaus Put an underscore before and after the text you want to make _italic_ . You can also make the text *bold* or -strikethrough- by using asterisks or hyphens respectively
The quality of the production and graphics in your videos is incredible!
Have been waiting for an episode about Slovakia for so long and the absolutely wrong pronunciation of our towns did not disappoint lol. Gotta love that you just gave up on Jaslovské bohunice and just called it just Bohunice, which is a totally different village instead instead :D
30 years old? i'd say well over 50 years for most of the reactors.
And since when was slovakia part of the ussr? :o
Yeah, 30-50 is life span ?
Cheers to Fred and the team, y’all truly are the #1 channel for construction
God sent His son Jesus to die for our sins on the cross. This was the ultimate expression of God's love for us. Then God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day. Please repent and turn to Jesus and receive Salvation now before it is too late. The end times written about in the Bible are already happening in the world. Jesus loves you ❤️ but time is almost up.
I wish you would stop taking masterworks sponsorships.
Tell me how does it feel to want 😂
Someone has to make the wealthy that buy the art even wealthier. Recycle the waste products into paintings that glow under UV light.
Probably still better then better help sponsorships.
If you're like me & not offering a dime for their show, I fail to see how your opinion has any relevance whatsoever. Even so, if you find their benefactors so distasteful (yet still not so bad as to replace them) and absolutely MUST make your feelings known, the best method is to unsub & move on. This Karen-esque moment has served only as pure entertainment... The very highest value to be mined from it. The rest is slag.
"Slowakia was a part of Soviet Union" I'm dead 💀
They are not wrong though
@@010falcon Slovakia was never part of USSR.
@ao5139 it was a satellite state under the control of the USSR. There were no elections, no democracy.
2:01 formerly part of the ussr?????
How do you fact check your stuff?
he is right, wasnt part of the Western countries, or the Europen Union.. do you get it?!
its an officail document, Csendes, keeps silent, thats your surname..
the Szomszedok was a really depressing HU-USSR series.. btw, don't even dare deny it
Yeah it's sloppy as hell
@@Gecmajster123456 Bro, you're drooling.
I once stood directly under a reactor pressure vessel, in the only nuclear power plant that was never put into operation and is now a kind of museum. It is located in Austria.
Tom Scott has done a video about it, from a couple years back
Kalkar Germany is also never power up.
Slovakia is mentioned.
Thousands of Slovaks must watch!
Are you a slovak?
@@SomeKidFromBritain Indeed.
@@samueltrusik3251 Cool
Bulgaria also shut down it"s VVER-400/WWER. They don't meet some requirements for safety and bioshield. VVER-1000 work fine. However ours were not disassembled. Interesting video
VVER 10%0 are newer design, with containment, which is missing in 440 design, or rather be using barborage instead, but that is not up to the EU standart, as there are no such type of reactor, construction philosophy in EU-15.
@@lukasvrabec5783 You can license reactors with the same containment type as the VVER-440/230 in the EU, like the AP1000, for example.
The key point of the VVER-440/230 is, that the containment was not designed to withstand most of the expectable damages. It was only designed to withstand a slow gradual leakage of the reactor vessel, but no major failures, like a pipe rupturing or a corroded through RPV-head bursting or such. In those cases, the VVER-440/230's reactor building would just burst together with the primary loop.
Love the reports, but the ads oh boy pls dont
@@Leo23XRMasterworks
@@Leo23XR
The one that occupied like 25% of the video.
you get this video for free. How else can a channel like this function and put out weekly high-quality videos?
sponsorblock
@@GeekyMedia
TH-cam already has adverts.
Confusing. It happened in 2011-2022 . So it's done. But is it expected to cost 1.3B US? And then you lead into Masterworks.
"Confusing. It happened in 2011-2022. So it's done" Bro, he already said it at 2:40.
@@edyee1647 right Bro, so why is it expected to cost 1.3B? It's over.
The money is for reconstruction and development.
@@yotonking2831 how did you get on that?
Did you just say that Slovakia was formerly part of the USSR?
Yes he did. Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia which was part of the Warsaw pact. USSR was something else and also part of the Warsaw pact.
Did you expect accuracy on TH-cam?
Same thing lol no country in the poop pact had any free will whatsoever.
@@HelloHi-g2u Sure, that is why they had to literally invade several of them (1956, 1968...) because they were the same thing, right?
do you UNDERSTAND that Slovakia was ruled by the Soviets???
@@Gecmajster123456 it WAS NOT, no matter how much you SHOUT. Czechoslovakia was under heavy influence of the USSR, but was never ruled by the Soviets, whoever that is in your understanding of the history.
I'm always waiting for the smooth transition to the sponsor😂
It powered the entire of Slovakia for 5 years just one nuclear reactor?? Holy cow!!
Before SMRs can be fully adopted they have to uh you know ... exist.
Yeh the only company that actually got half way to making one went bankrupt with the explanation " it was just too expensive". Very honest, if a little late.
they exist are used in submarines, ice breakers, and aircraft carriers
@@anuvisraa5786 bespoke military reactors are not SMRs.
@@gecho194 they are small (lest that 100 mw) they are modular (several ships have more than one) and they are reactors so
You'd think a smaller modular reactor design would be more cost effective....but..they are actually more expensive to research and develop + test....😅
It's old news, but if you had to pick an old Soviet reactor decomissioning to cover, why not Ignalina? It has the additional fun fact of being only a small update to the Chernobyl design.
Ignalina predates Chernobyl so how could it be an update?
@@krashd Ignalina predates the Chernobyl disaster, not the plant.
Ignalina got decomissioned
Ummm Slovakia was never a part of the USSR and I don't get how Chernobyl nuclear disaster is related to these, unlike RBMK reactors used in Chernobyl, VVER design used here is inherently safer so I have reasons to believe it was shut down due to stupid politics, not actual security concern
VVER is not as bad as RBMK (nothing is!) but there were serious issues in the early VVER designs, meaning they didn't meet European requirements any more. So it's not just silly politics.
@@xxwookey Such as?
@@xxwookey Ой, не надо! Просто ЕС не нужны были другие электростанции, им важно было держать Словакию на коротком поводке и при помощи дефицита ЭЭ это сделать очень просто.
@@WladimirGalkinVVER 440-230 is simply old design which missed many of nowadays important function and since these two units were on the end of the their lifespan, it was simpler to shut down them. VVER 440-213 (newer version) met security requirements. Slovakia operates 5 of this units and each unit has more power than each unit of VVER-440/230. One unit OF VVER-440/213 is underconstruction now. These day there should be some pre-operation tests done on these unit and by the end of this year it should start operations. But without that last unit, Slovakia is now energy exporter.
Not to mention plans to build new units in Slovakia in near future.
@ao5139 О, компетентный человек. Приятно.
Wazzup from Hanford site 😊!
You do mean the leaking radio active materials leaking at the Hanford nuclear plant in the State of Washington , USA⁉️
Very enjoyable as always 👍
Actually, Italy (current government and people) looks pretty serious to embark on the nuclear "adventure", unlike Germany where it has come to an end.
They will reconsider once they see the price tag for a new nuclear reactor lol
My guess would be that you have different needs for other fuels. Cause of different temperatures and amount of power that you want to get out of it. For the same design with same characteristics maybe.
@@kingofthend The government is the primary cause of expenses in nuclear so if they decide not to be idiots it can be done pretty cheaply, like South Korea does it, but I doubt that is possible in Italy where they make a virtue out of being inefficient in everything they do...
@@kingofthend they only need to see how much money germany wasted on not-being-nuclear-powered to see that nuclear is the future
@@spacecube8561 We no longer live in the 1970s, we have cheap solar, cheap wind and cheap batteries, and all are getting cheaper by the day. So get some actual facts and figures.
Do you know what the cost per MWh of Germany's nuclear fleet was. Do you know the usual day ahead pricing per MWh in germany, and how often said pricing matches a price where nuclear power would have been profitable (hint: SMARD)?
Do you know who pays for liability insurance for nuclear reactors (hint: Deutsche Kernreaktor-Versicherungsgemeinschaft), never mind dismantling or long term storage (belgium has some info: google for: "Ontmanteling kerncentrales kost minstens").
Do you know the construction cost of a modern nuclear reactor (hint: hinkley point C, and read up on "capacity factor"), compared to the cost of the most expensive renewable; offshore wind (hint: dogger bank) versus the cost of battery storage (hint: tesla mega pack). While you are at it, you can look up "strike price" and compare Hinkley versus Dogger.
Please take the time to get some facts and figures and do some simple maths, and then you will quickly see that building new nuclear is economic suicide, and that inserting new uranium fuel rods in Germany's few remaining nuclear power plants by April 2023 would have been bad economics.
For a pressurized water reactor 30 years is as old as 5 years is for a car: not even half the life it has
The design lifetime of 40 years for reactors from the 60s and 70s was based on extremely conservative estimates on neutron radiation embrittlement of steel. They chose an estimate that was sufficiently conservative to still meet or exceed the design life.
The actual safe operational lifetime of pressurized and boiling water reactors is, so far, unknown, but definitely above 80 years.
We have lost so much ditching this technology. And those who know know it was done for industry, money and power. Not for the human good.
No it was done for the economics and public interest.
Enjoyable video, also really happy to see the editing has gone back to visually pleasing smooth and bouncy transitions, and that horrible glitchy aesthetic has fallen out of fashion. I actually watched this one instead of just listening to it.
Small mistake that i spotted at 1:58, The other 6 reactors are also soviet, and 4 of them stay running with 2 of them under construction again.
Unit 3 in Mochovce has been operating for few years. So 5 units of VVER-440/213 is now operating in Slovakia.
B1M, now also number one channel for deconstruction 🙂
I don't know about atomic H bombs. But I know about F bombs. The Fred bomb. The infinite power source we all need...
this is the comment we're looking for.
Slovensko! Rozebírají reaktory i vládu :D
je to tak
A-1 se rozebírá od roku 1977. Kolik bylo mezitím vlád? 😀
@@JanNovak-pg8oe slovensko bylo divoký dycky!
This was SUPERB. I took many screenshots for myself for example 5:00 and 6:45
It is unlikely that “small” reactors will be adopted. They are still too expensive and take too long to be installed and permitted. Also to be taken into account are the hazards of mining and refining the fuel.
LOL.... FUD MONSTER ALERT!
Wrong. They are affordable enough to be deployed now. Why aren't you asking to kill Coal when it kills WAY MORE PEOPLE??????? REALLY... Talk about misplaced priorities...
@@stickynorth Then ask NuScale what happened to their project in Ohio that already got quite a big Subsidy by the Inflation reduction act. And the likely hood of SMR projects going big overprice is not low.
The fun part is that they are already overpriced when calculating with full load. But with so cheap Solar power pushing into the market the load will need to adjust and the price per kWh will rise even more.
And we should have reached peak coal already where the worldwide consumption will go down. Battery storage prices already dropping quite a lot sooner than expected. The next years will mean big changes in the energy system.
I was here before the thumbnail and title were changed
1:46 "being decommissioned for a different reason". But it was because of joining EU, which had as you already mentioned at 1:37 "new regulations"
1:55 Correction. Slovakia was never a part of the USSR, not even when in Czechoslovakia, which was also never part of the USSR. Check what you are saying!
Just as you should check for similar comments before adding to the bloat.
@@krashd Since when do I need to check other comments?
Just curious why certain things like the cooling towers couldn’t be reused with a new power plant unless they were also in poor condition. Seems like certain things were destroyed just to destroy it.
My guess would be that different NPP designs need different cooling towers to operate optimal. And it seems unlikely that they rebuild a VVER design. And newer designs with a higher power output will likely be to much for a VVER 400 cooling tower.
They were in poor condition. Chunks of concrete missing visible corroded rebar cracks etc. You could not see it in video but you could in real life.
It also depends on what technology is replacing them. For example, wind and solar (which is now cheaper than most nuclear power) doesn’t require cooling towers.
Awesome video. I wonder if we'll be doing the same in a few decades to our current power sources...? - Maybe one to answer on the podcast
this is interesting... lesson to learn, when you design something that you are going to build, do it with the end in mind, to make decommissioning easier and cheaper...that complicates the design phase, but makes it better...but will it make the quality of the build better or worse? design better...thank you Fred, for yet another good one...
What is the song name at 4:57 and 5:16 which is being played in the back ground ? ?
Thanks :)
Im from Slovakia, and now new goverment is making a project for new Nuclear power plant on place where Bohunice were, and it should be similar small modular reactors like that one at the end of the video.
Thanks for comment. Do you know who will build it?
@@kpakaify The new block of the nuclear power plant should have an output of approximately 1,200 megawatts. Due to the lack of resources in the state budget, the government will have to proceed with the construction of the reactor in the form of a PPP project. According to him, a private investor in such cases demands a guaranteed purchase price of electricity for decades.
@@kpakaify According to Wikipedia : Decision made in May 2009 -manufacturer not yet decided.... "Four manufacturers have been mooted as possible suppliers: Mitsubishi, Atomenergoprojekt, Westinghouse and Areva"
@@1968Christiaan Westinghouse went bankrupt in 2017, which is why they cancelled the VC summers project. They recently got sold again for just 7.9B EUR, which is about a third of what it would cost to build one of their reactors...
Areva and the nuclear part of Mitsubishi is now Framatom. Which would have been bankrupt for building an EPR in Olkiluoto if they had not been majority owned by EDF, aka the French state.
So really good point.
It seems strange to smash the blocks of the containment walls into "rubble". It would seem easier to contain a radioactive block than a pile of powder. I guess powder is cheaper to deal with.
Cool review.
It sucks that they are fully tearing down the site. Obviously the reactor vessel itself needs replacing if it doesn't meet modern safety standards, but I don't understand why they didn't retrofit the plant to use a modern, safe reactor, and reuse a lot of the other infrastructure like the cooling towers, steam generators, and turbines, to generate power with a more modern reactor. It seems like that would be way cheaper, and would have less impact on their electrical grid and local economy. Also, if we're going to meet climate goals, we need more nuclear, not less. Including Chernobyl and all other nuclear disasters, nuclear has caused less deaths per kilowatt hour than any fossil fuel method of power generation, and even if you go really overboard and include the deaths caused by the nuclear bombings in WW2, nuclear still has less deaths per kilowatt hour than coal does. Coal power has even emmitted more radioactive debris into the atmosphere than nuclear, as the trace heavy metals in coal are released without any effort to mitigate it, while nuclear is highly regulated and emits virtually zero uncontained radioactive material.
To put into perspective how incredibly safe modern nuclear power is, if you don't count Chernobyl, nuclear has the least deaths per kilowatt hour of any power generation method, including solar and wind, due to workplace accidents where people fall when installing panels on roofs or maintaining wind turbine.
There are still 2 working reactors there, so they were 5, now 3 are gone, 2 are working and they want to start to build a new reactor in close future
In modern era, one disadvantage of nuclear reactors is their inability to rapidly adjust to demand/supply (for instance ramp down when solar/wind produce enough to supply the load and quickly ramp back up when wind dies down and the sun sets).
so, unreliability of solar and wind is the problem, then?
it's called 'base load' and you need it
@@joshgardner4879 Easy, buy grid level battery storage. You can buy 88GWh worth of expensive tesla megapacks for the price of building one EDF EPR. And that's before that reactor has had uranium fuel loaded, with all the costs that entails. This is about a years worth of battery storage production today, but this production capacity increases by 2/3rds every year since 2017.
@@luc_libv_verhaegen the problem with that is that we don’t have batteries that are cheap enough and energy efficient enough to be used on an industrial scale… pumped hydro is working pretty well, but unless cheap solid state batteries become a thing they won’t be happening any time soon.
@@joshgardner4879 Hydro Québec is able to dynamically adjust its hydro electroc production based on how much solar/wind bring into the grid. By turning off turbines, it keeps water in the reservoir for later when it is used. The perverse: HQ normally exports to the USA. But when the USA has surpkus, because their "base load" can,t dynamically adjust (coal, nuclear, though natural gas can be adjusted quickly depending on design), the don't know what to do with surplus, so Hydro Québec buys the surplus for dirt cheap while tring off its own turbines and keep water in reservurs, Later, when tghe USa needs power, HQ will release that water to provide more power and sell it to USA.
Where base load cannot be dynamically adjusted, it is useless to have renewables because you don't save anything as your base load continues to produce.
Interesting watch. Absolutely true, modern practices like digital twins, data analytics, and stakeholder engagement play pivotal roles in the effective design and management of modern nuclear power plants. They are essential for ensuring safe, sustainable, and economically efficient operations throughout the asset lifecycle-from initial design and construction to operational management, aging care, and eventual decommissioning.
We have non in my country. Saddness :( It's frustrating how demonised nuclear power is and how much of the anti nuclear stuff is misinformation and fear mongering
If it can be done to nuclear power? imagine what else is similarly demonized
I'm obviously missing something: why is it not possible to re-use parts of these structures to house modern reactors? The buildings seem sound and the sites obviously are already linked to the grid.
That said it seems strange to me to see what in the video look like blocks of flats a few dozen metres from the reactor building!
The blocks of flats are probably support buildings, NPPs need a lot of offices and other non-industrial working spaces, too. Some powerplants have in integrated directly to the powerplant itself, but not all/most.
The reasons not to reuse the buildings are numerous, but probably the biggest once are safety and economics. While the building is in good condition most likely, it can easily be 40-50 years old which isn't new for any building. Most modern reactors are meant to be used up to 60-80 years and the building is hard to modernize once it's build. Also, every reactor is unique to some extent, and fitting a newer reactor to an old building would cost a ton, limit the design, and just building it inside the old building could be almost impossible due to how large (up to 500 ton components) and how complex it would be. Using an old building for a new reactor would probably force a slightly lower standard of safety in the new reactor, compared to using a new bulding.
Also a more minor problem is the activation of materials by neutron radiation, outside the pressure vessel it's usually only minor, but depending on the reactor type, this could still be a large portion of the containment building. This isn't a problem as is, but does cause higher doses for workers.
My knowledge isn't so much in the engineering, but in radiation protection.
0:55 "much cleaner than fossil fuels ... there's a drive to build more powerplants" Unfortunately no drive in World's 3rd economy: Germany 😢As far as I remember when they agreed to stop all nuclear powerplants, they started digging and consuming more coal, because green party wanted to stop nuclear power
are we talking about 2002 nuclear stop or fukushima based stop in 2009? 2009 was CDU and FDP. greens have been not in the government at that time. And the plan of the greens was to accelerate renewables a lot more than the CDU ruled government did in their 16years.
The coal consumption in Germany was mostly steady since 2000 till 2018. With some heavy winters more and some years less.
And is right now as low as it was in 1956. At the same time as the last nuclear reactors have been shut down and gas prices have been used as weapon by putin.
Would it be better to get rid of coal first sure but this was a development that fueled a lot of discussions nearly every year. So it is what it is. Fokus now on getting the co2 emissions down of the country instead of repeating the discussion again. Enough work to do.
@@toggleton6365 shutting down coal power plants instead of nuclear power plants would've gotten germany's co2 emmisions preety low.
i mean, just sayin'
@@toggleton6365 I was talking about the recent event, the full stop under the traffic light coalition
Hopefully we see a sharp increase in nuclear power in the coming decades, hopefully a sharp decrease in dangerous reactor designs that produce nuclear fuel for weapons as well. Nuclear power can be safe, but if you want fuel for weapons, you need a dangerous reactor to do that.
it's not physics that negates nuclear power, it's economics. And that is unfortuantely evident when billions of dollars and a decade or two are required not just for construction but decommissioning. It is up to 400% more expensive than renewables plus storage, and has a lower up-time, thanks to frequent re-fuelling. we have a long way to go to make it cheap and safe, not to say we shouldn't be researching it.
The segue into the sponsor read was in really bad taste. Did not appreciate it
I'll have to say goodbye. I've realized that your channel is ideological posing as science. Have a good life...
Slovakia wasn't in the USSR!
It was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1968.
@@lgarestrada Doesn't make any difference. It was still part of independent country of Czechoslovakia. Highly influenced by Soviets, but not part of USSR.
CZ was ...
It was part of the eastern block with a Soviet puppet state style government
Soviet made things may not be the best but they are always long lasting & reliable...
2:40 tryna figure out the name of that theme recognize it from loads of vids like this
Small modular reactors are simply not cost effective on a per MW basis and unlikely to ever see widespread adaptation. The future is still large scale nuclear and renewables with battery storage.
Dismantling a nuclear reactor is a complex process:
Shutdown: The reactor is powered down, and all nuclear fuel is removed.
Cooling: The reactor and its components are allowed to cool down to reduce radioactivity levels.
Decontamination: Radioactive surfaces are cleaned or removed to protect workers and the environment.
Disassembly: The reactor is taken apart piece by piece. Highly radioactive parts are handled with special care.
Waste Management: Radioactive materials are safely packaged and transported to storage or disposal facilities.
Site Cleanup: The area is cleaned and restored for other uses once it’s free from radiological hazards.
what do you think?!
5:14 some gardener in 100 years is going to exclaim “where the fuck did all this concrete come from!? Fucking lazy builders!” 😂
Ah, yes...because fine art will be more valuable in an emergency than an operating power plant. 😂
Spotted a Jacobs Engineering Hard hat during that video!
how radio active was this waste? and how far away from it before it equals background radioactivity? I only ever hear that it is radioactive, so is my dads wrist watch.
Can you make video on, most difficult project of Indian railway in last 100 years, USBRL (udampur shrinagar baramula railway line) which includes 90% tracks on bridges and tunnel, and 2 record holder railway bridges in it, one is world tallest railway arc bridge.
I’m interested in your take on why most power plants continue to use the same old technology to generate power: steam to turn a turbine. What other technologies are available?
cause it is a proven design. We know how to make a stable power grid out of steam. heat source does not matter.
In the future will it be interesting as Solar power and wind turbines usually follow the heartbeat of the grid with a high renewables grid you need to do grid forming a different way.
It's the most efficient method, and the simplest to set up. Make no mistake though, modern day steam turbines are immensely complex machines that hold and generate massive amounts of power, a single turbine unit can generate nearly a gigawatt alone in larger plants.
The EU was stupid - both WWER reactors in Bohunice were of much different design compared to Chernobyl design., which was reactor places in a deep pool of water. WWER reactrs are pressurized and concealed.
While that is true, the design of 230 version missing few features that EU "needed". Propably this 2 units could operate for several other years.
213 versions of VVER 440 are still in operation in Slovakia and Czechia.
@ao5139 "needed"??? Like Germany now need to restard old coal power stations ;-)
It would be cool if the B1M team could do a video on the Transformational Challenge Reactor and its Yttrium Hydride moderator. This could be a real enabling technology for SMRs that do not use water as a moderator and coolant. For example Helium, heavy Nitrogen, Lead, or molten salt cooled reactors. Until now water cooled reactors had an advantage over these types as they had the best moderator, the hydrogen in the water. But Yttrium Hydride contains as much hydrogen and is stable as a solid to well over 1000 degrees Celsius.
How do you recycle concrete?
There are still RBMK reactors operating today. Chernobyl was nearly 40 years ago, hence making RBMKs way over 30 years old.
If you look up Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Lancaster County Pennsylvania you will see that they have what we call open air reactors there are no cooling towers the reactors are actually submerged in the Susquehanna River and are the easiest reactors to decommission or replace if needed
The fact that the Bohunice NPP produced 95 billion euros in electric energy, during its short life of unde 36 years, should shut the mouthes of any critics of nuclear energy. And any waste is accounted for during operation and after the decommisioning of the NPP.
VVER-440s are good for 60 years with a reactor pressure vessel annealing at the 30 year mark. Finland and others have done this with their VVER-440s.
This is about a specific version of the VVER 400 that got removed. Newer version of VVER 400 and 1000 are fine. Guess this specific version has cut corners and has not the needed safety systems build in. And likely is not build to have the safety features added later.
Every commercial reactor design that was produced in numbers had a decommissioning plan when it was built, despite what it might seem like. This is universal across the world and maybe even more true for some earlier designs that were not of the quality that would instill the confidence they would not have to take the whole thing apart again. They messed a lot of things up back then, but they did make plans for what to do at the end of the working life of the reactor. Just under different standards and concerns compared to nowadays. Doesn't mean you couldn't still do it that way, heck some actually still do despite the protest of the IAEA.
I wonder how the contamination got everywhere.
Most reactors are closed loop and I thought the fuel would stay in the rods.
Skip the 3:30 - 4:40 parts. They are just commercial for something else. B1M dude is coming too soave, pushing these over minute long adds in the middle. Not a fan.
WHAT ??!!!?? Nuclear plants that are 30, 30 !!!, years old are PAST their expected lifespan !!!????!!!
WWERs are extremely safe, that is just politics taking action, these reactors are no RBMKs and they don't go boom, can work for many many many more than 30years
this it about the VVER 400 and only a specific version of it that got removed. Newer version of VVER 400 and 1000 are still running in the EU. Guess this specific version has cut corners and has not the needed safety systems build in.
Is the answer “Because they were built by the Soviets and you have be really careful taking them apart”?
Today I learned that Slovakia was part of USSR.
Regarding safety concerns, another option would be to use the CANDU design. It is more expensive, mostly due to its heavy water moderator, but was designed to be a safer reactor design from the start. It has many other advantages, including the types of fuel that can be used with it and the fact it is almost impossible for a "meltdown" scenario if anything fails. It is also a design that could be used for countries that can benefit from the production of power without having access to weapons grade fissile materials.
It is more expensive
When the current designs already struggle to produce electricity for a competitive price then building an even more expensive design in 10years will not survive on the market without big Government help.
@@toggleton6365
Right?
Because all infrastructure is completely privately funded.
We can't take money away from the next Sports Dome. Or from arms developers.
Nah, it's too expensive, we can't be better. We love our shite sammiches.
If not candu, then maybe someone can start thorium runs
The best solution is to go all in with fuel reprocessing and use the more energetic isotopes for useful industrial processes, for example the 137Cs can be used to purify biologically contaminated water, and the 90Sr can be used for space probe RTG modules. It emits stronger radiation than purpose made 238Pu but it is a lot hotter per gram and decays into harmless yttrium.
This conveniently come out after a week of public debate in Australia over nuclear plants
In Sweden, the lifetime of the nuclear power plants is extended from 40 years to 80 years without problems, so it is unnecessary to scrap these but continue to run them...
Same in Canada, the province of Ontario is planning to refurbish the Pickering nuclear power plant to extend its operational life by 30 years.
Here in Japan, we don't decommission reactors, we just extend their life. What could go wrong? (I'm being ironic)
I thought the VVER reactors were safer than the RBMK reactors?
in this it is the VVER 400 and only a specific version of it that got removed. Newer version of VVER 400 and 1000 are still running in the EUj
Some of the background music reminded me of Kraftwerk’s album Radioactivity.
Because those are Soviet-era reactors. You don't need another reasons to take them apart.
Disappointed on the execution of that advertisement; possibly it does meet you tubes standards and there is a small logo on the left hand side at the start of the video, however to work it into the script in such a way is very misleading. I would expect better from a channel with such high quality content.
Sweden set aside money for the very produced kWh for the dismantle instead of subsidy nuclear.
"formerly part of the USSR" - If you can't get basic European history right, I can't help but wonder what else you're getting wrong.
A lot, but don't take this as a historical channel or anything else than construction channel. It doesn't really matter if he gets some fact wrong on a specific construction project, just look at it as entertainment.
You seem to be outraged.
All hail former Soviet republic of Slovakia!
Where HAS a small modular reactor been adopted?
Canada has signed contracts for the construction of SMRs in Ontario starting in 2025.
Germany is decommissioning it nuclear reactors in favour of coal and energy from hostile nations because climate change or something
Then, they are completely stupid. If is for climate change, then you need nuclear powerplants.
Yes. Some very poor decisions have been taken in that country. They actually effectively replaced their nuclear with renewables, leaving most of the coal and gas in place, and thus still have quite high energy sector emissions. They are still making progress (the supply is 75% renewable/low-carbon right now, and thus 350gCO2e/kWh, for example), but it should have been so much better (the UK did a much better job of this overall, although right now it's only 60% low-carbon, 239gCO2e/kWh, because Germany has more solar).
Coal use in germany has been declining for years and is now the lowest it's been since reunification. 1GW of solar capacity added per month will do that.
@@xxwookey you can't compare UK with Germany and other countrys with big lignite brown coal mines. UK has nearly no coal mine jobs since the 90s when the chart on wikipedia is true.
Germany has the lausitz and the one in NRW where a lot jobs are direct and indirect connected to the coal mine and the power plant next to it. If you make such a cut you need to be sure that there are enough other industry jobs in that regions that will keep the old coal regions alive. Ghost towns are never good.
Stone coal is imported so easy to move that power plant to backup stage and get rid of it later.
Poland and USA has the same problem with their coal regions that you need new good jobs there or you produce yourself a political problem in the near future.
@@toggleton6365 Yes you have to transition the people, but you have to do that anyway at some point - just get on with it 20 years ago instead of killing the nuclear plants first and only getting serious about the coal in the last 10 years. That choice has cost millions of tons of emissions, which in turn has cost real lives of people (including Germans in floods, but mostly poor people elsewhere).
There is plenty of coal left in the UK to dig up. We didn't stop in the 1990s because there was none left. OK, we didn't stop because of great climate policy either - we stopped because it was cheaper to open-cast mine it elsewhere. So that was partly an accidental success, but dealing with that job transition early was the right thing to do (it could have been done a lot better - Germany _is_ doing a better job on that front I think)
The UK kept its nuclear running till end-of-life, and Germany didn't. I think it's perfectly fair to said that Germany collectively screwed that decision up, causing great loss to us all.
So yes, I think we can compare. Obviously circumstances differ, but there are comparisons to be made.
0:42 anyone that thinks nuclear power is a thing of the past… it should be our future! But some countries prefer to be dependent on another country instead of building nuclear power plants! I mean, look at Germany! Given the fact that oil isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. But billions are going into green technology not nuclear power just shows it has nothing to do with anything other than money!
Not true
Nuclear is generally not cost competitive compared to other alternatives. Nuclear still has uses (nuclear medicine, nuclear submarines etc) but otherwise it is old, very expensive, technology. Over the past 20 years, 107 reactors were retired as 100 (mostly in Asia) started operation.
this reminded me of Günter Walraff 's Ganz Unten.
The video is missing a key piece of information that there was a nuclear accident in 1977 (INES 4) in this powerplant.
The share of nuclear power in global electricity production has halved over the last 30 years. It will continue to shrink as so many old reactors will have to go offline. Only France and China plan to even build a substantial amount of new reactors. The others are just dabbling a bit.
Define substantial.
France has 61GWp nuclear capacity.
56GWp of that will have been active for over 50ys in the next decade.
Back in the summer of 2022, the french nuclear industry was in dire straits and less than half of the capacity was available for electricity generation. Partly due to the usual refuelling cycles, partly due to defects found, partly due to high water temperatures and low water levels in the rivers that most french nuclear power plants use for cooling.
So Macron threw the french nuclear industry a bone and announced the intention to build 6 new reactors, for a grand total of 9.6GWp of new generation. Given that it takes 5+ys of planning, and 10-15ys of building, for new capacity to come online, i do not see anything real happening here. Especially since the economics of nuclear is suicidal, which is a few orders of magnitude worse than abysmal :)
Where does all that contaminated material and gear go?
Who pays for the clean up
Into an appropriate low-level or high-level nuclear waste store, as explained in the video. One useful feature of radioactive pollution is that it naturally decays so if you leave it for long enough it stops being harmful. Most other harmful waste does not have this 'self-improving' property. There is typically 100:1 ratio between low-level waste and high-level waste. Requirements for storing the latter are strict and most countries still only have temporary stores due to failing to chose sites for permanent ones. Finland is a notable exception.
@@xxwookey for how long, who pays for maintenance ? How long is the longest running repository been in operation (historical data)
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree You don't 'maintain' a permanent waste storage facility. You fill it up (over several decades), backfill it and leave it. So there is no attached cost once it's full/closed.
@@xxwookey lol! Yes you do! Name one that isn’t maintained!!
@@estimatingonediscoveringthree I'm only aware of one (Onkalo) and it's only just been opened so of course it's not full yet, so it's a long way from entering the 'completed and no longer maintained' state. Are we perhaps talking at cross purposes, and you are talking about temporary storage sites rather than permanent ones?